Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $78,456,000

Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $1,930,000

Membership:

Mr Speirs substituted for Mr Griffiths.

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:

Ms E. Ranieri, Commissioner for Public Sector Employment, Office for the Public Sector.

Ms I. Haythorpe, Deputy Chief Executive, Services and Intergovernmental Relations, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr S. Woolhouse, Chief Finance Officer, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

The CHAIR: We are continuing with the Attorney-General in his capacity as Minister for the Public Sector. Before I say that, we are going to go from, as agreed, 3.45 to 4.15 on the Office for the Public Sector, and then 4.15 to 4.45 on Service SA and Shared Services. That is the agreement. So, are those advisers here and we can facilitate a change of advisers in half an hour's time?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. In terms of the Office for the Public Sector, Erma will be primarily assisting in that respect, and Ingrid will be primarily assisting in respect of Shared Services, etc.

The CHAIR: I declare the proposed payments open. I refer members to Agency Statement, Volume 3, and I call on the minister to make a statement, if he wishes. He has already introduced his advisers.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have already mentioned who is here, but I cannot resist the invitation to say a couple of things. The public sector is and should be seen as one of the state's assets and we should be trying to find ways in which we can maximise the benefit to the community of what is a substantial human and material asset to the state. I believe there must be opportunities within the public sector for improvement.

That is not meant to be perceived as a critique of the thing it is now; it is not meant to be anything other than a statement that I think we should always be striving to improve and where possible there should be opportunities to improve. That improvement could be at many different levels, but I will give a couple of points that I think are worth considering. One is the extent to which the state, as the notional employer of public sector employees, acts as a good and supportive and responsive employer.

There is also the extent to which the state as an employer, through its managerial functions, gives maximum opportunity for its employees to get the most out of their jobs, and to manage them in such a way that they are high performing, fulfilled employees of the state. So those aspirations I guess are fairly high level, but I think they are important aspirations: some of them involve culture, some involve management structures, some involve leadership, but they are all in my opinion important, and I think there is an appetite within the public sector to try to make improvement in all of those respects.

Mr SPEIRS: Turning to Budget Paper 3, page 25, table 2.6, employee expenses for the public sector, can you confirm whether any executive bonuses were paid to either chief executives or other executives in 2015-16, and whether there is a provision for any such payments in the 2016-17 financial year?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the Commissioner for the Public Sector only collects data in relation to chief executives, and I am led to understand that that does not include performance bonus payments. Whether there are other agencies, instrumentalities, detached offices, attached offices, or whatever else that might do that, is not something we are presently able to assist you with.

Mr SPEIRS: But the chief executives in charge of public sector agencies do not?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The Public Service agencies, I am advised they do not.

Mr SPEIRS: Does the government still maintain a policy of banning executive bonuses?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not know whether there is such a policy, but I will take that on notice and find out whether there is such a policy and whether there has been any change to it.

Mr SPEIRS: Moving on to Budget Paper 5, page 13, the second to last paragraph of that page: can you confirm which public sector EBAs will be exempt from the new policy of limiting public sector wage increases to 1.5 per cent per annum?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will try to get back to you with an exhaustive list, because there may be one or two smallish workforce components that I might omit in this, and I do not want this to be taken as the whole answer. There is a group of employees, the building, metal and plumbing trades group, the rail commissioner train operations group, the SA Ambulance Services, the visiting medical specialists, nurses and midwives and the rail commissioner infrastructure.

Essentially the reason for that is that the negotiations with those groups had already advanced to some degree before the budget, and in the context of those negotiations the then policy in respect of wages had been applied to the offers made by the state, and it was considered both by the state and, I can assure you, by those groups that it would be a bit cheeky to withdraw the offer from the table, it having already been made.

