Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $508,394,000

Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $27,324,000

Attorney-General's Department, $155,240,000

Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department, $90,903,000

Membership:

Ms Pratt substituted for Mr Telfer.

Minister:

Hon. K.J. Maher, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State.

Departmental Advisers:

Ms E. Ranieri, Commissioner for Public Sector Employment.

Mr S. Johnson, Director, Enterprise Bargaining, Industrial Relations and Policy, Department of Treasury and Finance.

Ms C. Hodgetts, Director, Finance and Procurement, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Ms J. Barbaro, Director, Workforce Integrity, Strategy and Capability, Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment.

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

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

The ACTING CHAIR: We are now up to the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment. We are still with the Attorney-General in his capacity as the Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, also Industrial Relations and Policy. I declare the proposed payments open for examination. I call on the Attorney to make a statement, if he wishes, and then to introduce his new advisers.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have a statement, but I will happily introduce those who are up here with me. To my right is Erma Ranieri, the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment. To my left is Simon Johnson from the Industrial Relations and Policy Branch of government, and to Simon's left is Claire Hodgetts, Director, Finance and Procurement. Behind us we have Josie Barbaro, Director, Workforce Integrity, Strategy and Capability, Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment. In the cheap seats in the very back row are Caroline Mealor and, for the 27^th time, Andrew Swanson of the Attorney-General's Department.

The ACTING CHAIR: Would the committee like to do it in the order expressed, so go to DPC first and then AGD in the first half an hour of the committee?

Mr TEAGUE: I am regarding myself as bound by the allocations within the broader picture.

The ACTING CHAIR: So 1.15pm to 1.45pm we have the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment and Industrial Relations and Policy, so I suggest you go to the first one first. Just be mindful that both of those things are in the first half an hour of the session.

Mr TEAGUE: If there is a change at the half hour mark, I will be clear about that.

The ACTING CHAIR: I invite you to make a statement, if you wish, as well.

Mr TEAGUE: Just questions, thanks, Chair. Starting with the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment, Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, Program 5: Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment (within DPC), page 23, and I might have cause to turn over the page, including by reference to the employee survey at page 25, but mainly focused on the highlights and targets at page 23.

There is a discrete question in relation to the penultimate dot point, which is the coordination of the governance and implementation of the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Strategy, Anti-Racism Strategy, and the Safety, Wellbeing and Injury Management Framework. The DEI strategy refers, helpfully in this context, to implementing a target for disability employment in the public sector of 3 per cent, which I think would be well known.

Given the recommendations, including specific and disaggregated targets and new public sector employment hires target/merit principle, can the minister advise, perhaps with the assistance of the commissioner, whether the 3 per cent target is still on track to be met by 2026, as I think the minister might have advised the parliament as recently as last year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Thank you for the question. The strategy introduced a target of 3 per cent employment right across the public sector by December 2026, which aims to more than double the current employment data. I can inform the member that the public sector workforce data reported that 1,584 employees disclosed that they live with a disability in June 2024 (1.34 per cent).

It is important to note that the data collected in the 2024 People Matter Employment Survey, however, indicated that the public sector is significantly ahead of what is reported in those targets, that is, those who have disclosed that they live with a disability, so that self-reporting of just 1.3 per cent. The 2024 People Matter Employment Survey of the public sector indicates that 5.73 per cent of respondents disclosed a disability.

The data is only as good as people self-identify who report in the data. The workforce data report in June 2024 had 1.34 per cent of people having disclosed that they live with a disability; however, the 2024 People Matter Employee Survey had that figure of those who responded at 5.73 per cent.

Mr TEAGUE: So 5.73 per cent. Given that figure, in terms of that process or any other work, what work was done and/or continues to be done regarding how and when the target might be increased to a more ambitious target?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can go through some of the strategies and deliverables, in effect. There are 31 deliverables in the strategy, so I will not go through all of them, but perhaps provide a highlight: encouraging agencies to sign up to the We're Equal initiative of Equal Opportunity SA; establishing an award category for leadership and diversity inclusion as part of the Premier's Excellence Awards; enhancing recruitment outcomes for diversity groups with a review of policy and procedures; and 29 agencies in the public sector collectively employing over 100,000 staff have committed to renewing White Ribbon Australia workplace accreditation, recognising the important role workplaces play in preventing and responding to family and domestic violence as part of the overall strategy.

There are a number of areas that the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment is working on to do things that create the environment that will allow us to do better in our diversity of employment in this respect.

Mr TEAGUE: Bearing that in mind, and also bearing in mind the minister's expressed confidence at meeting the current target—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I might go back on that, just so that I am clear. I pointed out that the target of 3 per cent had the public sector workforce data at 1.34 per cent, but people have to self-identify as living with disability. We can contrast that with the People Matter Employment Survey, which had it at 5.7 per cent, so you could reasonably expect that the figure sits somewhere between the two, quite possibly. We are keen to get that 1.34 per cent of self-identified people disclosing much closer to 3 per cent. It is cause for optimism that the People Matter Employee Survey has it there, but we still want to lift that 1.3 figure to closer to 3 per cent.

