Attorney-General's Department, $118,141,000

Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department, $101,555,000

Membership:

Ms Chapman substituted for Mr Speirs.

Mr Knoll substituted for Mr Duluk.

Minister:

Hon. J.R. Rau, Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr G. McCarthy, Chief Executive Officer, ReturnToWorkSA.

Mr D. Quirk, Chief Financial Officer, ReturnToWorkSA.

The CHAIR: I declare the propose payments open for examination, and I refer members to Agency Statement, Volume 1. I call on the Attorney to make a statement, if he wishes, and to introduce any new advisers.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have with me the CFO, Mr Quirk, and the chief executive, Mr McCarthy. I just want to say a few words about ReturnToWorkSA. The whole system of dealing with people who are injured in their employment has been under significant change and transition over the last few years. In mid-2014, the parliament passed legislation that substantially changed the scheme in many ways, but most significantly, to place an unequivocal emphasis on return to work, as opposed to a pension scheme.

I have to say that I have been very pleased with the way in which the scheme and its management have been able to embrace that notion of getting people back to work and actually deliver real improvements in that regard. I would like to take this opportunity to place on record my appreciation of the work of Mr McCarthy and his team. They have done a terrific job.

I think the workers of this state are infinitely better off for having the team of dedicated people they have who are interested in getting them back to work and getting on top of those people's problems early, getting into their workplace, getting into the faces of everybody who is involved there and trying to make things work, as opposed to just having a reasonably hands-off approach to claims management. I am very pleased about that.

The second obviously is that, partly as a result of the legislative change and partly as a result of the excellent management performance of the corporation, there has been already a significant reduction in the breakeven premium rate for the corporation which has meant that they have been able to reduce the average premium charge to employers in South Australia from 2.75 per cent a couple of years ago, with an unfunded liability of $1.4 billion or something, to a position where it is below 2 per cent.

We have in that process, in effect, handed back to the overwhelmingly small and medium-sized employers in South Australia collectively an amount of $180 million per year not being collected from them for the purposes of contributions to a levy payable to the return to work corporation. That is $180 million a year, each and every year, ongoing. Obviously, if the scheme gets into a position where the board determines that it is appropriate for the average premium to be reduced further, then you can add other numbers to that $180 million, but for the present time it is $180 million which is obviously an enormous benefit.

The other thing I think is worth mentioning is that the scheme at the moment is in transition and there are a number of things that are going on in the scheme which are one-off things. Anybody looking at the scheme presently needs to take a deep breath, calm down and understand that, just because there was a significant turnaround in the scheme last year or the year before, that is not something which is going to necessarily continue at that pace or may not necessarily continue at all and I will explain very briefly why.

There was a one-off release of the tail of the scheme by reason of redemption of outstanding long-term claimants. That process commenced shortly after the legislation came into effect and the effect of that was to, in effect, remove a lot of the tail of the old scheme. That meant money out the front door, but it also meant long-term claims release at the other end of the books in terms of the corporation. That is a trick you can perform once and once only, so that is not going to be repeated.

The second thing is that there is, in effect, a statutory release built into the scheme as well by reason of the two-year cut-off for income maintenance and the three-year cut-off for medicals. Again, that has an actuarial impact once and that then washes through the system. It does not have another impact the next year and another impact the next year. It recalibrates the system, but it recalibrates it once.

Then you have the changes in the management of return-to-work claims which have definitely improved. The return-to-work outcomes have definitely improved, but you cannot have infinite ongoing improvement to the performance of those claims. Sooner or later you start hitting up against diminishing marginal returns and at some point you get to the point where you are flatlining in your ability to make further improvement there. We have done the easy bits of that already, so the next bits are going to get harder and harder and harder.

So for all of those reasons, and whilst I am absolutely delighted with the way the scheme has gone and, again, I want to congratulate Mr McCarthy and his team as they have done a fabulous job, we all need to not get too excited about exactly what the scheme is at the moment. We need to let the thing sit for a while and stabilise and then take a good look at it in the cold light of day. I am confident it will look even better than it looks now in the not too distant future, but there are premature efforts to try to rush in there like a bull in a china shop and make all sorts of suggestions about how notional money might be frittered away in the scheme which is very unwise. The scheme has a statutory review period built-in under the act. We should be mindful of that, and we should give the scheme time to stabilise.

Ms CHAPMAN: I just make the observation that it appears that ReturnToWorkSA has had an increase in its performance outcome, and we are pleased about that. I am stunned that the government has not taken the opportunity to transfer its workers compensation to WorkCover, seeing it is doing so well. As it has not, we will see. Perhaps it is going to sell it. In any event, I have no further questions. I think the member for Schubert is keen to ask some questions.

Mr KNOLL: Thank you, deputy leader. I assume we are looking at Agency Statements, Volume 1, page 46, Program 7: Industrial Relations. Minister, in your opening statement you talked about the nature of cutting off the tail, the unfunded liability being a one-off. In September last year, ReturnToWorkSA put out a statement saying that they are 114.3 per cent funded, with now $370 million in net assets. Your statements just now are foreshadowing a potential downgrade of that position?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Not necessarily. All I am saying is that that position is volatile. I can tell you that the discount rate, which is something which people in the money markets pay a lot of attention to, every time that moves anywhere it has a significant and leveraged impact on the financial position of the ReturnToWork Corporation. The discount rate can only move a tiny bit, and the numbers change. We were very happy with the way things were going before. I remain happy with the way things are going now. My only point is that people who look at those numbers from outside who, with the greatest of respect, do not understand what they are looking at and do not understand the fact that those numbers are highly susceptible to completely uncontrollable fluctuations in money markets, need to just have a cold shower.

Mr KNOLL: I think what you are suggesting is that there is a potential downgrade coming along. Certainly ReturnToWork, or WorkCover in whatever guise, previously when the unfunded liability reduced because of increases to the discount rate, or at least the more positive performance of the assets of the scheme—what you are suggesting now is that there is going to be a downgrade.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No. There are movements. Between reporting periods, the thing will blip all over the place. Where it is on 1 July this year, and where it is on 1 July next year, do not necessarily represent where it has been between those 12 months.

Mr KNOLL: So when will the next statement be made? The last one I have got here is from September last year.

Mr McCARTHY: The next valuation is valued at June. That will be released in September when the valuation is completed by the actuaries. There are essentially three things that affect the valuation. One is obviously the claims liabilities, which we are very much in charge of. The other two elements are what happens in the investment markets, and we are somewhat held to what is happening on the world stage in that space. The one thing that we have absolutely no control over is what is called the discount rate. Since December, the discount rate has moved from 3 per cent to 2 per cent as at 30 June. That will be a significant downgrade from our perspective.

We would expect in the discount rate alone, notwithstanding what might happen to inflation, around about a $250 million downgrade. It may not be quite that much, but in the discount rate alone, that is what it will be. We have absolutely no control over that. But I think what it does do is it highlights that whilst you might have a $370 million surplus, that is a necessary buffer for when these sorts of world economic episodes happen and that there should not be a rush to simply give away the surplus, so to speak.

Mr KNOLL: If that is the comment being made, the point is taken. Minister, I must admit I was busy rifling through my pages when you introduced the advisers that you have here. Has Mr McCarthy's position changed recently? I understand you have taken on a new role with special projects.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No. Mr McCarthy has indicated that at some point in time he is thinking of transitioning into another—

Mr McCARTHY: If I might just address that. It has been formally announced that as of 2 December I will be retiring. My contract expires on 2 December and I informed the board late last year that I had not intended to renew that. Sixty-two years of age, time to—

Mr KNOLL: Enjoy life.

Mr McCARTHY: I have had too many friends who have got ill too quickly in their early 60s.

Mr KNOLL: So, you have retained the position of CEO until that time?

Mr McCARTHY: Yes, that is right. I will stay active in the role until 2 December.

Mr KNOLL: I understand Mr Cordiner, who I am surprised is not here with us today, has been elevated to the role of deputy CEO?

Mr McCARTHY: Yes.

Mr KNOLL: Is he undertaking some of the functions that you have previously undertaken?