Mr KNOLL: Can I ask a follow-up question on that? Does the minister accept that, in limiting public sector wage increases to 1½ per cent per annum, he is essentially asking public servants to accept a real wage cut over the forward estimates?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, I do not. The term of 'real wage' is obviously a balancing act between purchasing power and money received and I do not think anybody can be confident, in any way, as to what the purchasing power of whatever money will be received over the next few years will actually be, whether inflation will outstrip wages growth or vice versa, so I do not accept that that is necessarily correct.

Mr KNOLL: Your own budget states that over the forward estimates, that in each of the years over the four years, inflation will be or the Adelaide Consumer Price Index will be above 1½  per cent, ranging from 1¾ per cent to 2½ per cent, but your own budget outlines the fact that CPI will be well above that 1½ per cent, so I ask again—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No.

Mr KNOLL: Are we asking the public sector to take a real wage cut?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I understand your question. If the forecasts were something other than a prediction and they were actual budget—If somebody was able to jump into the DeLorean and head off to a point a year or so from now and look back and have those numbers and say to me, three years from now, 'Have those numbers been fulfilled or not?'—my point is simply this, that it is mathematically the truth that your first question was: does this necessarily mean these people are going to be getting less than cost of living adjustments or whatever the case might be? My answer is: mathematically the answer to that is no.

Whether, in terms of the budget projections about what might happen, if all those projections were to come true, would these people keep up in each and every one of those years? The answer to that is: maybe not. I am just saying, as a matter of reality, Treasury does the best they can to make a projection, and I am not criticising those projections at all but, just because they make a projection, does not necessarily mean that will be what the cost of living will adjust by. It will adjust by what it adjusts by.

Mr KNOLL: So then, minister, are you suggesting that in the light of the higher inflation there will be a change to that cap policy?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, I am not. The way things are going at the moment, can you tell me whether interest rates are going up or down?

Mr KNOLL: They will go down next Tuesday.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can you tell me whether inflation is going to go up or down?

Mr KNOLL: Inflation, according to your budget, goes up by between 1¾ per cent to 2½ per cent.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I know that and they know much more about these things than I do. All I am saying is when I read the paper I am reading a few weeks ago that one third of the world that is not living in some sort of dark age is actually in a deflationary environment at the present time.

Mr KNOLL: That is not the case with South Australia or Australia?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am just saying—

Mr KNOLL: Minister, it is difficult to understand how you can have it both ways by saying you do not believe the figures—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I did not say that.

Mr KNOLL: But then that if there is fluctuation to those figures that that is not necessarily going to make any difference to your EBA wage rise cap?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I rephrase your question for you and then answer it?

Mr KNOLL: Well, no. I think you can answer the question that I have asked. If you want to become a member of the opposition, that is fine, but unfortunately in this context you are the minister.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Okay, fair enough.

Mr KNOLL: We still come back to the fact that you are asking, and I think you are gently suggesting that, given factors that are happening around the world, South Australians should align with the other two-thirds of the world that is seeing cuts to real wages and that South Australian public servants can expect the same.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, I am not saying that at all. All I am saying is this. There is an anticipation that there will be a certain change in the cost of living index of South Australia in the forward estimates. There is a government policy about wages growth during the forward estimates.

All I am trying to say is that, if the wages policy outcomes which we are seeking are achieved, and if all of those projections turn out to be correct, there will be a difference between the wages policy outcomes and the projections. My only point to you is that those projections ultimately may or may not be correct for reasons that are beyond my comprehension and are possibly beyond anyone's comprehension in here—that is all I am saying.

Mr KNOLL: Alright, just to finish off then, if I can rephrase your answer in the right way, the answer is not no: it is maybe and probably, yes. I will get the member for Bright to move on.

Mr SPEIRS: Just moving back to the EBAs which were exempt from the 1.5 per cent per annum rise. Are those EBAs being negotiated through the Office for the Public Sector or through the commissioner?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is a mixed bag. The rail ones are, by reason of statutory arrangements, vested essentially in the Rail Commissioner so, even though there is some interaction between the rest of us and the Rail Commissioner, as a matter of law, the Rail Commissioner is the responsible person although, clearly, it is our expectation that he will be following general government policy in attempting to get outcomes which are consistent with general government policy.

