Attorney-General's Department, $109,934,000

Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department, $51,535,000

Membership:

Mr Teague substituted for Hon. D.J. Speirs.

Minister:

Hon. A. Michaels, Minister for Small and Family Business, Minister for Consumer and Business Affairs, Minister for Arts.

Departmental Advisers:

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

Mr A. Swanson, Chief Financial Officer, Attorney-General's Department.

Mr D. Soulio, Commissioner, Consumer and Business Services.

Mr F. Stroud, Director, Regulation and Advice, Consumer and Business Services.

Mr D. Allison, Acting General Manager, Regulatory Services, Consumer and Business Services.

Mr S. Bedford, Manager, Finance, Governance and Reporting, Consumer and Business Services.

Mr S. Cole, Senior Regulatory Officer, Regulatory Services, Consumer and Business Services.

The CHAIR: Welcome. The portfolio is Consumer and Business Services. The minister appearing is the Minister for Consumer and Business Affairs. I declare the proposed payments open for examination. I call on the minister to make a statement, if she so wishes, and to introduce advisers. I call on the lead speaker for the opposition to make a statement, if the member wishes. I call on members for questions.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. We have had a shift in the people sitting around me. On my left we have the Commissioner for Consumer and Business Services, Mr Dini Soulio. On my right we have Ms Caroline Mealor, Chief Executive, AGD; and Mr Andrew Swanson, Chief Financial Officer, AGD. Behind me we have Mr Fraser Stroud, Director, Regulation and Advice, CBS; Mr Damian Allison, Acting General Manager, Regulatory Services, CBS; Mr Sean Bedford, Manager, Finance, Governance and Reporting, CBS; and Mr Stuart Cole, Senior Regulatory Officer, Regulatory Services, CBS. I am happy to take questions.

Mr TEAGUE: I have no opening statement and will go to questions, if I may, Chair. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 48, Program 15. I will refer to Budget Paper 5, pages 11 and 13 in due course to touch on the mandatory fuel scheme and the motor trades at this time. To start with, in Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 48, regarding the program within AGD, subject to overall operating efficiencies that have been applied to the department, can the minister indicate the CBS share and any more particularisation around those operating efficiencies?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Obviously, all departments have had their target of operating efficiencies to be able to implement our election commitments, which were substantial, particularly in areas such as health and education. My chief executive, Ms Mealor, together with Mr Soulio, will be working through those efficiency dividends with regard to Consumer and Business Services. I think they both have it in hand to be able to do that. I have expressed my view that frontline services that effectively are provided by CBS are not taken away from in any way. I am confident that those services will not be impacted by these efficiency dividends.

Mr TEAGUE: So there is no quarantine, in other words, and no particularisation in relation to CBS share? There is program 15 share—

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: No. The chief executive is working through that at the moment in terms of how she intends to meet those saving targets.

Mr TEAGUE: Minister, just to be clear, in relation to the balance of the programs, I put the same question to the Attorney on Tuesday and received a similar sort of answer. You were clarifying that program 15 is no exception in that sense.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Correct.

Mr TEAGUE: I suppose, therefore, there is no light that might be shed, from your point of view in particular, on the particular ramp-up of those operating efficiencies over the course of the forward estimates?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: No. I do not have anything that I can add to that. I know the department is working on a variety of options in terms of saving on accommodation, rent, for example, and various other options that they are working through at the moment. I am sure they will come back to me with their suggestions.

Mr TEAGUE: In relation to operating income expenses and FTEs of the program more discretely, I am at page 49 now and I will refer to the table of income to start with. We see there fees, fines and penalties over 2020-21, 2021-22 and budget 2022-23. I would describe those as remarkably stable, remarkably consistent over the course of those years. They are around the $40 million mark. Perhaps a broader observation: if one turns to page 52, at about point 3 on the page we see the fees, fines and penalties for the whole of the department, and in 2022-23 that is running at $72 million; is that right?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: So in program 15, the CBS share of fees, fines and penalties for the department is the significant proportion, right?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Yes, that is right.

Mr TEAGUE: While we are there at page 52, is there anything remarkable to explain the difference between the 2021-22 budget and the estimated result on the one hand and the 2022-23 budget for fees, fines and penalties overall? You might not know because CBS is not seeming to change.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: In terms of CBS, I believe the changes are really indexation changes. That is really where that is at. Machinery of government changes have impacted on that as well, planning having gone from AGD.