Mr McCARTHY: Not at this stage, no.

Mr KNOLL: So, you have not taken on a different sort of role since the announcement of your retirement, or you do not envisage there is anything different that is going to happen to your role between here and your retirement in December?

Mr McCARTHY: No, not that I am aware of, unless the minister has something that he has not spoken to me about.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have a couple of ideas for him but I have not shared them with him yet. I do not want to ruin the surprise here.

Mr KNOLL: That is alright. We can talk about it right now, if you feel like it. If I can move on then. Obviously, on 2 December we are going to need a new CEO. Will that position be advertised?

Mr McCARTHY: You would have to ask the board that.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, I think that is a matter for the board. Whilst I have a more than passing interest in the matter, it is a formal matter, it is an appointment that the board makes.

Mr KNOLL: Is that a soft way of suggesting that maybe Mr Cordiner has got a shoe in for the gig?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Again, you would have to speak to the board.

Mr KNOLL: Same budget line: has the government been doing any work around looking into privatising all or part of the aspects of the return-to-work scheme?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Not that I am aware of.

Mr KNOLL: So, there are no plans in the immediate or medium-term future to privatise either the insurance arm or other parts of ReturnToWorkSA?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Not that I am aware of, no.

Mr KNOLL: So, you can confirm that ReturnToWorkSA has not done any modelling or any investigation into that matter, let alone any reporting from external consultants?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am not aware of any of that.

Mr KNOLL: Okay; not necessarily that fulsome with answers there, minister. If I can then move on—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: In fact, can I say that, to the extent that there has been any thinking on my part about the matter, it has been more in line with the suggestion made by the member for Bragg a moment ago that given that they are doing such a splendid job with the small to medium-size enterprises perhaps they could be of greater assistance within the government sector.

Mr KNOLL: On that line then, obviously there are three parts to workers compensation in South Australia. There is the return-to-work scheme, there is the Crown scheme, and then there are self-insurers. It has been suggested previously that, as part of these changes, there is some encouragement to try to get some self-insurers to come back to the return-to-work scheme. Has the scheme had any success in getting any companies to come back to the return-to-work scheme?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will let Mr McCarthy answer the nuts and bolts of that in a moment, but can I say that the situation for the self-insured people has changed somewhat. Significantly, they need to be mindful of the fact that if they do wind up with a seriously injured person they will be having that person on their books for, potentially, a very long time, at considerable expense.

So, whilst the short-term exposure to potential payment is limited, if they happen to be in a situation where their employees are unfortunate enough to be very seriously injured, you would not need too many of those to occur before you would have a bit of a long-term and very expensive commitment attached to your enterprise. Whether or not that is exercising people's minds, I do not know, but I will ask Mr McCarthy to comment.

Mr McCARTHY: Just to address your question: first, we are not actively pursuing it; however, I think from memory we have had two come back into the scheme for the reasons the minister has alluded to, and a number of others are running over their ruler, particularly the small ones, for the reasons the minister alluded to. It is a whole different dynamic now being self insured in this current scheme than it was in the previous scheme.

Mr KNOLL: If I can extrapolate, the proposal was put forward early this year in terms of upping the thresholds around self insurers and the eligibility to be self insured, and that was around trying to get companies to come back to the scheme?

Mr McCARTHY: No, that was around the increased exposure they have as a result of the seriously injured and also what pressure the new economic lump sum benefit would put on to self insureds. That is based, for example, with the economic lump sum—that is, a lump sum that was not there before. It could put up towards a $350,000 demand on a self insured, which needs to be paid immediately. That demand was not there previously: they paid weekly on the drip. So, it creates a different set of circumstances around financial liability, and therefore the board took the view that there was a need to reconsider what those banks guarantees might be.

Mr KNOLL: Obviously you have just outlined the reason for the need to change the eligibility criteria for self insurers: what was then the reason for not going ahead with those proposed changes?

Mr McCARTHY: In terms of what—the eligibility?

Mr KNOLL: In terms of increasing the eligibility threshold, the number of employees and the financial guarantee?

Mr McCARTHY: Simply because of the feedback from those key stakeholders in the self-insured space. It was pretty clear that the board was listening to what they had to say.

Mr KNOLL: To move on, looking at agent fees, it shows that over the last number of years we have seen some significant increases: 36 per cent in 2011-12; 2012-13 was only 5 per cent; 2013-14, 46 per cent; and, 2014-15, a 55 per cent increase in agent fees, given to, I assume, the amount of ? asset. Can you explain why such drastic increases?

Mr McCARTHY: It was around focusing their attention on the liability releases that would need to be made in the scheme. Notwithstanding the fact that the new legislation had actually brought down the cost of the scheme, which was about half that $1.4 billion savings—the other half came out of around $700 million worth of liability release, and that was part of the incentives to get the agents focused on achieving the outcome. We achieved a $700 million liability release as a result of getting them focused on action. It was about creating the incentives for them to achieve that.

Mr KNOLL: So, historically that long-term tail, which is the $700 million we are talking about, is about 2,000 people who are long-term on the scheme—rough numbers, but either way have all of those redemptions and cases been finalised now in advance of the two-year—

Mr McCARTHY: No, about half of them will have come off the scheme as a result—

Mr KNOLL: So there is still about half to go?

Mr McCARTHY: Yes, probably a little bit less than half who would get to the two-year threshold.

Mr KNOLL: So we still have half to go, and if it is a 1,000 or a bit more or a bit less than that, that is fine.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: And, incidentally, all of them would have had an offer. All the long-term claimants were contacted pretty early in the piece, more than two and a half years out from when the legislation went through, and they were all told, 'Listen, if you folks want to get off, we'll pay you the two years plus an extra six months,' because as soon as they put up their hand they could have got that as a lump sum in exchange for leaving. Some chose not to, which was obviously their right, and some chose to go. The ones still there now from that transitional group, who were there before the new scheme came in, are there because they have chosen to remain there and not because they have not been given an opportunity to exit.

Mr KNOLL: So, two questions that arise from that then: first, you said before that there is a potential downgrade of the funding ratio of the scheme, but if only half the people have been redeemed off the scheme and you have managed to get a $700 million reduction in the unfunded liability because of that, why are we not expecting something similar now as the two-year statutory cap comes into place?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think it is already factored in by the actuaries. From the moment the bill passed, they took that as a gift.

Mr KNOLL: And then why, if we are saying there are half the amount of cases on this tail, these long-term people on the scheme, still to be dealt with, and I assume they are going to start to get offered economic lump sum and medical lump sum payments and we are going to go through some whole-person impairment assessments, why is this scheme now looking to its claims agents to reduce their workforces by around 30 per cent?

Mr McCARTHY: Because in the long-tail scheme you had claims that were obviously newer claims that you need to manage, but there is a significant reduction in the numbers of claims that are active on the scheme–it is about half. So, it was about 14,000 active claims that you needed people to manage. Under the new scheme, it will be less than half of that. So, you just do not need as many people.

Mr KNOLL: If I can move on—and this will be my last one—I have had some information given to me by a local business that had an employee who went for an overnight stay in a hospital down in the south-east, after being hit by a cow. I will get to where I am going. He stayed overnight, had three or four X-rays, a couple of morphine injections, was kept overnight for observation and sent on his way. The hospital and Country Health SA then charged $9,279 for a single overnight stay, with no real surgical procedure or anything involved with it.

The question is: is there a differential rate charged to businesses once people present as a ReturnToWork claim as opposed to just a private citizen? Is there a differential great charge by Country Health SA to ReturnToWork for these services?

Mr McCARTHY: Not to my knowledge. That is an interesting figure that you have quoted there.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I would actually be interested afterwards, if the member for Schubert could, if necessary with names deleted, but if not, confidentially provide Mr McCarthy with a copy of that because I would not mind following that up.

Mr KNOLL: If I can then ask, what is the process? Because I assume there are a lot of people who would present to public hospitals, the cost of that would then be charged to the ReturnToWork scheme. Is there a standard set of costs associated? Is there something that ReturnToWork negotiates with public hospitals?