In respect of the ambulance, medical specialists and midwives, as a matter of formality, it is the case that the Office for the Public Sector is the ultimately responsible government agency. That is clear and, indeed, I have recently written to ministers and chief executives to make that point very clear to them so that there is no confusion about this. What we do not want to have are multiple chiefs and no Indians, so we are trying to get a situation where there is a fairly clear position.

That said, particularly in an institution or an organisation the size of health, with all of the complexities and special elements that go into an organisation of that scale, we must be significantly in consultation with the health department people who know particular things about their workforce and have particular information, so we would be collaborating with those. The only other one is for the building and metal plumbing trades, and I think that is directly done by the Office for the Public Sector.

Mr SPEIRS: So, two of those that you mentioned there—the Rail Commissioner and the South Australian Ambulance Service—have had quite a bit of public attention in recent months because of delays with those EBAs. I guess we can address the Rail Commissioner issue to Mr Deegan at a later point, but with regard to the South Australian Ambulance Service EBA, what is the progress with that EBA and what are the reasons, from a departmental point of view or from the office's point of view, for the delays with reaching a settlement on that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the situation there is, as best we can tell, nearing an agreement, and we are hopeful that, in the next couple of weeks, we will be in a position where there is an agreement that I can take forward to cabinet for endorsement, so that is a matter that is in a very advanced state of negotiation.

Mr SPEIRS: When did the South Australian Ambulance Service's previous EBA expire?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can we get back to you on that because I just do not know if we have that sitting here? We will have to get it for you.

Mr SPEIRS: Can you advise which EBAs are coming up in the near future?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The nurses are in play, salaried medical officers, salary wages parity group, admin staff, firefighters.

Mr KNOLL: Those four, so SASMOA, the admin staff and the other couple that you mentioned.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Firefighters.

Mr KNOLL: They are the ones that are coming up. Because obviously this policy is put in place across the forwards—so it is over the next four years—they are the only three that are going to be negotiated in the next four years.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Not in the next four years, these are ones that are right on the—

Mr KNOLL: Right on the cusp. The ones who are going to feel unfortunate for not having started. That is touching.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There may be others during the forward estimates that cycle back in, and then—

Mr KNOLL: So these are the vanguard?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. There may be others where, for example, they were fixed up two years ago. They are fine for the present, but they will land into the renegotiation phase during the forward estimates. They will come onto the balance sheet, as these are.

Ms CHAPMAN: Minister, whether your agency negotiates the EBs or doesn't—and you have identified a number that are exempt in this process but sometimes are backing your process. However, at the end of the day, are the EBs all registered with your office?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The Rail Commissioner does not, I think—

Ms CHAPMAN: So apart from train drivers, everyone else's EB is in some way recorded in the office of public employment?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Apart from train drivers, who are still negotiating, apparently: I think from the 11 July budget and estimates there is still indication to us that they are still discussing—the last offer having been rejected, but we will wait to see what happens there. Can your office provide a schedule to the committee of each of the EBs and their date of expiration. I appreciate that you would not necessarily have it right here, but we would appreciate that.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is no problem.

Ms CHAPMAN: While we are on the wage freeze, or wage policy as it is being described: at page 13, on Budget Paper 5, this is recorded:

The previous wage policy of limiting wage growth to 2.5 per cent per annum is well above recent Consumer Price Index (CPI) outcomes and is not sustainable in the current economic climate.

I think you have explained that, in your view, even if the proposal is to cap it at 1.5 over the next three years for most of these arrangements, that that is not too inconsistent with the CPI, which might be a bit higher, but is still way below the 2½ per cent, and hence that statement.

