Electoral Commission of South Australia, $17,332,000

Administered Items for the Electoral Commission of South Australia, $456,000

Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $260,146,000

Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $1,976,000

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 M. Sherry, Electoral Commissioner, Electoral Commission of South Australia.

Mr D. Gully, Deputy Electoral Commissioner, Electoral Commission of South Australia.

Mr I. Clayfield, Chief Financial Officer, Electoral Commission of South Australia.

Mr S. Froude, Director, State Records of South Australia.

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

The CHAIR: I declare the proposed payments open for examination. I refer members to Agency Statements, Volumes 2 and 3.

Ms CHAPMAN: The member for Finniss has some general omnibus questions to ask and I request that he be able to do that now.

The CHAIR: Yes, member for Finniss.

Mr PENGILLY: Delighted to make a contribution, sir.

1. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors above $10,000 in 2016-17 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 2016-17 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 2017-18?

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 2015-16 and 2016-17.

4. For each agency for which the minister has responsibility:

(a) How many FTEs were employed to provide communication and promotion activities in 2016-17 and what was their employment expense?

(b) How many FTEs are budgeted to provide communication and promotion activities in 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, and what is their estimated employment expense?

(c) The total cost of government-paid advertising, including campaigns, across all mediums, in 2016-17, and budgeted cost for 2017-18.

5. For each agency for which the minister has responsibility:

(a) What was the cost of electricity in 2016-17?

(b) What is the budgeted cost of electricity in 2017-18?

(c) What is the provisioned cost of electricity 2018-19, 2019-20 and, 2020-21?

6. For each grant program or fund the minister is responsible for please provide the following information for the 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 financial years:

(a) Balance of the grant program or fund;

(b) Budgeted (or actual) expenditure from the program or fund;

(c) Budgeted (or actual) payments into the program or fund;

(d) Carryovers into or from the program or fund; and

(e) Details, including the value and beneficiary, of any commitments already made to be funded from the program or fund.

The CHAIR: Thank you, member for Finniss. Welcome to your new advisers, Attorney. Do you have an opening statement regarding the Electoral Commission or State Records?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. I am joined now by the Electoral Commissioner, the Deputy Electoral Commissioner and the Director of State Records. It is nice to be with you.

The CHAIR: Once again. Member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you. I will be referring to page 41 (I think that commences on page 39), pages 42 and 46 and, in general terms, the electoral services on page 44. In respect of the Electoral District Boundaries Commission in the 2016-17 financial year, what were the total costs of undertaking that exercise?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: For 2016-17, I am advised that it was only $170,000.

Ms CHAPMAN: And in the preceding year?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: 290.

Ms CHAPMAN: Of the costs in respect of the 2016-17 year, were there legal costs in respect of the Full Court appeal? None? Were there any costs in respect of the $170,000 allocated in respect of the Full Court appeal?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No.

Ms CHAPMAN: Was there any exercise done to identify the costs of personnel to provide instructions to provide information to the Full Court of the Supreme Court? We are still on the Electoral Commission.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the commission did not choose to be represented in those proceedings. However, the Chief Justice suggested that counsel assisting the commission attend those proceedings, which apparently occurred. Counsel assisting was there for a day and a half. I have tried to ascertain what cost, if any, is specifically associated with that. The answer is that I do not have that information now, but I will get it.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is this an exception to the usual arrangement where the agency instructs the parties to appear, or would it be just a cost that is absorbed in the Crown Solicitor's Office?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will have to check.

Ms CHAPMAN: Find that out, regarding either administrative and/or legal costs for the attendants.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think the point that was made to me, and I am happy to be corrected if I am missing it, is that this was not because the Electoral Commission sought to be engaged in the exercise but because the Chief Justice suggested that they be present.

Ms CHAPMAN: I think that 'requested their attendance to be of assistance if required' would be one way of describing it. I am not being critical of the attendance; I just want to know what the actual cost was and whether it came out of this budget.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will have to check.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is there a budget for the Electoral District Boundaries Commission cost to be undertaken in the forward estimates? There will be another one due after the 2018 election.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is the second year after the election, if my recollection is correct.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes; so that is in the forward estimates?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is in the forward estimates, yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: My question is: how much is budgeted for the Electoral District Boundaries Commission in the forward estimates, the next one?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will check that for you.

Ms CHAPMAN: You will take it on notice, thank you. There are some recommendations that were made by Ms Mousley in a report post the 2014 election, some of which have been taken up in respect of legislation which we passed through the parliament. However, one of the matters dealt with this question of misleading or deceptive conduct and advertising and the like, for which she made certain recommendations. Is there anything in this budget to make provision for any other changes in respect of that area? I know that you and I are about to see some MP coming from London who wants our advice on this.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not believe there is anything specifically associated with that.