Mr TEAGUE: In other words, CBS continues to be the lion's share of the fees, fines and penalties for the department, and that is not changing much over the course of any given period of time and on the face of this. What is interesting, and perhaps this is my question, is that the budgeted net cost of providing services, at the second to bottom line of that table, has jumped relatively significantly over the estimated result 2021-22 to 2022-23. That is fair, is it not?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: That is $5½ million or so. In the context of operating efficiencies, CBS is expected in a way, in terms of having to save on expenses, to undertake a significant contribution, therefore, to the overall picture for AGD. Is that the right way to read that? Is there any other contributor to expenses and change of expenses that is notable at that point?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Partly it is the carryover of funding that went into 2021-22. Mr Swanson might be able to explain that better than I can.

Mr SWANSON: Just under that table, the bottom paragraph refers to the decrease in expenses in the 2022-23 budget. It is mainly due to the carryover of funding into the previous year, which was one-off in terms of how the numbers are presented.

Mr TELFER: A carryover from 2020-21 into 2021-22?

Mr SWANSON: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: In that sense, the estimated result for 2021-22 is the outlier. If we step back, one can see that the results on the expenses side go back to the $12 million to $14 million range. So 2021-22 is an outlier, and that is for the reasons that Mr Swanson has just adverted.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: There are two or three line items in the expenses section—supplies and services and other expenses—that appear to be budgeted unusually low against the background of the previous years. Is there anything that might better explain or particularise reasons for that?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Partly, it is carryovers; partly, I think there were a couple of projects that were funded in 2021, including digitising births, deaths and marriages records, and the IT system was built and funded through the 2021-22 year.

Mr TELFER: Were those ones in the other expenses?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: In terms of where that money sat?

Mr TELFER: Previously.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: In supplies and services.

Mr TEAGUE: Supplies and services was lower in 2020-21, but it is coming back as a result of completion of the project?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Completion of that digitisation project and the IT software upgrades.

Mr TEAGUE: Just to characterise that net cost of provision of services, you agree, do you not, though, that it is a relatively substantial contribution to savings in and of itself year to year, regardless of how we got there?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Ms Mealor might want to make a comment about how large CBS is as a part of all AGD.

Ms MEALOR: CBS would be one of two or three of the larger business units across the department. Traditionally, AGD have split savings across the agency based on a consideration of the size, as in the FTE size of it, so on that basis, unfortunately, CBS is going to be one of the areas in the department that has a share of savings on the bigger side.

Mr TEAGUE: I guess, really, the proposition I am trying to make good through this is that, on the face of the budget—maybe I am sort of cheerleading for the commissioner at this point—without doing anything else, CBS is contributing substantially over and above last year's position. So there might be a reasonable argument for CBS to say, 'If you compare the ramping up of operating efficiencies over the forward estimates, the CBS change for this year is ranking second to 2025-26, is it not?'

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: From CBS's perspective, it is probably one of the very few agencies that makes money, so congratulations to the commissioner. I can say that, seeing the work the commissioner has done even when I was shadow, the broad range of the regulation that he needs to deal with from residential tenancies all the way through to liquor licensing and gambling, it is an extensive portfolio area that he needs to deal with, and he does it extraordinarily well with the resources he has.

Mr TEAGUE: In light of all of that, it would be eminently reasonable, would it not, for that to be the end of the operating efficiencies for CBS? Find the operating efficiencies elsewhere, in other words. Is there anything else that is, in a way, special from an operating efficiencies point of view that the minister would reflect on in light of CBS's special contribution—albeit via fees, fines and penalties—in relation to its appropriate position vis-a-vis operating efficiencies? Would you not argue, 'Give more resources to Consumer and Business Services'?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: In an ideal world, but we are dealing with our priorities, our election commitments. The commissioner does a fantastic job with what he has. I do not know if the commissioner wants to add anything, or the chief executive.

Ms MEALOR: I would only add that you highlight the challenge for the commissioner, and for me and Mr Swanson, and that is finding those savings, which we will find, but making sure that we are not affecting the delivery of services to the community or indeed the gathering of the revenue, which is an important part of the function.

Mr TEAGUE: If that is then the starting point on the financial picture, I just turn to a couple of more particular activities and then reference to highlights and targets. Minister, you have referred to the upgrade. I am at page 49, point 7 on the page, explanation, and then in the table at the bottom of that page. You have referred to the funding provided for the upgrade and replacement of CBS systems and the digitisation of historical files in births, deaths and marriages.