Mr McCARTHY: It is negotiated directly with the Department for Health, as a fee. The public hospital system for us is not a very big proportion of our expenses, because most people who present at public hospitals, it is more what you might call trauma or a serious style of injury, whereas we tend not to get—we are not like the motor accident scheme where you get lots of serious trauma. The vast majority of the injuries that we get are simply soft tissue, sprain and strain, that type of injury, which really primarily gets dealt with either at the local GP or medical centre. If somebody was to have a serious accident in a workplace, where they might lose an arm or something like that, then they will get carted off to the public health system, but we get very, very few of those.

Mr KNOLL: So, the ReturnToWorkSA minister is confident that there is no cost shifting from the health department to—well I assume it will ultimately flow through to the businesses of South Australia, through their premiums?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I would like to explore the question that you posed to us before I answer that question.

Mr KNOLL: Certainly you have not had discussions with the health minister?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Not about this, no. I am very happy to examine it. I think it is worth looking at.

Ms CHAPMAN: I address the question of the chief executive position first, and I thank Mr McCarthy for his service, obviously in the reform period of the WorkCover Corporation, now ReturnToWorkSA. When the chief executive, that is Mr McCarthy, was appointed, was there an advertising of his position?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Mr McCarthy might know. I do not know. That happened, fortuitously for me, a few weeks before I became minister. Fortuitously, I say, because he has been a splendid chap to work with, but I did not actually appoint him.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am happy for him to tell me.

Mr McCARTHY: Yes, it was.

Ms CHAPMAN: And the board appointed you?

Mr McCARTHY: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: And the minister of the time approved that?

Mr McCARTHY: I would imagine so.

Ms CHAPMAN: Back to you, Attorney. Is it not the process that, in fact, chief executives of this corporation have to be approved by the minister?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I would have to check. I would like to think that would be the case, but I do not have the legislation in front of me, so I do not know.

Ms CHAPMAN: If it is to be approved by you, is it your intention that you would require that the position be advertised for the replacement in due course?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have not thought about that so much. We still have Mr McCarthy for a few more months, but I would decide whatever I was going to do in conjunction with the board. I frequently, I think, meet with the chair of the board and less frequently attend, as a courtesy, for a small time during board meetings just to say hello and whatever, and I would expect that they would discuss with me their views about that.

Ms CHAPMAN: In the meetings you have had to date, have they raised with you what arrangements they have in mind to replace Mr McCarthy?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: They have raised this: they have said, obviously, as the day approaches when Mr McCarthy is leaving, it would be foolish to wait until that moment before working out who is capable of backfilling some of his current functions, and they are turning their minds to who can do what. Absolutely, that conversation has occurred, but I have not been advised that there is going to be an advertising or is not going to be an advertising, or that they have a settled position about who they want or whatever.

I think they are planning. There is succession planning—there is no question about that—but I have not got the impression there is a settled position. The member for Schubert asked the question about Mr Cordiner. Obviously, Mr Cordiner is one person who might reasonably aspire to the position. There is no question about that, but there are others in the organisation who might as well, and there are others interstate who might, but I am leaving that for a conversation with the board and, in particular, the chair.

Ms CHAPMAN: Would you not agree that, in relation to the statutory corporations for which you are responsible, the usual expectation is that a position would be advertised both internally and externally and that, in some exceptional circumstances, a person might be specifically appointed outside of that practice?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, I basically agree with that. It has been my policy to try to do a public call on all of these statutory-type positions, and that is even in cases where I am not dissatisfied. Some of them require renewals and, even though I am not dissatisfied with the current incumbent, I have often advertised not because I am telling them I do not want them but because I just want to see whether there is a fresh opportunity there. So, I agree in general terms but, if the board were to come to me and say, 'We have an exceptional person, and we think we should just get on with it and do this,' and they were able to persuade me that that was the best way to go, obviously, I would listen to that as well.

Ms CHAPMAN: Sure, but it is just that, in four months, Mr McCarthy will be leaving and the board, to your recollection, has not raised with you yet what process they have in place for his replacement.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Not in that form.

Ms CHAPMAN: In four months—as we know from the appointment of other persons in these roles, it does not happen overnight—there obviously needs to be a process, if it is to be advertised, and a panel process of recommendation to the board, and the board needs to meet.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think that is a good point.

Ms CHAPMAN: It would need to get on with it pretty quickly.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I agree.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I might ask Mr McCarthy if he would not mind adding that to the list of things to talk to the chair about next time I see her.

Ms CHAPMAN: Excellent. In relation to the applications for compensation claims, could the minister outline the number or rate of compensation rejections from 1 July 2013 until now? That would be divided into claims of physical and mental injuries.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think we need to get it on notice but, obviously, from 2013 until now, we are straddling the old scheme and the new—

Ms CHAPMAN: Correct.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —and I think there are certain things about the old scheme and the new which are reasonably clear at the moment without me giving you exact numbers. Firstly, the old scheme had a larger gateway. In other words, the entry point to the scheme was less vigorously patrolled than is presently the case. That is partly a statutory change and it is partly a management matter. I think Mr McCarthy did tell me that there appears to be—and I will let him use his own words here in a moment—something of a change in culture occurring in the workplace out there, where there is less of a litigious, less of a let's-have-a-go type mentality.

Ms CHAPMAN: I hope that is not a reflection of the large unemployment rate in South Australia.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, it is not. Mr McCarthy might like to say a couple of things about that.

Mr McCARTHY: We can say disputes are down significantly, that I can tell you. In terms of the numbers that you have asked for, I would have to take that on notice, I am sorry.

Ms CHAPMAN: That is alright. In doing that, if you could just divide that into physical and mental, perhaps.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have some information, actually; I have just been shown it. This may not be exactly what you are asking for but it is in the same space. As at May of this year, income support costs in 2015-16 are 12 per cent less than in 2014-15—that is not 2013-14 which you asked for, but it is in 2014-15. Medical treatment costs are down by 12 per cent, compared with 2014-15. Physiotherapy costs are down 22 per cent, compared with 2014-15. The number of claims moving 104 weeks is 27 per cent below 2014-15. Mental injury claims have decreased 39 per cent below 2014-15. Complaints received year-to-date were 22 per cent below the number for the comparable period in 2014-15.

Ms CHAPMAN: What I am actually seeking, minister—sorry to interrupt—is the number of rejections.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Okay, well the next one might give you some indication of that. The number of claims disputes lodged is 52 per cent below the number received for 2014-15. Remember the dispute arises from a rejection.

Ms CHAPMAN: Right, it may be, but sometimes there may not be a dispute arising from a rejection, that is, they're just simply removed.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, indeed, they are not accepted, yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: In any event, of the rejections, if we could have a breakdown of those since 2013, physical and mental.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, okay.

Ms CHAPMAN: In relation to the privatisation option, has there been any request by Treasury to do any modelling or preparation for the sale of the whole or any part of ReturnToWorkSA?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Not to my knowledge. You would have to direct that question to the Treasurer, but not to my knowledge.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am asking what he has asked you; whether he or his department have asked you to undertake any work? Have they sought any data or information from ReturnToWorkSA in respect of preparing material themselves for that assessment?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Not that I know of, no.

Ms CHAPMAN: Of the self-insurers, and there is a number of them, obviously—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I just say again—and I mentioned this to the member for Schubert—my personal view is actually that at the moment the intelligent conversation we should be having is almost the reverse of that, which is how the fine team that Mr McCarthy has can be adding value to the government.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will be coming to that in a minute. It is just that, obviously, the Treasurer has made statements himself that CTP is the opportunity for insurance to be—and ought to be— dealt with as a business, and logically, therefore, as an extension of this entity, re-primed, re-prepared, back on track to be available to sell, or any part thereof. I am just surprised, Attorney, that seeing that it is functioning so well, that you have not jumped on an opportunity to look about whether they should take on government work to do that. You have a number of agencies—for example, nursing and health—which have a high level of claims. Teachers perhaps not so much because you have knocked out the stress sections and so on. Nevertheless, there is a very significant workforce—over 105,000 people—working for the government now, all of whom are self-insured. Are you aware whether there is any inquiry coming from Treasury, for example, to exploit that opportunity?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I can give you some information about that. Recently, in January I think it was, I was given responsibility for public sector matters. I had expressed some concern to probably Mr McCarthy and anyone else who would listen to me about whether or not the state was in a position to adequately deliver on its responsibilities under the Return to Work Act as an employer, and in particular whether the responsibility cast upon an employer under section 18 of the act, to offer a reasonable alternative employment to one of its employees, was capable of being delivered under the present management arrangements. That led me to a series of considerations, and I have initiated a conversation about that, not Treasury.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is that with the view to either this particular agency—I am not asking you to name it—or other perhaps smaller agencies that may not be able to accommodate, as you have said, as best as they should and therefore perhaps those agencies might look at doing it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is part of the conversation.