Ms CHAPMAN: Are you proposing to make any amendments?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will check, but I do not believe there is. This is one of those matters where, as I think the member for Bragg will recall, it was a legitimate matter which people of goodwill could come to different opinions about.

Ms CHAPMAN: The former electoral commissioner, you mean?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: And possibly even you. Not all the recommendations of the former commissioner have been taken up and, if I remember correctly, this is one of them that has not been taken up.

Ms CHAPMAN: In any event, it is not on the horizon? There is no budget for it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Again, I will find out.

Ms CHAPMAN: One of the recommendations would have been to relieve the Electoral Commissioner, whoever that was, in future elections from having to make these decisions at very short notice during election campaigns, but that would require someone to arbitrate it and therefore would, presumably, be a cost to some other agency.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not think there is anything for that, but I will check.

Ms CHAPMAN: In relation to the elections that the Electoral Commission undertakes—other than the state election, of course, which is dear to our hearts—a number are listed on page 47. There is obviously the APY Executive Board and some other elections that occur in the APY lands, as is well known, and there are some other boards, like the South Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Board and the Architectural Practice Board. However, the Electoral Commission also undertakes other work for elections, including unions. How many unions did it undertake elections for in the 2016-17 year, and who were they?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that is the federal Electoral Commission and not the state Electoral Commission.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, none in South Australia?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: None.

Ms CHAPMAN: In respect of the 2017-18 financial year, are there any proposed elections apart from the state election?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will get that checked, but the only likely thing would be if somebody resigned or died then a local government supplementary election might be necessary somewhere.

Ms CHAPMAN: In respect of that, how much is budgeted for the local government elections for the 2018-19 year?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that they are not budgeted for because they are a cost-recovery exercise, so whatever it costs, councils pay.

Ms CHAPMAN: How much did they pay you to do it last time? Not you personally, Attorney-General, but the Electoral Commission.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the last one cost $4.798 million.

Ms CHAPMAN: And how much is budgeted for the state election in the 2017-18 year?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The budget for 2017-18 is 11.651, which is an increase of 1.1.

Ms CHAPMAN: And public funding?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that there is a contingency of around $5 million but you might want to check with Treasury exactly how that is recorded.

Ms CHAPMAN: In Treasury?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: The activity status of the number of commercial services provided for client organisations was three in the 2016-17 year. Is that the three boards I have referred to or is that something else?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised, yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: And who are the two that are proposed for 2017-18? I think you indicated, Attorney, that we have the state election, obviously, which is not covered by that, and possibly a vacancy in local government, but who are the two that are projected for 2017-18?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We will find out who they are.

Ms CHAPMAN: In relation to records, on pages 51 and 52, the 2017-18 targets propose the development of an electronic system re the lodgement of freedom of information applications. When will that be completed? I am very interested in this answer.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that an electronic application form has been developed to enable online lodgement and payments for FOI. The online form is in the final stage of testing and is expected to go live for selected state government agencies from October this year. The online form offers—

Ms CHAPMAN: Does that include your agency?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will have to check whether we are one of the agencies. We are.

Ms CHAPMAN: Can you provide a list of who they are?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We are.

Ms CHAPMAN: You are—State Records or—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Attorney-General's Department.

Ms CHAPMAN: Attorney-General's Department, yes. The rest you will provide.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. The online form offers an additional channel through which members of the public can seek access to or amendment of documents through the Freedom of Information Act. We expect that this will simplify the FOI process for members of the public. There is no additional cost for the development of the online form as costs have been absorbed by AGD.

Ms CHAPMAN: Are you paying for all agencies or just your own department?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We are paying for ourselves. It is just the form development we have paid for.

Ms CHAPMAN: What I meant was, the ongoing cost of the electronic operation—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That would be a matter for each agency to—

Ms CHAPMAN: —is billed to each agency?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We will check.

Ms CHAPMAN: It surely would not be a situation where all the material comes into the Attorney-General's Department from each of the agencies.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I should not think so, but we will check.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you. State Records of ministers, the privacy regime: is the Attorney-General proposing any privacy laws, including the provision of a remedy and tort for breach of privacy in the 2017-18 year?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is a matter that is still under consideration.

Ms CHAPMAN: You only have eight sitting weeks left, I think, Attorney.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, I know.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am doing everything I can to make sure you are not here next year.

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

Ms CHAPMAN: You have eight weeks.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Perhaps we can—

Ms CHAPMAN: It is still under consideration, okay.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —resolve this. If I am here next year I will do my darndest to do it; if I cannot do it in the next eight weeks and if I am not here perhaps the member for Bragg could take it up.

Ms CHAPMAN: How many premises for the storage of records does State Records currently administer?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Two.