The indication, from this policy, is that it will expire at the end of the three years, and we are back to where we started. Is it the government's intention—assuming it retains government—that it would again keep the wages capped at 1½ per cent, or consistent with CPI, or does it automatically resume at 2½ per cent?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think the position is this: first of all, that would be a decision for the incoming government, whatever colour that might have. Secondly, that it is clearly a budget-related determination, because a fundamental element of the cost structure of the state government is the salary and wages bill for its staff—so it is an integral part of the budget process. So my answer to that would be: at the expiry of this policy or, in fact, before the end of the forward estimates, over which this policy is to be applied, the government of the day would need to formulate its own view about whether this policy was to be retained, or whether there was to be a variation of the policy, or whatever. That is a decision for another day.

Ms CHAPMAN: So there is no reason for the public sector to expect that there will necessarily be a resumption of the usual 2½ per cent, after this $357 million initiative has expired?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not think there is any reason for them to have a view one way or the other. We are speculating here but, if in three years' time we have moved from the present environment into an environment where we are running inflation at a clip of 5 or 6 per cent per annum, which I think is highly unlikely, but if we were, obviously we would be in a completely different environment. If we were in a position like Japan, where we have negative interest rates, again, we would be in a different environment. I think these things need to be reappraised periodically in light of the prevailing economic circumstances.

Mr KNOLL: If I can ask a different question. Recently Mr Paul Anderson, the executive director of the Office for Recreation and Sport, left us. Did he receive a termination payment?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We do not know. I think it is rec and sport, which is Mr Deegan strangely enough, but they sit in DPTI. If you are entertaining Mr Deegan one afternoon, you might care to roll that past him and hear what he has to say.

Mr SPEIRS: Minister, can we move back to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 167, the paragraph in the program summary? Can you confirm the reduction of 56.2 FTEs from the government services program and explain what is driving this cut?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that there were temporary people who were put on to deal with a particular project that rejoices in the title of CHRIS 21. When that came to an end, the need for those particular people came to an end. That is the explanation I am given.

Ms CHAPMAN: They are the people who pay us.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, it is a payroll system.

Mr SPEIRS: Were they contractors for a period of time?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised they were casuals or contractors.

Mr KNOLL: On that same line, can you confirm the total cost of the CHRIS 21 payroll reform project?

The CHAIR: While you are deliberating I will just remind members that there is another half an hour to go on this line, but we can ask questions about Service SA and those things.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Mr Chairman, I am relaxed as to how much members want to divide their time between this topic and Shared Services or Service SA. Ingrid is here to help us with that and others are here. It is up to them, but if they do not really have any questions on Service SA, I think we should let Ingrid know because she has to catch an aircraft at some time. I am in the hands of the committee.

The CHAIR: I think we are waiting on an answer to a previous question.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The answer is, as I am advised, that in September 2015 the total project cost was approved, including the agency component estimated at $21.9 million. The project is on track to be completed within this approved budget.

Mr KNOLL: Just one last question before I hand over to the member for Bragg, what was the original budget for the project?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well, let me see. The original budget? Is there some magic in the word 'original'?

Mr KNOLL: Normally, when these things start, there is a budget and normally when these things finish, there is a budget and it tends to be that B is more than A.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I had better take that on notice and find out.

Mr KNOLL: Of course, yes. Heaven forbid that blowouts are exposed. That is fine.

Ms CHAPMAN: My question is in respect of page 173 of Agency Statements, Volume 3. There is a target for 2016-17 in respect of trainees and graduates. If I can start with Highlights 2015-16, it states: 'Facilitated the graduation of 130 trainees'. Then at the bottom of the page, under Targets 2016-17: 'Coordinate public sector efforts to recruit 800 trainees and graduates by March 2018.' This is all in the Jobs4Youth program. Is there any reason why there is a very substantial increase? Where are they going to be?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: This is part of Jobs4Youth and the policy is to recruit 800 young people into the public sector across four years. To date, there have been 486 placements with a further 114 required to meet the 2016 target of 600. Recruitment commenced in 2016. To date, they have recruited 119 into the program including 36 Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people, five with a disability and two long-term unemployed.