In the context of the table at the bottom, and particularly the bottom two lines, certificates issued within five days—it is really primarily that penultimate line—to what extent has the upgrade already helped? Is it making a difference and is there any anticipated ongoing improvement in terms of meeting targets resulting from those upgrades?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Those numbers, particularly in 2021-22, were impacted by COVID. You will know that printing of birth certificates and death certificates—you probably did the same tour I did of CBS—needs to be on that special paper. COVID impacted that in terms of there were a number people working from home for a period of that time, which made it difficult. The commissioner might want to add something, but that essentially is what that number was impacted by.

Mr TEAGUE: I hasten to add that I am not complaining about the 73 per cent figure. I am really focused on what the upgrades bring.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: You can answer that, please, Mr Soulio.

Mr SOULIO: The upgrades are still going through that process at the moment, so those projects are not complete. They have not been finalised yet. It is a rolling digitisation of records, going backwards in time. Certainly, that will speed up the process, because the records are digitised, rather than having to go through, I think it is microfiche and microfilm, to find things at the moment. It will certainly assist in doing that much more quickly now that they can be digitised. That process is ongoing but certainly making life easier to identify and find and produce those certificates, where people have asked for older certificates, particularly.

Mr TEAGUE: I am turning to other activities, back at page 48 and the first dot point in relation to CBS aims. Clearly, the primary aim of CBS is to ensure compliance with legislation relating to liquor licensing. I might refer at this point to the table over the page, at page 50, point 7 on the page, line 5, the number of inspections that have occurred. First of all, is there sufficient provision for compliance with responsible service of alcohol and other measures that might be the subject of inspections? In that context, is there an explanation for the relative disparity between the estimated result on inspections in 2021-22 and the projection for 2022-23?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: My understanding is that is largely COVID-related in terms of actual physical inspections. The commissioner might want to address that.

Mr SOULIO: Are you referring to the increase and the decrease in inspections? Is that what you are saying? Sorry, just to clarify the question in relation to the estimated result that is budgeted.

Mr TEAGUE: I am looking at the table that is talking about the number of liquor, gaming, casino and wagering inspections. In the activity indicators table: second half, 1,000 for 2021-22. They are all in round numbers, I might say. I presume that is not reflecting—

Mr SOULIO: That is projections. That is the estimate.

Mr TEAGUE: But with both the estimated and the actuals they are beautifully round.

Mr SOULIO: The projection we work on a round number to work out how close we are going to get. Rather than trying to project that we are going to do 2,527, for example, we say it is 2,500. In relation to the estimated result, that is an estimated result, that 1,000. We would have to come back to you with the exact figure as it may stand.

But certainly, we have had an issue through that period of a number of venues being closed and that issue of some of it being diverted from a COVID response compliance rather than purely field inspection work that was being undertaken, and also making sure that we focused on things where we were looking at, perhaps, casino work rather than spending time in pubs and clubs during this COVID period where they were down on numbers. Certainly, we had officers who were conducting inspections; we had to divert some of those during the COVID shutdown periods and things like that.

Mr TEAGUE: Nonetheless, it is a significant reduction on the actual for 2021, and one might think on the surface that 2021 was similarly, if not more, COVID-affected. The projection is nonetheless a consistent projection from year to year. In terms of understanding both the actual for 2021 and the estimated for 2021-22, they are more and less affected by COVID; is that the key standout explanation for it?

Mr SOULIO: That is part of it. What we have also done through that time is go through a significant restructure of that area. We have brought on a new director and assistant director sitting over that area who have conducted a review of the operations and then have gone through a significant restructure of that team. That happened during that year. So while we were going through that transition, we were down on numbers, recruiting for new positions to deliver a new inspection and compliance enforcement model. That had an impact on our ability to conduct those field inspections.

So while we had a high-risk targeted approach to those inspections ongoing, we were in a period of what I would call transition in relation to a more rigorous compliance enforcement model, particularly in relation to the Casino and gambling. That required that lull while we did that transition. We now anticipate being back to those numbers that we had anticipated previously—and where we should be, and where I have always wanted to be—but with the right people in the right roles to carry that out. That is why we have maintained the projection at that higher rate level because that is where I want us to be and we have now built the model structure resourcing to be able to do that.

Mr TEAGUE: And it remains a valid benchmark and it remains a valid indicator, does it, of activity?