Ms CHAPMAN: So you have had that conversation with the board or with Mr McCarthy?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have discussed it certainly with Mr McCarthy at a high general level. I certainly have not discussed it with the whole board. I think I probably mentioned it briefly to the chair of the board at some point in time. Within government, the conversation goes something like this: if you were wanting to take advantage of the skill sets that they have in there to manage government employees, would you invite them to manage all or some of them? If so, how would you account for that? Would there be a premium paid and, if so, how would it be struck, etc. So there is quite a lot of detail that sits under the general proposition.

Ms CHAPMAN: Would you not agree that if the Treasurer were looking at this through a different prism he might see it as an opportunity to (a) save money for the agency and their expenditure and (b) increase the value of ReturnToWorkSA for the purpose of sale?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, I do not think that is the case. To the extent that you had the state public sector in that scheme, I cannot imagine any government would be wanting to privatise the management of its own employees.

Ms CHAPMAN: Look at the LTO.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well, anyway. I do not think that makes it any more interesting from that point of view; in fact, it might make it marginally less interesting.

Mr McCARTHY: There is no evidence—in any of the privately underwritten schemes around Australia, the Crown or the public sector remain separate from those. It would be very difficult for underwriters in Australia, regardless of how cocky they might think they are, to have the capacity to underwrite something as large as the Crown, even in this state.

Ms CHAPMAN: Alright. Let's look at the other self insurers, namely the larger operations in South Australia, that is the private companies, the large enterprises in South Australia that are self insured. You indicated that the board, having listened to the industry, was not happy to deal with changing the rules of eligibility, and I understand that, but you also pointed out the disadvantages, I suppose, of staying self insured under the new regime, particularly exposure to lump-sum obligations and the catastrophically injured.

Mr McCARTHY: Particularly for small employers.

Ms CHAPMAN: Absolutely. Have any of them come back to you?

Mr McCARTHY: I mentioned earlier that two have.

Ms CHAPMAN: Two have, yes.

Mr McCARTHY: And there are a number that are having their consultants run the ruler over whether or not they might be better off, because self insurance is not just about the cost of claims: it is about the cost of being self insured and it is about the cost of reinsurance. There is a whole range of other costs that impact being a self insured that are fairly static in some senses. So, the smaller you are the less you get the benefits of the economies of scale.

Ms CHAPMAN: Are you surprised that it is such a low number?

Mr McCARTHY: It is not a low number.

Ms CHAPMAN: Of the hundreds of employers in South Australia, the thousands of employers in South Australia—

Mr McCARTHY: That are self insured, you mean?

Ms CHAPMAN: That are self insured.

Mr McCARTHY: It is very high in South Australia. The numbers of self insured in South Australia, compared to other states which are much bigger, are significantly large.

Ms CHAPMAN: How much are they? Another seven I think you said.

Mr McCARTHY: Probably half a dozen, yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: In respect of the premiums that have been offered now, could you provide to the committee a scale and some examples at the lower level, and obviously per rate, what they were last year and what they are this year?

Mr McCARTHY: I would have to come back to you with that but, yes, absolutely.

The CHAIR: Thank you, Attorney, and thank you Mr McCarthy and Mr Quirk. There being no further questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payments be adjourned until later today.

Sitting suspended from 13:30 to 14:30.

Departmental Advisers:

Ms C. Mealor, Acting Chief Executive, Attorney-General's Department.

Mr D. Soulio, Acting Deputy Chief Executive, Attorney-General's Department.

Mr A. Swanson, Executive Director, Finance and Business Services, Attorney-General's Department.

Ms M. Boland, Executive Director, SafeWork SA.

Mr M. Spratt, Manager, Corporate Services, SafeWork SA.

The CHAIR: We are continuing now with the Attorney in his capacity as Minister for Industrial Relations looking at SafeWork SA. I declare the proposed payments reopened for examination and I refer members to the Agency Statements, Volume 1. I now call on the minister to make a statement and introduce his advisers.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am joined here by, on my right, Mr Swanson, who is the Executive Director of Finance and Business Services with AGD, on my immediate left, Marie Boland, who is the Executive Director of SafeWork SA and, on her left, Michael Spratt, who is the Manager of Corporate Services at SafeWork SA. I thought I would say a few words about SafeWork SA by way of opening. When, in 2013, we began the process of looking at changes that could be made to the then WorkCover scheme, we engaged in a lot of dialogue with various groups, some of them employer organisations, some of them employee organisations.

Whilst our primary focus at that time was the question of ReturntoWorkSA, as it now is, we did encounter some collateral feedback regarding SafeWork SA. If you think about it, if we want to have the best possible safety and conditions for employees in this state, we need to have not only a system that mops up and takes care when a person is injured and returns them to work as quickly as possible, but also a very active campaign to stop those accidents happening at all, because obviously you do not have to mop up an accident unless it has happened. That is really where SafeWork SA fits in to the scheme of things.

I resolved that, if we got the opportunity to reform ReturntoWorkSA, we would then move on to SafeWork SA with a view to maximising the performance that that agency was able to deliver. It is interesting that this is one of the few examples of where the complaints from employer groups and employee groups were almost identical. You do not often get that. Often you get completely different sides of the coin coming from those two groups. This was not one of those situations.

The complaint was basically that, within SafeWork SA, there was not a sufficient distinction between the policing function which, for the purposes of the discussions we have had about this, we have referred to as the 'black hats' and the educational or supportive function, which is the 'white hat' function. Many employers were not comfortable with inviting SafeWork SA people into their workplace with a view to educating them or their staff for fear of that person transforming themselves immediately into an inspector and sticking a whole bunch of notices all over the place and causing difficulties for their business.

That led to a conceptual idea of a separation of those two arms, those two functions, in a very real sense under the larger umbrella of SafeWork SA. We toyed with the idea of whether that required some legislative scheme. We could have done it that way, but we actually came to the conclusion that that was not necessary. Given the fact that it was not necessary, we thought, let's get on with it without pursuing that particular path.

In conjunction with and in consultation with a lot of the employer and employee organisations, a lot of work was done by Marie and her team to actually give effect to a new management structure and a new organisational structure called SafeWork SA. I am pleased to say that since 1 July this year, SafeWork SA has been, in effect, two separate and discrete units, one unit being notionally the regulator unit and another being an educator unit.

This is the first time that a work health and safety regulator has provided an education service that focuses purely on providing support and assistance to workplaces. What is new about this service is that the staff delivering it have no inspectorial powers whatsoever, so they are there to help.

Ms Chapman: We have been asking for that for 15 years.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well, here it is.

Ms Chapman: I am thrilled.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The separation of the compliance and educational functions of SafeWork SA allows work health and safety inspectors to focus on ensuring the laws are not being breached, and where they are, suitable enforcement action can be taken. At the same time, educators who are not inspectors can concentrate all of their efforts on providing support to workplaces. My expectation is that this will be of particular benefit—

There being a disturbance in the strangers' gallery:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Has somebody beamed into the chamber? It is the deputy chief executive.

Mr SOULIO: No, I was pointing upstairs, not at myself.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I thought that was an attempt by him to remind everybody that I had not introduced him. Ladies and gentleman, this is the deputy chief executive. In particular, I think small and medium-sized businesses in South Australia are really the audience that I was particularly concerned about because, unlike the Coles and Woolworths of this world, they are not big enough to have their own internal dedicated educational arms within their business and so, in many instances, they do not really have these things traditionally available to them at all, which is obviously a problem. As I said, industry and unions are supportive of the new model, which I am very pleased about.