This year, so far, 27 per cent have come from the northern suburbs, 23 from the southern suburbs, 19 from regional areas including the South-East, West Coast, South Coast and Murray Bridge and graduate participation is only 20 per cent of placements. It is focusing on long-term unemployed and other people who are having real difficulties entering the job market.

Ms CHAPMAN: I think in that information there was a 600 target for last year?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: For this year.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is the reference to 130 trainees successfully completing, am I in error in assuming that that is how many we had? Or did we have 600 last year and only 130 graduated? Let me just ask you how many we had last year, so that I have apples to apples.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can we get those numbers for you? I do not think we have those here. We will get a table for you.

Ms CHAPMAN: Of those graduates, the 130 trainees, was that, in recollection, a small percentage of what you had? I know you are going to get the actual number, but is it only ever a third or a half or a quarter that ever graduate from these programs?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We will get that as part of the table. I am told the success rate is usually pretty good.

Ms CHAPMAN: Let us assume that there might have been 150 or so who had previously been in the program. That would suggest then that, in this year, there is a massive increase in the number of trainees that has been taken up. Is that because there is high youth unemployment or is there some new initiative promoting these traineeships, with funding for it, so that we absorb the unemployed? What is the basis of this? I am not actually criticising the program. I am just trying to ascertain where we are up to with it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As I am understanding this, there was a commitment given as of 2014 that it would be 200 year, adding up to 800. Apparently, not each year has been consistent in terms of numbers offered to these people. In at least one year, there was an underperformance in terms of offering, which has been, to some extent, overcompensated for in subsequent years, where there has been an increase in the take-up, but with the objective being that there will still be a landing on the promised 800 within the four-year period.

Ms CHAPMAN: In relation to the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment and the indication here that there is to be a continuing support to that statutory role, I understand that, but it says here:

…through determinations and guidelines and standardisation of employment arrangements and conditions.

What does the latter mean?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is a really good question.

Ms CHAPMAN: How about a really good answer?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will do my best. The situation is that if you start from the premise that the state, in all of its manifestations, is an employer for a great many people across a great range of activities, then there should be commonalities between the rights and responsibilities of the state, as the employer, and the individual employees, as people employed by the state. Obviously, there will need to be some diversity to take into account the very peculiar and particular activities that some people do.

For example, a salaried medical officer is going to have particular aspects of their employment which bear little or no relationship to a train driver or somebody else, but by the same token there are many other elements of the employment relationship which ideally should be as consistent as possible so that there is a degree of reasonably based expectation that all public sector employees will be, in the broad sense, treated fairly and equally.

This is a project whereby I think we are going to have to look at a range of things, starting off with very high level things and working our way down to more particular things. I accept, and I am happy to put on the record, that it is almost impossible to imagine that we will wind up with every single public sector employee on a uniform contract or uniform terms and conditions because of the range of activities they are doing and the fact that some diversity would need to be reflected in the formalities. That being said, we would like to get much of the substructure or the foundation of each one of those relationships being consistent.

Ms CHAPMAN: In respect of the TVSPs, the Budget and Finance Committee heard on 11 July 2016, Mr Reynolds explaining that the new government policy was that each of the departments was individually to pay their TVSP payments and would be accounting for them. There was a reference though in answer to the question: does anyone in government collect this information? Does the Commissioner for Public Employment? Mr Reynolds indicated that he would need to check it, but he said, 'She may still keep a register around that.' My question is: is there a register of TVSPs paid by each of the departments? Do they provide accounting back to the commissioner for record keeping?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: My understanding is the answer to that question is no, I am advised. However, this is something the commissioner and I, amongst other things, have chatted about. We chat quite regularly about all sorts of things. There is much to be said for a common register because it would be, first of all, handy to know. This gets back actually to the earlier question the member for Bragg asked about common across government expectations. It would be useful for government and for inquiries of this nature if there was a single repository of that sort of information and it also would assist in other matters. I think it would help the government and scrutiny of government if there was a single repository of that information. That is something we have talked about and it is consistent with the topic of the last question.