Mr SOULIO: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: Minister, in terms of resources that were made available to CBS for that important work, are you satisfied that there is sufficient capacity for CBS, resource-wise, to meet those projections or targets on inspection site?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Yes, I am advised that that is, in fact, quite achievable. That restructure happened in the time of the former government, so I think we are happy with those figures.

Mr SOULIO: And ready to go.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: And ready to go, yes.

Mr TEAGUE: Moving just a little bit further down the same activity indicator table to the number of liquor licence applications, the note on that line being that it includes transfer and variation applications. I wonder, is it convenient at that point to separate those out, in terms of how many new ones, to give a picture on licence issuance?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Between applications and transfers?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: We can take that on notice and come back to you.

Mr TEAGUE: Given that there is that combination, how would you describe the nature of activity? In the face of it we have a table indicating through COVID a substantial increase from 2020-21 through the estimated result in 2021-22 across those categories. Is there a clear explanation, COVID-related or not, for that increase?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I would anticipate that it is a rebounding of confidence. The year 2020-21 was a difficult one, obviously, for hospitality, and I think there was probably a level of confidence in what is now the current financial year. Most of late last year people were really quite positive and going out to venues, and things like that. That probably helped with the increase in applications. I do not know if the commissioner has any more information on that.

Mr SOULIO: With a number of these measures we can only deal with what comes through the door, I suppose, from that point of view. As to what was going on in the market, it is not something we would necessarily read, but the feedback I have had from industry is that there has been an increase in applications to transfer and a number of acquisitions in relations to hotels, more recently, that suggests there is some level of confidence in the industry at the moment.

Mr TEAGUE: Without the detailed particulars, is there any anecdotal sense that this has been dominated by transfers, or that they are all new, or is it the usual mixture over the course of those years? Is it a usual mixture of all those categories?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Commissioner, are you able to take that on notice?

Mr SOULIO: I will have to take that on notice.

Mr TEAGUE: A question in terms of the reform context: given the time since the Anderson review, which has now found its way into relevant legislation and regulations, are we now in an environment that is enabling the commissioner to realise the intent of the reforms, given that we now have these new and condensed categories of liquor licences and, importantly, the removal of the needs test? What kind of concerns, if any, exist in relation to anti-competitive and community harm provisions? Are they strong enough, or is there a need to do more in that area, and is there a need to resource the commissioner accordingly?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: The commissioner can answer the question as to how those relatively new categories are progressing.

Mr SOULIO: We have certainly seen an influx of applications for packaged liquor outlets, takeaway bottle shop type venues, and there was a shift away from a needs test, as you point out, to a community impact assessment through that process. I have considered a number of applications under that new model that was introduced following the Anderson review.

I will not go into too much detail, because a number of those are now subject to appeals to the Licensing Court following my refusal of those applications. We have certainly seen an influx of those sorts of applications, particularly by larger retailers looking to open more bottle shops. The rest have been stable.

The Anderson review removed a special circumstances licence category, so a number of venues who may have previously fitted into that category may now be looking for a general and hotel, which also requires a more stringent application process. It has had an impact on the ability for those venues to apply for licences, but we are certainly accommodating those, but the main category of significant applications has been those packaged liquor outlets and takeaway bottle shops, and a number of those have been refused on community interest grounds.

Mr TEAGUE: Staying with the liquor licensing side just for one further moment. The next line in the activity indicators table deals with the number of short-term liquor licence applications, previously the limited liquor licences. Is there anything, minister, that can be gleaned from the change? They, on the other hand, appear to be steady over the course of the last two years as is the projection for this year. Is it best characterised an activity measure? Is it expected therefore to be consistent? Is there anything the commissioner might have to add about that?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: As the commissioner says, the events are still happening, weddings are still happening, events are still happening, birthday parties are still happening, so that is the consistency that we are seeing through those numbers.

Mr TEAGUE: In relation then to the next line of the activity indicators, the number of gaming, casino and wagering applications, another story is told on the face of those figures, through both the projection 2021-22, the estimated result 2021-22, which is an outlier, and then the really quite significantly adjusted projection for 2022-23. Is there any particular reason for the combination of those outcomes and projections?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: There is a correction on those numbers that you are looking at, so I will give you the new numbers, and I will get the commissioner perhaps to explain. The 2022-23 projection for gaming, casino and wagering applications is 950. The estimated result is 993 and the projection is still 300. The 2020-21 actuals are 1,352, and I will ask the commissioner to explain that variance.