Within the regulator, the inspectors are now grouped into industry-based teams. The industry-based teams are, first of all, community, retail and business services; secondly, primary industries, resources, country compliance and engineering; thirdly, manufacturing, wholesale transport and utilities; and, fourthly, construction. This enables the inspectorate to build their knowledge about the industry they are regulating, identifying injury trends and solutions and keeping pace with the industry's technological changes.

The educator is a completely new unit within SafeWork SA. This unit has mobile advisers and to some extent this draws on some of the experience from ReturnToWorkSA with their mobile case managers who can visit workplaces to provide face-to-face assistance in identifying any work health and safety hazards in the workplace. These are intended to help workplaces develop and implement practical solutions and system changes to manage them. The educator will also work with industry and unions to develop educational materials and support collaborative improvement strategies across industry sectors. Those who were listening to my answer to a question the other day might recall that we were talking about some of those materials as recently as yesterday in the parliament.

The educator and mobile adviser function is quite unique now in Australia because these people do not have the power of an inspector and the service is completely free to the employer receiving the service. It is designed to make people feel more comfortable about inviting SafeWork SA staff into their workplace to talk about issues without fear of being prosecuted.

At SafeWork SA's head office at Keswick, there will be a customer service hub which will provide access to resources, information and one-on-one advice with SafeWork educators. SafeWork SA's regional offices will be staffed by inspectors and customer service officers who can help people in those regions with any questions.

I believe this new structure will benefit workers, employers and the community generally and help to reduce workplace injuries and fatalities from occurring in the first place. This, of course, will then reduce the financial, human and social cost for businesses, injured workers and their families.

I have to make the point though that the establishment of an educator does not mean that the government is going to go soft on enforcing compliance, especially when it comes to protecting vulnerable members of the workforce. In April, SafeWork SA's prosecution of a labour hire company in relation to an incident that led to severe burns to a temporary migrant worker from Taiwan led to a fine of $240,000 plus costs, which was the highest penalty recorded against a single entity since South Australia adopted the nationally harmonised work health and safety laws in January 2013.

In May, a Queensland-based labour hire company was fined $150,000 plus costs after a contracted employee suffered life-threatening injuries while working on the South Road Superway project. The message is basically quite simple: if you want SafeWork assistance to help improve work health and safety in your business, you can ask for that help, you will receive it and you will be given that help without fear of those people then prosecuting you as they arrive on your premises. However, that said, companies that do disregard the laws and do expose their workforce to unsafe practices should expect the inspectorate to be taking an interest in them and, obviously, prosecuting them where appropriate.

Ms CHAPMAN: I just have a brief opening statement, if I may, Mr Chair. I thank the minister and the senior people who are here today to present their budget for the 2016-17 year. The minister has announced the actual operational arrangements now of the new separated structure of enforcement and educative roles within SafeWork SA, which we welcome. It has been a long time coming, but we feel that is very important for the obvious reasons that people are not likely to seek help from an agency if they feel that they are going to be photographed and inspected and recorded, and evidence retained for the purpose of subsequent prosecution.

Can I urge the Attorney, seeing as he has a number of hats, to ensure this flows through to other agencies which operate in government, including agencies such as Families SA, which obviously have a role in supporting an early intervention in families in crisis and at the same time have a role in respect of child protection and therefore obviously are, in some cases, mandated to report and act upon circumstances in which children are left at risk. Highly unsatisfactory in a circumstance where one is trying to encourage primary prevention and not extend to necessary ultimate intervention, in that case to remove children from a family.

I would hope that he would exercise this formula of ensuring that there is not a conflict in the operations of agencies. Quite obviously, SafeWork SA has a very important role as the principal inspectorate. For obvious reasons, they are the guardians of the workplace in respect of safety. But we all know the benefit of educative opportunities, and if they have a dual role by a single person then that will always be complicated, and there will always be conflicts of interest and inadequate take-up. So thank you for that and may it spread through the administration. The member for Schubert has some questions.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Before the member for Schubert starts, can I say—

Mr KNOLL: I have not asked a question yet.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I know. I am just responding to the deputy leader's remarks. Can I just say that I have been so encouraged by the response that we have been receiving from both employer and employee organisations to the changes that have been made by SafeWork that I have already come to the view that the deputy leader suggested I come to; that is, this is a good model and it should be a model that we try to replicate where it is possible to do so. I do agree with her that one of the considerations that we must be giving to changes in the child protection area is to give consideration exactly to that point, and that is something I agree with her on. I have come to that conclusion independently of her advice, but I am pleased to think that we are on the same page.

Mr KNOLL: Fantastic; just obviously a completely different budget line.

The CHAIR: Member for Schubert.

Mr KNOLL: Thank you, member for Little Para. My question relates to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 47. I assume that is going to be the operative page for this session. It is quite interesting to hear your remarks, Deputy Premier. I note on that page, Targets 2016-17: 'Separate education and compliance functions to deliver responsive and effective education and compliance programs.' I assume that is what we are talking about. This is a highlight for 2016-17. As you were reading that out, it came as quite a surprise to me. I would like to refer back to some Hansard from the Parliamentary Committee on Occupational Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation from 4 June 2015. Ms Boland, in her role then as acting executive director before she was made permanent in that role, gave the following statement:

In November—

That is November 2014—

Bryan—

Bryan being the previous Executive Director of SafeWork SA—

updated you on the structural changes SafeWork SA had made further to the recommendations of this committee, particularly the recommendation around improved delivery of education services through the separation of functions into a community engagement directorate and a compliance and enforcement directorate. As you may recall, those changes took effect from 1 July last year.

So, 1 July 2014 is when the separation of those things came into place. Why are we only now talking about this, two years later, as if it is something completely new and different, because the evidence to the committee was that this happened on 1 July 2014?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will let Marie say a few words about this as well, but can I say that what has happened is we had a change in the executive director role because the former executive director retired and moved on and there was a process of selection which ultimately resulted in the acting executive director becoming the executive director.

It was considered by me, and I think others, that until we had a settled permanent executive director it would not be prudent to try to implement a, basically, two-pillared structure with two subordinate directors, for want of a better term. You would need to have the permanent executive director involved in that conversation because you would want them to be part and parcel of the appointment process, or at least give advice and whatever about which of the candidates that might come forward would be most suitable.

So, the order of things was: work out, in a permanent sense, who the executive director was. That was done. Then, go through a process of recruitment with respect to the heads of the respective arms and make sure that the practicalities of the administrative separation were put into effect and so on. Now, that took some little time to get to the point where I am able to say I think it is now a functioning established state of affairs, but I—

Ms BOLAND: That is an important point, I think, because when I was talking about that at the committee at that stage we had internally, ourselves, decided to set up a community engagement directorate. At the time I was director of policy and then I was made director of community engagement. What we tried to do was almost anticipate some of this engagement because people were wanting us to provide education, but the critical thing is that at that time the community engagement team were inspectors.

This is a new thing that we are talking about, from 1 July of this year, where we have actually split the organisation into an educator and a regulator. What we tried to do in the years just before Bryan left was address the concerns that we were hearing about: we need more support, we need more education. We tried to set up an engagement team, but it kind of reinforced the need for the structure that we now—when the Attorney came on basically he said, 'Let's just not have inspectors over there.'

So, I think that is the critical, unique new thing in this new structure is that we literally have two separate arms, discrete, separated, with no inspectors on the educator side.

Mr KNOLL: So, we have the community engagement directorate and then the compliance directorate, as they were then. I assume that is still the same structure now?

Ms BOLAND: No, because at that time we had an executive team of four. We had an executive director, we had a director of compliance, a director of policy and community engagement and a director of business services. This structure has allowed us to reduce that executive—

Mr KNOLL: If this community engagement directorate, as it was, still had inspectors, how did their role differentiate from the other areas, given that there were personnel then undertaking the same tasks?