Ms CHAPMAN: When the government introduced this new policy that it would come out of each agency's budget, obviously it needs to be recorded in each of the agencies, but at the moment, to find out how much government had spent on TVSPs as part of their reduction in the Public Service arrangements and the efficiency dividends required, surely it would have to have that information to be able to check whether, in fact, that is exactly what the agencies were doing and, indeed, the overall expense to government?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: What I am assuming is the Department of Treasury and Finance would, as its annual scrutiny of each agency takes place—

Ms CHAPMAN: You might be disappointed with the evidence given to the Budget and Finance Committee because the suggestion is that that is exactly what they are not doing, and it is now up to each of the departments, hence the question of the chairman to Mr Reynolds to try to ascertain who was doing it and in particular whether the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment might be doing it given the importance, as you say, in managing that accountability of what is actually happening out there. In any event, perhaps if that can be taken on notice if there is ultimately a receipt of that material—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: If there is anything we can add to the answer I have given, I am happy to do it on notice.

Ms CHAPMAN: I appreciate that. I am just going to specifically request that what you do provide is a list of the TVSP payments as at 30 June for each of the agencies.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We are not in a position—

Ms CHAPMAN: Nobody is collating it at the moment, that is why I am asking you.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think that might be something, if I might be so bold, that you might include in your omnibus questions for other agencies so that you get it on an agency by agency basis. They should be able to tell you that, and the annual reports and the financial statements of the individual agencies.

Ms CHAPMAN: Unfortunately for some of them, including the education department, we will not receive it until about April or June next year, so that is not terribly helpful.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We will do what we can to be of assistance.

Ms CHAPMAN: If it is the intention of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment to collate that information for all of the helpful statistics she puts on her website, we would ask that that information be provided to the committee when it is collated.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As I have said, I find myself yet again in furious agreement with the deputy leader on this.

Ms CHAPMAN: Frightening.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It would be very useful.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am happy to move on, if the other committee members are, to Service SA.

Membership:

Mr Duluk substituted for Mr Knoll.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: How can we help?

Ms CHAPMAN: I am referring to page 169, it is Sub-program 7.2 of Budget Paper 4, Volume 3. I think Service SA is still with the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is.

Ms CHAPMAN: Having originally been with the department of transport, I think, several years before that. Is there any intention to move it, or is going to stay in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: At this stage, it is where it is. There is no intention that it be moved.

Ms CHAPMAN: According to this, it has 324.6 budgeted employees for this forthcoming year. That is just a slight increase from what had been there in 2015-16. Is there any new role that they are to assume in the forthcoming financial year?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not know about a new role, but they certainly are focusing on improving their service delivery to members of the public who are interacting with them and trying to become more of a customer-orientated, accessible portal for those people wishing to engage with the government. I think there are a number of programs that they have been undertaking, utilising new service centres, which are a delivery opportunity for government information and assistance. In summary, I have been actually very impressed with the discussions I have had since becoming responsible for this earlier this year with the sense of pride that they are taking in wanting to have a customer-focused, easily accessible public profile.

Ms CHAPMAN: Of the work that is done by the 325 (in round figures) people, are most of those employed in the receipt and accounting for the registration and documentation relating to motor vehicles?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the majority of them would be in the 20-odd service centres that are sprinkled around the place, but they do have other functions as well. That might be something, if the deputy leader is especially interested in having that degree of fine grain, that we take away to try to get it broken up.