Mr TEAGUE: Minister, I apologise, I am probably the slowest one in the room, but did you say the projection for 2022-23—

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Is 950.

Mr TEAGUE: That is 950, so that is a straight-out error?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: So not 550, but 950.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: And then we go over to 993—

Mr TEAGUE: Estimated at 2021-22—

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: So 993 is the figure.

Mr TEAGUE: I can understand the typographical nature of one error perhaps, but I would be interested to know if there is any explanation for this particular error. However, I will wait for that.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I have had this explained to me several times, and I think I will allow the commissioner to explain that.

Mr TEAGUE: The 2021-22 projection?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Is the same: 300.

Mr TEAGUE: Right.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: And the 2020-21 actual is 1,352. I will allow the commissioner to explain that for you.

Mr TELFER: It has changed those numbers a fair bit.

Mr SOULIO: Sure.

Mr TEAGUE: That might have changed all of my preparation for this session.

Mr SOULIO: You also might want to take back all of the praise you gave me at the beginning of the meeting. You might want to come back now and we might revisit that.

Mr TEAGUE: I maintain it; I do not withdraw for a moment.

Mr SOULIO: Thank you. What has happened, as has been explained, is that there has basically been a human error in relation to a carryover of previous numbers from a previous estimates pack in relation to the activity indicators, so the wording of it is the 2020-21 figure had not been updated from the estimated result from 2021, if that makes sense. The 2021 result had been incorrectly calculated.

So we have two errors going on here: one is a human error to incorrectly calculate the 2021 figure and then to carry it across. It has then been carried across into the actual result for 2021 in this document. I am happy to take any questions that you want to put on notice later, knowing the new numbers now, if you want to propose any other questions, but certainly those numbers were significantly different from what was reported in that document.

There is some concern in relation to that. So we will be making sure that next year's estimates are corrected and reflect that, and there will be a note to explain all of this, but certainly those numbers are significantly different from that.

Mr TEAGUE: In light of that, and endeavouring to then adjust for those changes, why then was the projection 300 for 2021-22? That now appears to be the big outlier.

Mr TELFER: Because they made the mistake in the 2021.

Mr SOULIO: So the projection in 2021-22 was reflective of what we thought was 2021.

Mr TEAGUE: Only on the formula?

Mr SOULIO: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: So the projection in 2021-22 is kind of meaningless in this context?

Mr SOULIO: That is right, it should have been closer to a thousand.

Mr TEAGUE: Is the result that what we have seen over those years is in fact, apart from being more consistent, a marginal decline in the number of such applications, albeit over all categories?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Marginal, but yes.

Mr TEAGUE: I understand you have taken on notice the more particular reasons for the decline, such as it is, and I certainly welcome any further explanation from the commissioner about that.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I can also inform you that there was a 26 per cent decrease in TAB applications as well: 188 in 2021 compared with 135 in 2022, so that impacted it as well.

Mr TEAGUE: Dare I ask about the next line?

Mr SOULIO: You can, we have a similar story to tell you.

Mr TEAGUE: So the charity and lottery licence applications are not similarly affected?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: No, those figures are correct.

Mr TEAGUE: So we have an isolated line that is affected by the errors the commissioner has described and we can—

Mr TELFER: Can I clarify: in the activity indicators is that the only line which we have highlighted?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: The liquor licence application figure is 3,000 for the 2023 projection, 3,081 for the estimated result for 2021-22 and the actual figure for 2021 is 3,609. I think it is the same logic as to why that happened. There is one other line, new occupational licence applications: the correct figures are 7,500 for the 2022-23 projection, estimated is 7,338 and the actual for 2021 is 7,616.

Mr TEAGUE: I wonder in the circumstances, minister, whether it would be possible and convenient to reproduce the activity indicators table, perhaps marked up to indicate the changes and the correct figures so that we can identify then by reference to that what we have talked about just now.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: We can do that in our response to your questions, yes.

Mr TELFER: It would have been nice to know these numbers before you started unpacking the activity indicators.

Mr TEAGUE: I am out of time, but I want to ask one question about the performance indicators before going very briefly to the mandatory fuel price transparency scheme. Performance indicators, same page 50, at about point 3 or 4 on the page. Towards the bottom of the performance indicators table we have 'percentage of consumer disputes finalised were escalated within 30 working days'.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: We have consistent targets, year to year, and we are seeing a similar underperformance to target in relation to each of those years. Is there a need for more resources, or is there a particular difficulty that is leading to that being a notable departure from target?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Again, I think the dreaded COVID is the reason for a lot of that, in terms of COVID restrictions and being able to have conciliation conferences. It has proven to be more difficult trying to do that by teleconference.