Ms BOLAND: I guess it would be what people would understand in the regulatory field as proactive auditing and proactive compliance work. So, it was still couched around the work and functions of inspectors. So, their primary task was proactive compliance, whereas the new educator has no compliance role at all.

Mr KNOLL: How many employees are there as part of the education function?

Ms BOLAND: We do not have the split, but I can take it on notice, but I can do a guesstimate quite easily, because we have 89 inspectors, so there are about 89 on the regulator side, so the remainder would be between educator and business services. We will bring it back; there is probably about 40 or 50 in it, because bear in mind that includes all our licensing function and our customer service help staff as well.

Mr KNOLL: So there would be specifics? There would be more than seven employees engaged in education programs?

Ms BOLAND: Yes, there are probably 40 or 50 at least.

Mr KNOLL: But having said that, you just said that there are other functions that are part of that, licensing and that sort of stuff. We are talking here about providing this much vaunted function that the Deputy Premier has talked about. How many front-line staff will be going out to businesses in an education capacity?

Ms BOLAND: We have about 10 on the mobile, face-to-face, and then we have a team of probably another six to 10 who are the industry sector workers. Regionally we also have educator support staff in each regional office now, so it probably comes up to about 30 or 40.

Mr KNOLL: If you are providing answers to questions on notice, you said that there were some around specific industry areas: can you provide a breakdown of how many per industry sector that is of import?

Ms BOLAND: Yes.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: To add something in here, there is a little, so far invisible, piece of this puzzle, and that is that risk management is something we have not talked about yet today. We have talked about management of work injury through ReturnToWorkSA and returning to work people. We are talking here presently about education and prosecution or inspectorate activity. But, there is another little piece that is probably worth mentioning, and that is risk management and risk identification.

In as much as we are talking about the group of employers who are insured under the return-to-work scheme, which is overwhelmingly the small to medium-size employers, the return-to-work scheme has a very powerful data analytics capability. They use that data analytics capability to actually target risk management activity by ReturnToWorkSA. I think they have shared information that their data analytics reveal with the people in SafeWork SA, so they can actually prioritise where they might focus their activities in terms of education, and so forth.

Mr KNOLL: Which is all the information we get being on the occupational health and safety committee—we have been out to see it all—so thank you for that.

Ms BOLAND: We are also intending to work very closely with their team of mobile people as well, so rather than have two people arrive at the one place, we can complement each other.

Mr KNOLL: When you say 'mobile', are you are referring to the mobile case managers from ReturnToWorkSA?

Ms BOLAND: Yes, our mobile team is working very closely with their mobile team to get the most out of the resources we have.

Mr KNOLL: Wonderful. To go to the highlights, 2015-16, what compliance programs were put in place to deal with workplace incidents?

Ms BOLAND: To deal with specific workplace incidents? Are you asking about dealing with specific workplace incidents? We have two roles: a reactive compliance function and the proactive, so the compliance programs that deal with workplace incidents are part of our reactive compliance programs. For example, following the Royal Adelaide Hospital fatalities, we have quite a comprehensive program up and running with industry partners around scissor lift safety, so we have the training organisations, the employers, the unions and SafeWork SA working together on short, medium and long-term strategies for dealing with safety.

That is just an example, but we do that whenever there is, obviously, a fatality, but also we look at trends. We have an assessment centre that meets every morning that deals with all the complaints coming in—and we have all the key people in the room for that—and we can monitor trends coming out of complaints. For example, we noticed there were a lot of electrical incidents coming out of aged care and hospitals and it was around the beds, the electrical, moving the beds up and down, and it was a simple matter of an education campaign around making sure that the cord—

Mr KNOLL: The cord does not get jammed.

Ms BOLAND: So it goes from the quite complex scissor lift to, well, that is a simple thing that could be dealt with through a good education, get out there on the proactive compliance program. They are just two examples from the high end to the lower end of what kind of programs we would do.

Mr KNOLL: Is there some sort of performance indicator? How are you able to ascertain whether these compliance programs are effective and responsive? There is a fairly broad 'maintain the work injury reduction trend' in South Australia.

Ms BOLAND: I guess ultimately the measure is that trend and one measure is the WorkCover statistics, but also then more immediately we can obviously get feedback from the responsive business and industry sectors as to how they feel about the effectiveness. We are also bringing in as part of our new structure, and I cannot remember the name of it, but it is this thing where you can follow-up immediately. So, if an inspector comes to your workplace or one of our educators goes to a workplace, there is an immediate contact on, 'What was your response to that visit? Did you find it useful? Did you not?' If people say 'No, it was rubbish', we would ask 'Why?' and then we would send someone out again immediately. We are looking to, next year, getting a lot more customer focused, if you like, as well—

Mr KNOLL: Is there a proposal then to quantify those documents or put them into some sort of report or put them into some sort of performance indicator?

Ms BOLAND: Yes. What I want to do too, as part of this, is have quite public reporting. So for all the industry teams, for example, and the advisers, I want every month that on our website we say 'Here is where we went. Here are the notices. Here is what the notices were for' and track the trends. So, yes, have quite an open—

Mr KNOLL: Like a dashboard-type system?

Ms BOLAND: A dashboard system, yes.

Mr KNOLL: Do you know when that would look to be operational?

Ms BOLAND: I am hoping that, once we finish July, that the July figures will be up in August. It is quite a high priority for us. People are working on it as we speak. That is the intention.

Mr KNOLL: Fantastic.

Ms CHAPMAN: Referring to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 47, who is the beneficiary of the once-off $1 million funding provided in the 2014-15 year for the Health and Safety Workplace Partnership program?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: This is for 2014-15?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have a breakdown here:

The Independent Education Union received $93,000;

The AMWU $102,000;

ASU $157,000;

AWU $121,000;

CFMEU $135,000;

NUW $155,000;

SA Unions $35,000;

SDA $151,000;

Total $949,000.

Ms CHAPMAN: Why did SA Unions, which of course is an amalgam group, a representative body of unions, receive $35,000?

Ms BOLAND: Their proposal was to have health and safety representative conferences across the entire union. Basically, theirs was a funding to produce and organise a conference.

Ms CHAPMAN: For people other than the unions that have just been read out?

Ms BOLAND: For health and safety representatives generally, yes. It was for any health and safety representative.

Ms CHAPMAN: Do you know when they got the $35,000? I appreciate there was money for the others. There are specific unions who have a specific workforce, but SA Unions is a representative body, a bit like a council, and they have had their own functions. Did you get any feedback on who went to it?

Ms BOLAND: Yes, there is a report. They were obliged as part of the funding to give a final report, so they have done that.

Ms CHAPMAN: How many attended?

Ms BOLAND: 112.

Ms CHAPMAN: Were any of those people who were not members already of the other unions you have just read out?

Ms BOLAND: They have not in the report itemised—

Ms CHAPMAN: Did you ask for it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It says here 21 per cent.

Ms BOLAND: There were 21 per cent who were union members, so most of them were not union members, in fact. It was 21 per cent of the participants.

Ms CHAPMAN: Just in respect of performance, minister, there are a number of disturbing references here to, I suppose, underperformance as a result of the KPIs that the agency set itself and are then missing by quite a bit. Let's just go to a specific case. Let's consider something like the Salvemini case, who is the fisherman who died. You are familiar with it, so we do not need to go over it in detail. It was some years ago now. Ms Boland, though, is familiar with it because I think, shortly after she got appointed, she was dragged into a conference on it. Sadly, the person involved in that case was a young man who was tied up in a fishing net and died.

In one of a number of meetings we had two years ago, which Ms Boland attended, she was to report to us the enforcement or implementation of the recommendations arising out of one of the early investigations in that case, primarily, of course, to make sure that other personnel on boats—fishermen or other staff, etc.—would not be caught up in a net or have their legs caught in a rope or anything else, and be injured or hurt or die. Two years later, we are still waiting for an answer on that but, then again, I do not have to have an answer to me specifically.

I would like to know how you keep some record. Using that as a case example, has anyone, since two years ago, been injured or hopefully not die, but I have not heard of that, as a result of the implementation of any of those recommendations? I still do not know if they have actually been employed by all other shipowners, etc.