Ms CHAPMAN: Perhaps if we could have a breakdown in categories of what they all do. I have to say that, in covering areas in respect of transport and infrastructure, I was always a little surprised as to why this whole agency, which had a very substantial role in dealing with the registration of vehicles and the like—in fact, it has a very substantial income of about $38 million ready to come in this financial year—would even go to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. Anyway, he is the Premier, he can have whatever little agencies he likes, I suppose. If it does more than just manage the receipt and then referral of those funds onto Treasury of motor vehicle-type registrations then I would be interested to identify if they do anything else.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Okay, we will take that—

Ms CHAPMAN: Some of it would be to do with licensing I expect, but again, it is all around the motor vehicle industry, to the extent of giving people tests and upgrades and I think young people have special tests that they also have to do on electronic machines and so on.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that it is fair to say that the majority of their activity is centred on motor vehicle-type registration issues, but we will see if we can get a better breakdown of other activities.

Ms CHAPMAN: The wait time in customer service is claimed to be, it is recorded here, reduced by 36 per cent. What was it before and what is it now?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Obviously, if you improve customer service there are tangible and intangible dimensions to that, intangible things like happier customers and all that sort of business, but of the tangible things we have things like customer waiting times.

Ms CHAPMAN: That is what I am asking you about.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The customer waiting times in the customer service centres decreased from 13 minutes 18 seconds in 2014-15 to nine minutes 15 seconds in 2015-16. The average speed of a call to be answered in the contact centres decreased from 5.45 minutes in 2014-15 to 3.04 minutes in 2015-16. The number of inbound calls reduced from 1.16 million to 1.04 million, which is roughly a 10 per cent—

Ms CHAPMAN: That may mean they might be sick of waiting, of course, or not ring at all.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It might be they are getting so well served elsewhere they do not need to ring up. So, the efforts have resulted in the overall customer satisfaction rating remaining at 94 per cent in 2015-16 and that reflects the operational focus on improvement in waiting times with the timeliness satisfaction rising from 79 per cent in 2014-15 to 90 per cent in 2015-16.

Ms CHAPMAN: Of those surveyed.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: To be honest, it is hardly reflective, given this is the only place they can go. They are paying a government compliance or fee, it is a monopoly and so they have to go there, or put it online. But I am pleased to see there has been an improvement.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There is improvement.

Ms CHAPMAN: At least in the wait times. I am almost scared to ask this, but I will: what is the new look and feel of www.sa.gov.au to improve the user experience? I hope I do not have a furry picture of the Premier or something.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, I do not think there is anything that cheesy in there. There are things like being able to use one universal form online, which then achieves multiple outcomes. This is basically a digital by default proposition, and it is suppose to be a one-stop shop for citizens who want to do business with the government. What we are trying to do in particular is make an electronic platform that will enable agencies to move services online, and the government is committed to reducing the length of forms that people need to complete by 25 per cent.

The electronic form platform, along with the form standards and guidelines developed by Services SA, will be tools to improve performance and reach those targets. The whole-of-government change of address form, for example, went live this month, allowing citizens to tell us once about a change of address, and this phase of the form includes 12 services across government that would have required 12 separate forms to have been completed—19 pages and 124 fields.

Ms CHAPMAN: Assuming, of course, that you register it with the right group that knows not to have to repeat it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: But, anyway, that is good.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The electronic smart form requires a maximum of 28 fields to be completed if all 12 services were to be notified. As a smart form, only the relevant questions are asked, so this reduces with fewer services.

Ms CHAPMAN: And when will it start?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It has started; it started this month.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, it has been launched?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will move now to Shared Services SA, unless other members of the committee have any questions on Service SA.

The CHAIR: I think you have the floor, member for Bragg. You have seven minutes though, I advise.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, I appreciate that. I think you have already referred to the rollout of the new Chris21 payroll platform, which you say has commenced. When will that be complete?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: June next year, I understand.