Mr SOULIO: Certainly, that has been a concern in relation to the disputes resolved through the compulsory conciliation. When we do that process by telephone or videoconference it is just not as effective and successful as it is face-to-face, in trying to resolve disputes. In relation to the number of disputes escalated within 30 days, that can be much better. We have gone through a process of reviewing that process as well, on top of the compliance enforcement process I spoke about earlier, to look at ways of improving that. We are now seeing the fruits of that, but it has taken a bit of time to implement the new operating model.

Mr TEAGUE: In both respects, those two performance indicators speak directly to the bottom two lines of the activity indicators, in that that is showing as number of cases in absolute terms; that is the case load.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: In the remaining minutes, I turn to the continuation of the mandatory fuel price transparency scheme, which is listed at dot point 3 on page 48 as one of the targets for 2022-23, the implementation of the continuation of the scheme. My interest, or my focus, is particularly on page 11 of part 5, where we see that the 2022-23 budget for that implementation is relatively modest compared to the subsequent years of the forward estimates. Is there a particular reason for that escalation and then what appears to be indexed over the remainder?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: The trial runs out in March 2023, so that is the balance from March through to June for this continuation.

Mr TEAGUE: So in other words—

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: The money is there for the trial period and this is starting the permanent scheme. Essentially, that money starts from March 2023 and goes through to June 2023. It is only a part of the year.

Mr TEAGUE: So the burden on the 2022-23 budget is simply—$400,000 or so is already there from the previous year.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: And the rest, as is set out in the paragraph below, is simply the result of indexation.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Yes, the increases year on year are indexation.

Mr TEAGUE: What proportion of that budget allocation for each year is occupied by the one full-time equivalent? Does that represent one member of staff, or how is that made up?

Mr SOULIO: We are about to go through a procurement process for the extension of that, so I am not really able to give too much information about the discrepancy. We have one person who is dedicated to doing that, but there are a number of staff who contribute to that through the inspection processes and other work in that space.

So there is one staff dedicated to doing that work, and there will be other staff who are involved in the inspections as well. However, I am not able to give the breakdown because of the procurement process we are about to go through. If I give you the breakdown of staff, you are then going to have to work out what that means for the actual service position, if that makes sense.

Mr TEAGUE: So it is a capacity provision, but it may well be that it is split between—

Mr SOULIO: More individuals.

Mr TEAGUE: In other words, it is not a single subject matter expert who is being brought in to do one and all. How much of that therefore, that one FTE, whether one person or more, is then taking up the budget allocation, or is that not yet determined?

Mr SOULIO: No, we have not quite determined that. Again, I have to be careful about saying what is left over because that will then describe what the procurement money available for the service to be provided would be, if that makes sense. If I go into the specifics of how much it would cost to run it, it would then tell you how much it cost.

The CHAIR: With that question, and you have had a response, it is actually 3.15. I will be so generous, I will give you just a very quick one.

Mr TEAGUE: We are so generously hosted by the Legislative Council for these purposes, and I am relying on the technology of the council.

The CHAIR: I rely on something far more accurate.

Mr TEAGUE: Is it kind of The Ministry of Silly Walks in the sense that, if there were more funding available, more would be able to be achieved? Or is it actually identified, boxed and diced and we know what it takes to operate what appears to have been a very successful initiative going forward?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I think the education program, from when it was initiated in March 2021, dealt with a lot of the problems in terms of fuel retailers reporting accurately. There were a number of warning letters that went out and a number of fines issued. I think people are now fairly well on track, particularly larger fuel suppliers. My understanding is their software is automatically talking to the fuel aggregator. In terms of compliance, those resources are adequate, particularly given that we have had the trial. People are used to using the system.

The CHAIR: Thank you, minister. Given the allotted time has now expired, I declare the examination of the portfolio of Consumer and Business Services completed. I would like to thank all the public servants who have made a contribution to this process. We know there is a lot of background work that goes into this, and we know that a significant proportion of that work never sees the light of day in this committee. One day, we will reform these processes so that they are more effective and more efficient and we do not have a Chair having to do five days of this.

Sitting suspended from 15:17 to 15:30.