Ms CHAPMAN: Where are they?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Collinswood and Gepps Cross.

Ms CHAPMAN: Any other planned facilities?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No additional facilities at this stage.

Ms CHAPMAN: The vexed email storage question—obviously in light of, I think, the demise of one or possibly two ministers in Queensland in the last week or so for not using their work email facilities and using private emails for the purpose of conveying government business. What moneys have been allocated in the last financial year and this financial year to make sure that people who are obliged to keep state records are in fact not using their private emails? Mr Lander recommended a couple of years ago that some work be done on this. I am assuming it is happening.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, this does remind me a little of—there is a bit of deja vu here of question time that is sort of coming back to me. Can we just take as read all of the answers that have been given repeatedly about the Premier giving directions and other things? Members will be aware of all of that so I will not repeat it all.

However, in particular with respect to State Records, they are conducting a landscape review to gain a better understanding of the maturity of the practices and requirements of agencies in relation to the management of digital records. They will be in the process, over the next year or two, of developing a digital continuity strategy which sets the long-term direction for agencies in terms of the management of digital records, and the development of a business case for the implementation of a digital archive technology.

The digital archive would enable State Records to capture, preserve and provide access to those digital records that have enduring historical and social value whilst reducing the risk of technological obsolescence. Importantly, the archive would also enable instant online access to archival material for the broader community, which is obviously a lot more accessible than the physical format in which things are presently held.

As to the question of compliance by individuals, that is a matter of people complying with the directions that they are required to comply with in terms of what they use to communicate government business. I think the direction has been clearly given and has been for some time, and people who ignore that are doing so contrary to fairly clearly expressed government intention. I think the Premier has said as much several times in the parliament.

Ms CHAPMAN: What does State Records do in its operations to audit that? I appreciate there have always been reviews for a long time now in relation to how we manage the amount of data that needs to be stored for posterity, etc., but what does the State Records department do in respect of the auditing to make sure that it has collected everything and/or that state agencies or employees have complied with their obligations to provide that information?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Perhaps, Simon, if you just say that directly.

Mr FROUDE: I would be happy to. Under the State Records Act, State Records has the ability to survey agencies on their record keeping practices. As part of that we have done significant surveys of government agencies back in 2010 and 2014. The aim of both of those processes was to actually identify areas where agencies need to work on and then assist them to progress their record keeping practices. State Records also uses that clause within the legislation to undertake ad hoc surveys of agencies where issues of their record keeping has come to our attention. The aim of all of those is to help them improve their record keeping practices.

Ms CHAPMAN: In the reviews of 2010 and 2014, were there any agencies where there were identified lapses or failings in respect of full compliance?

Mr FROUDE: Yes, there were a number of agencies.

Ms CHAPMAN: You may not have them at your fingertips, but if you would please provide to the committee, through the Attorney-General, a list of those agencies? And are you satisfied that of those agencies, they are all now fully compliant?

Mr FROUDE: I am probably not in a position to say that. We would be looking at doing further surveys of agencies. We see this really as a platform for progressive improvement over time.

Ms CHAPMAN: Have you done any surveys since 2014?

Mr FROUDE: Not across government, no. We have done individual agencies through the course of our general practice.

Ms CHAPMAN: Your normal work. So which agencies have you done since 2014?

Mr FROUDE: In terms of the ones that would spring to mind, we have done a couple of health agencies. The Lyell McEwin Hospital springs to mind. I can provide you with further details of the others we have done.

Ms CHAPMAN: And are you satisfied, of the ones you have done in those audits or surveys, that there is full compliance?

Mr FROUDE: When we go out to survey an agency on a particular matter what we will do is work with that agency on that matter and provide recommendations to them. We then follow up with them to make sure that those recommendations have been put in place. So again, it is about that progressive improvement for agencies.

Ms CHAPMAN: Are there any that are still progressing?

Mr FROUDE: Yes, I think generally speaking all agencies are trying to improve their record keeping practices.

Ms CHAPMAN: I understand what you think they might be doing, but of the agencies that you have reviewed since 2014, and you will give me a list of who they are, and of those that have completed the process—namely, you give advice, you identify issues, you work with them, you tick off or indicate they are not doing sufficient—if I could have an update in respect of the progress and/or completion satisfactorily of the inquiries in respect of each of those agencies? Thank you. I have no other questions.

The CHAIR: There being no further questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payment to the Electoral Commission of South Australia and the administered items for the Electoral Commission of South Australia be completed and the proposed payments for the Department of Premier and Cabinet and the administered items for the Department of Premier and Cabinet be adjourned until later today. We will break now for morning tea, until 11.45.

Sitting suspended 11:28 until 11:45.