Ms BOLAND: There have been no fatalities since due to similar sets of circumstances. There has been one fatality on a fishing vessel where a worker drowned when they fell overboard. One thing we have implemented is an idea going back to the industry teams. I think one of the weaknesses of SafeWork SA at the time was we did not have people who had the expertise around commercial fishing that we could have benefited from so, from part of the feedback on setting up the industry teams, one of the first jobs I have given the primary industry resources country compliance team is to go back and do another audit on all of the fishing vessels around the recommendations and the safety barriers and things like that.

I also spoke to Andrea Madeley from the VOID group about whether she thought we might be able to engage Lee Salvemini. As you know, part of his distress was feeling that he was not being listened to and he perhaps felt frustrated at SafeWork SA's response, so I guess we are looking at ways of engaging him as part of these audits. I guess my point is it has not gone off our radar. The last audit specific to the safety barriers was in 2013, so it is a priority for that primary industry team now to do an audit again around those—

Ms CHAPMAN: I suppose what I am really trying to ascertain is that since we met and an assurance had been given as a response to a request that there be a coronial enquiry—'Look, that will not be necessary. SafeWork has already gone in. They have done an assessment. They have put recommendations; these are now in place. Obviously, hopefully, with that occurring there will be no further incident.' As I still do not know what the recommendations were and I still do not know whether they have been implemented, what I want is some assurance from you, because it is a case that we are both familiar with, that they have been implemented, that the fishing industry has been informed of them and that the requirements, whatever they are, are operating. Perhaps you could bring back to the committee a list of what those recommendations were, when and what was implemented.

Ms BOLAND: The last audit we did in 2013 was around the recommendations. The audits and the observation at that time indicated that all the entrapment risks were being controlled with the safety barriers and emergency stops. That was the primary recommendation, it was around—

Ms CHAPMAN: Just for my language, you mean that all the industry had been advised and they had implemented on their vessels those requirements, and you have done an audit and you are happy with it.

Ms BOLAND: Yes. In 2013 was the last audit, but what I am saying is that I have tasked part of our new industry team with: three years later we go back again and do another audit.

Ms CHAPMAN: So if other people have come into the industry since, or existing ones who have now added reels to their facility, they do not necessarily know what the rules are yet?

Ms BOLAND: Exactly, yes. The other side of that is, on the education side, because we now have an industry—

Ms CHAPMAN: You will have the industry squads going out.

Ms BOLAND: We have an industry squad for fishing and agriculture. Their task, then, is to go out and educate, again, about the issues and—

Ms CHAPMAN: Excellent. Thank you. I refer to page 47. Is Aaron Cartledge still on the Construction Industry Long Service Leave Board?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As far as I am aware, the answer to that is yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Will the Attorney be removing him?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I thought I might receive a question about this.

Ms CHAPMAN: Last year's estimates: I will tell you what you said, if you would like.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have been advised that SafeWork made some inquiries about this because I wanted to receive some advice as to what the criteria were and what the appropriate procedures and processes were for such a matter to be considered. SafeWork received, apparently, some advice from the crown. However, as recently as a couple of weeks ago, if I remember correctly, there was another decision of the court in respect of Mr Cartledge, and so—

Ms CHAPMAN: It gets worse.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: My understanding is that further advice has been sought by SafeWork SA, and it is, as I understand it, asking that the most recent development in respect of Mr Cartledge be factored into and taken into consideration in preparing that advice. I am told that I should be receiving this shortly. I should also make the point that, depending on the advice, given that any consideration may involve the removal of a person from a government-appointed board or committee, there does need to be an appropriate process and appropriate procedural fairness. This advice is seeking to provide guidance to me in respect of those matters, as well.

Ms CHAPMAN: Attorney, this issue occurred in March 2014. That is over two years ago. The findings were made in respect of his conduct over two years ago. You told us, as a committee, this time last year, that you had only recently become aware of that behaviour as such, if I just put it in general terms here, and that you were 'putting together the clues' and 'would give them due consideration'.

Whilst there has been further conduct, which has been the subject of further reporting and action, surely you are not telling the committee that, having looked at what happened—and the findings were made back in March 2014—that that alone is not enough for him to be removed from the committee and for you to be able to act on it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I understand the question. My position, I guess, is that I want to make sure that I am acting on the basis of advice which properly addresses the threshold questions. There are in fact, as I understand it, two committees, not one. One of those committees, if I am not mistaken, is the mining and quarrying—

Mr KNOLL: MAQOHSC.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is it, MAQOHSC. That is one of them.

Mr KNOLL: That would be independent of government, though.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am not exactly sure of whether or not that has anything to do with me. The other one—

Ms CHAPMAN: Does he receive a payment from the government for both?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised he does.

Ms CHAPMAN: And you know, Attorney, the obligation in respect of the Governor, removing someone for dishonourable conduct, or severe neglect of duty, etc. I do not need to go into the detail; the findings have been made so we do not need to traverse whether or not he is guilty. My question really is: if you are satisfied in due course that he should not be there and you ask for his resignation or remove him, or ask your colleague in the cabinet to do that, if it is the direct responsibility of another minister, will you ask him to repay the money that he has received from these boards for the last 2½ years?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Just a further bit of information, MAQOHSC—an amazing name—is apparently fully funded by the Mining and Quarrying Industries Fund, but I still think the Governor has some role.

Ms CHAPMAN: Sure. Whether it is you or Mr Koutsantonis or the cabinet in full to refer to the Governor, I appreciate that there is a decision to be made. It may not be exclusively yours. There are two boards and there are two different ministers who have principal responsibility for them. I have not asked minister Koutsantonis whether he is taking the action as the Minister for Resources, nevertheless, my question stands: if you are satisfied in due course that he should not be there, will you ask him for the money back?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Let us cross each bridge before we come to it. I need to get to the first point.

The CHAIR: The Attorney has answered your initial question. Your second question is hypothetical.

Ms CHAPMAN: Let me ask you this: how much money has he been paid from your department for this role since March 2014?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That we can find out. My understanding is that this is one of these sessional fee type—let us get the full details. I think it is a sessional committee. How frequently it meets, I do not know, but it looks to me from the information I have here, which I will check, that the sessional sitting fee is $177. Now, how frequently—

Mr KNOLL: Eleven times last year.

Ms CHAPMAN: Assuming he went to all of the meetings.

Mr KNOLL: No, he only rocked up for about half.

Ms CHAPMAN: Anyway, we will say it is a sessional meeting attendance fee.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We will find out how much.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I might add too—and this is something else I do not have the answer to—that I believe, in some instances, both in the case of trade unions and industry associations, practices vary according to whether those fees are ultimately the fees that are kept or given to that individual or whether they are fees that are paid to the organisation. I do not know the answer to that in this particular case.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do have some further information about this. What years were you interested in, 2013-14 or 2014-15?

Ms CHAPMAN: 2013-14.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: In 2013-14, 11 meetings were held and five meetings were attended—$885. In 2014-15, 11 meetings were held and six were attended—$1,062. In 2015-16, 11 meetings were held and nine meetings were attended—$1,593. Those moneys were paid from the Construction Industry Fund, pursuant to the provisions of the Construction Industry Long Service Leave Board.

In respect of the mining committee, again, according to my advice—and we will check what I am giving you, but this is what I have—they are again entitled to a sessional fee. That is paid from the Mining and Quarrying Industries Fund which, I am led to believe, is an employer fund. It is not a government fund, anyway. In respect of that, the sessional payments included for 2013-14, $1,858; for 2014-15, $1,518; and for 2015-16, $1,062.

Ms CHAPMAN: Of the $1 million funding we referred to earlier, how much was the CMFEU paid?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: This was the earlier question?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It was $135,000.

Mr KNOLL: Just to follow up on a few of those things, Attorney, we talked about March 2014 as being the first conviction. We then saw, on 22 April, further convictions which led to almost $1 million worth of fines for the union. On 31 May, the Federal Court found Cartledge guilty, and last Friday was sentencing. How often does Mr Cartledge need to break the law before you are going to take action? In the event that you finally do, will you include Mr Roberts, who serves as an alternate to Mr Cartledge on the Construction Industry Long Service Leave Board and who, in the April findings, was also found guilty of charges? Will he also be asked to stand down?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will have to take that on notice. I do not know the formal standing of the alternates—Mr Roberts has gone, I am advised.