Ms CHAPMAN: So 2017? I suppose it is just in the year. It is also proposed that this agency, Shared Services SA, will investigate potential solutions for the future management of financial systems across a number of state government agencies. What does that mean?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: They have fabulous names here: this one is called 'Masterpiece'. You are probably going to say, 'What's that?', and I will tell you.

Mr DULUK: What's that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will tell you. The department, through Shared Services SA—

Ms CHAPMAN: As long as it is not called 'EPAS'.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, it is not called 'EPAS', this one's a masterpiece! It will lead investigation solutions for the future of management of financial systems across the non-health sector of government. In April this year the government extended its current finance system support contract for non-health for a further two years. The contract for existing non-health agency finance system, with info for provision of the Masterpiece application, expires in November 2018, and Shared Services is leading the investigation into what options are available for these agencies prior to this contract expiry. So, that is Masterpiece.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is there any intention to dismantle Shared Services SA.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Not that I am aware of, and from my observation, albeit relatively brief, I think they are doing a terrific job.

Ms CHAPMAN: It is only—correct me if I am wrong—as at 30 June about three or four years old: is that correct?

Ms HAYTHORPE: Seven years.

Ms CHAPMAN: Seven years old. Perhaps I did not count the first three, they were so disastrous. Anyway, in the last few years is the government satisfied that it is actually providing an efficiency and cheaper provision of services and product across the departments that it operates in?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, I do have some information about that. Shared Services has actually exceeded its savings targets in 2015-2016. By 30June this year, Shared Services will have achieved a total of $416 million in accumulated savings. The full details of these savings can be found at page 72 of the Supplementary Report to the Auditor-General's Annual Report for the year ending 30 June 2015.

Shared Services processes over 100,000 employee pays every fortnight. Of these, 99.76 per cent were processed without error in 2015-16. Shared Services also successfully lodged 77 sets of financial statements in 2014-15, all within the prescribed time frames. Over 2,388,000 invoices have been processed this year, with 95.2 per cent of them paid within 30 days, and over 517,000 invoices have been raised this year, with 99.98 per cent raised without error.

In terms of customer satisfaction, a customer satisfaction rating of 65 per cent was achieved during 2015-16. It recently completed an Australian Shared Services Association benchmarking exercise, and when compared with other Australian federal, state and local government jurisdictions that took part, Shared Services had, compared to the other participants, the lowest process cost per invoice and the second lowest process cost per payslip.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am not sure if I have asked this question. I do not think I have. What caused the delay in the implementation of the e-Procurement System across SA Health? It is referred to on page 168, about 0.5 on that page.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The only information I have about that, and you might care to ask the health minister more about this, is that it was completed in August 2015, the rollout, and over a 15-month period Health's payment performance has improved from 78 per cent paid within 30 days to now sitting at 92 per cent paid within 30 days.

Ms CHAPMAN: Can I just clarify this? The roles that Shared Services provide in the corporate and business services, does it apply now to all government departments, because initially there were some that were holding back and were given, I suppose, a note to the teacher that they did not have to go through them. I think one of them was Health at the time.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think it is best to give you a breakdown of that. Overwhelmingly the answer is yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Perhaps which ones are not in it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is what we need to ascertain for you. Tourism Commission, I am given as an example; Courts. There will be odds and sods here and there that are not in that.

Ms CHAPMAN: So perhaps if the representative on the committee could provide us with a list of any agencies or parts, that is services of certain agencies, that are not provided by Shared Services SA, and if there is an expiry on the exemption which they have been granted, if that could also be provided. I would also be keen to know whether the Department of the Premier and Cabinet uses the services of Shared Services SA. If that could be on the record.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that DPC does use—

Ms CHAPMAN: And that the list will be provided?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, I have asked. Formally, for the record, I invite the officers to assist the member for Bragg with that material.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you, sir. Thank you, members.

The CHAIR: I declare the examination of the proposed payments be completed and we will now move on to Consumer and Business Services.