Mr KNOLL: Too quick for you.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No need to worry about Mr Roberts. That was about a year ago, apparently. Just as matter of interest, so that members understand that it is not necessarily as simple as some might think, if you go to the conditions of membership provision in the Construction Industry Long Service Leave Act —

Mr KNOLL: We have all read it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —which I am sure you have read, relevantly, section 8(2)(b) talks about neglect of duty or dishonourable conduct. 'Dishonourable conduct' is an unhelpful turn of phrase. What would be helpful in clarifying would be if the wording had been 'or is convicted of a criminal offence' or something of that nature. Members might recall that a not dissimilar provision used to sit in the Legal Practitioners Act.

There was a question as to what that meant and whether it applied in the context of a person's behaviour in a certain way or whether it was to do with other things more generally. I am not expressing an opinion on those things one way or the other, but I am trying to illustrate that I think I need to have some sound advice which will assist me in making—or not making, as the case may be—a recommendation to cabinet and the Governor.

Ms CHAPMAN: Minister, you are also the Attorney-General of the state. Whilst you might quote the Legal Practitioners Act and its interpretation—in which, of course, under current law, any conduct unbecoming can have ramifications—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Indeed.

Ms CHAPMAN: —you are not seriously suggesting to the committee that you require some kind of indication from the Crown Solicitor's Office that the interpretation of 'dishonourable conduct' would not be such a low threshold as not to include automatically the conviction for a criminal offence, which has now occurred twice, as being a necessary threshold for you to act?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am not saying that. I am not expressing a view about that. I am just saying that I would like to have the benefit of advice, not just as to what the threshold point is for dishonourable conduct within the meaning of that provision in this act, but also the appropriate process and procedure that should be undertaken in order for natural justice and various other considerations to be taken into account.

Ms CHAPMAN: Last year, Attorney, you sat here and said you were going to give this matter consideration. You got advice and that is fine. I am assuming that it did not take nine months for you to get that advice. Then a further decision comes out compounding the felony, if I can put it in colloquial terms. Are you really suggesting that you need to get advice again?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: To be clear on this, as I understand it, the advice was actually being sought by SafeWork SA rather than by me directly, and the time that it took them to receive it, whether the questions were framed properly, whether the answers were adequate and whether they had canvassed procedural fairness and other things, I am not sure, but my advice from SafeWork SA has been that they are presently not satisfied that they have the appropriate information yet to provide to me.

Ms CHAPMAN: And you have not acted upon it? You have really left it up to SafeWork SA and their board?

Ms BOLAND: Initially, when we asked for the advice, a lot of the decisions were still open for appeal and so the reason why we have been going back has been as each decision has been finalised and to get further clarity.

Ms CHAPMAN: But we are talking about convictions in April 2014, that is 14 months before the Attorney gave evidence to this committee last year and way past the appeal period, and we are now another year down the track with more conduct which has been found to be wanting.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I remember it came up. In fact, my first recollection of this being brought to my attention was a rather penetrating curve ball question from the member for Schubert in question time a while back on this point. That is the first time I have any recollection of having this particular thing put to me in the way that it has been.

Mr KNOLL: To follow up on that, each of these instances we are talking about directly relate to Mr Cartledge's conduct on different worksites, so they are all of a type. When we are talking about dishonourable conduct, surely, if it is in the course of the duties which give rise to him being on this committee (i.e. he is a union official who has something to do with the construction industry, which is presumably why he is on the board) this is illegal conduct directly involved in the course of his duties, but also it is illegal conduct of a similar type. We are talking about illegal activity on construction sites and it is continued and repeat behaviour, so this idea that we need to keep waiting for new evidence when the crimes being conducted are of the same type is a little bit ridiculous and certainly tries to stretch out this episode far longer than what it needs to.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I hear what people are saying.

Ms BOLAND: It was about providing further clarity, not necessarily further evidence. Because we needed to provide the advice, we needed to be able to understand what the minister would require to be able to make his decision.

Ms CHAPMAN: Did you put any complaint to the Attorney or to your minister (as your minister rather than Attorney) at the delay at which you were not getting any serviceable advice—

The CHAIR: Member for Bragg, the question should be directed at the minister.

Ms CHAPMAN: Did you receive any request to act, minister, by the SafeWork SA executive or the board to hasten the response that apparently was taking over a year to get legal advice from your other department, namely, the Crown Solicitor's Office?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not believe I have agitated it with them. I do recall that when the member for Schubert asked me a question last year, I asked that inquiries be made, and I gather that that went off. I have to confess that this particular matter has not been foremost in my mind since that point in time. My expectation when I asked for that was that in due course I would receive an appropriate piece of advice which was going to assist me in plotting out how I proceed in a lawful fashion. I must say I do not think I was running around chasing people about this. I think it escaped my list of priorities.

Ms CHAPMAN: I have some other questions, if I may. Firstly, in relation to the proceedings in the court at present of which Ms Boland is the applicant as the head of SafeWork SA against the consortium arising out of Mr Castillo-Riffo's death on the new RAH site. It is listed for trial next year. My question is: what has been the cost of SafeWork SA so far in prosecuting that case?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think we will have to take that one on notice.

Ms CHAPMAN: On page 48 of the relevant agency document: the visits that are being undertaken by SafeWork SA, the number of proactive compliance and enforcement visits which are to inspect and see that there is compliance and also to provide advice and information, which as you pointed out, as of a few weeks ago is now a split role. In the 2016-17 year, it is proposed to be 5,000. Last year, there were 5,613. Were any of those visits to the old Supreme Court house or the Sir Samuel Way Building, which largely accommodates the District Court, to inspect for a safe workplace?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We will have to take that on notice because there are so many of them to go through.

Ms CHAPMAN: I also ask whether there is any outcome as a result, if there has been any inspection of those two premises, as to any aspects of which are not compliant with work health and safety requirements—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Again, we will take that on notice.

Ms CHAPMAN: —and if so, what notice has been given to the Courts Administration Authority to remedy that? Similarly for this year, is there any intended follow-up inspection for that purpose? If that could be taken on notice as well.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is all on notice.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you. I think that is all.

The CHAIR: The member for Schubert has the omnibus questions. Is this for the entire A-G's department? Yes, excellent.

Mr KNOLL: The omnibus questions are:

1. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors above $10,000 in 2015-16 for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, listing the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier, cost, work undertaken and method of appointment?

2. In financial year 2015-16 for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, what underspending on projects and programs (1) was and (2) was not approved by cabinet for carryover expenditure in 2016-17?

3. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, please provide a breakdown of attraction, retention and performance allowances, as well as non-salary benefits, paid to public servants and contractors in the years 2014-15 and 2015-16.

4. For each year of the forward estimates, please provide the name and budget of all grant programs administered by all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, and for 2015-16 provide a breakdown of expenditure on all grants administered by all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, listing the name of the grant recipient, the amount of the grant, the purpose of the grant and whether the grant was subject to a grant agreement as required by Treasurer's Instruction 15.

5. For each year of the forward estimates, please provide the corporate overhead costs allocated to each individual program and subprogram administered by or on behalf of all departments and agencies reporting to the minister.

6. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, could you detail:

(a) How much was spent on targeted voluntary separation packages in 2015-16?

(b) Which department funded these TVSPs?

(c) What number of TVSPs was funded?

(d) What is the budget for targeted voluntary separation packages for financial years included in the forward estimates (by year), and how these packages are to be funded?

7. What is the title and total employment cost of each individual staff member in the minister's office as at 30 June 2016, including all departmental employees seconded to ministerial offices and ministerial liaison officers?

The CHAIR: I think the Attorney is keen to answer all of those right now.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will take them on notice. I think in a moment there is a cup of tea available.

The CHAIR: I thought you were going to answer the questions. In that case, there being no further questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payments be adjourned until later today.

Sitting suspended from 15:30 to 15:45.