That data is collected when someone first starts their employment in the public sector. If, on being employed, they do not disclose that they are living with a disability, then very often it is never updated. It is going to be a combination of better employment practice but also better record keeping, making sure that we are capturing as best we can if people are comfortable with their circumstances.

Mr TEAGUE: In terms of coherence, how is the 5.73 feeding into the 3 per cent, and in turn how is—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The figures we use are the public sector workforce data. That is derived from how people describe themselves when they first start work in the public sector. That is not where we are aiming at 3 per cent—that is 1.34 per cent—but by way of explanation, it is almost inevitable that there are people who are living with a disability but do not disclose that when they first come to work in the public sector. It gives some cause for optimism that in the People Matter Employee Survey, which last had about 2,300 respondents, 5.73 disclosed living with a disability. That survey is anonymous as well.

Mr TEAGUE: To then get around all of that, is there any work that has been undertaken to determine new pathways, measures, programs or supports that are going to enable the public sector to meet that target? Is there anything new that needs to be done, any work that is to be done to meet it? If so, what is the funding and staff allocation to those actions?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that one of the biggest factors is not what the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment themselves are doing in terms of recruitment but how they are helping agencies who do—

Mr TEAGUE: Of course.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: —all the recruiting that comes into the public sector, so enhancing recruitment processes for outcomes for diversity groups, a review of their policies and procedures. It is not five individuals in the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment who are going to make differences in these areas, it is the work that they do in helping out the line agencies which do all the hiring, understand recruitment outcomes—

Mr TEAGUE: What does that cost and how many of them are involved?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that there is a team of three people within the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment who do work particularly on recruitment and diversity with line agencies.

Mr TEAGUE: And the cost is to be extrapolated from?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have their exact title.

Mr TEAGUE: There is deployment of human resources towards that task?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, and of course then that does not take into account all the work that the agencies will do.

Mr TEAGUE: Of course. Has any work been done regarding the setting of a disability employment target that is specifically for new hires, beyond what we have just talked about?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I guess that goes to the very nature of giving advice on better recruitment practices.

Mr TEAGUE: We will go back to the highlights and targets and the first of the dot points under highlights. I think the balancing point, or the companion target, is the first of the dot points under targets. We have heard that those dot points are in no particular order of priority.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: They are not necessarily in order of priority, indeed.

Mr TEAGUE: But they happen to appear as the first mentioned on both fronts.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am not going to argue with you about how you see that.

Mr TEAGUE: It is clearly a highlight and a target. My question, perhaps by reference to one of the attached offices, is: did the Premier's Delivery Unit participate in the survey? In terms of the action plans in response to the survey results, are we going to see action plans including, by reference to attached offices, the Premier's Delivery Unit?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that each department gets results. It can be disaggregated into different parts of departments, but certainly given that it is intended to be anonymous—and necessarily needs to be to encourage answers as fully as possible—I am advised that if there is a unit within a department of fewer than 10 people, then it is not disaggregated and is counted as part of the department itself.

Mr TEAGUE: It just happens to be on the next page: the Premier's Delivery Unit is perhaps a good example of such a circumstance in that we see there that its budgeted FTE for 2024-25 was seven FTE and its estimated result was nine FTE, so under the 10. It has a budget of nine FTE for 2025-26. Am I to understand the minister's answer as saying that, yes, it would be expected that the staff of the Premier's Delivery Unit would participate in the survey and therefore benefit from the publication of its results and the action plans developed in response to those survey results, but, being under 10 FTE, ordinarily there would not be a disaggregation of that unit's response beyond the agency, beyond DPC?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that is correct.

Mr TEAGUE: The same would not so easily apply to the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment itself, having well in excess of 10 FTE.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That office tends to do pretty well in these surveys.

Mr TEAGUE: High levels of participation.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Nearly 100 per cent, and that is a big number.

Mr TEAGUE: In terms of the pitfalls and problems of disaggregation of small numbers, I have said that the office of the commissioner is not quite in the same category as the Premier's Delivery Unit, there being an estimated result in 2024-25 of 44 FTE.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: What page are we on?

Mr TEAGUE: Over the page, page 24. I did flag the possibility of turning the page, and here we are.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: You did. You were very good to flag that you might turn the page, and now you have turned the page like you said.

Mr TEAGUE: We are now on the final line of the one and only table on the following page, page 24. I think perhaps the reason I gave for turning the page was even to page 25, which reveals the cost of the survey, but we will get there if we do. Sort of unrelated to the survey specifically, the budget for the office of the commissioner had a budgeted FTE of 36 for 2024-25, which was a significant reduction of 15 FTEs from the previous actual. But that did not transpire, so you end up having still a reduction of actual from 2023-24 to estimated 2024-25 but only to 44, so budget to estimated is an FTE increase of eight. Is there a reason for that, and how is that best explained?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that is largely accounted for in things that the office does in addition to the commissioner's statutory responsibilities under the Public Sector Act that are done on a cost-recovery basis. I can go through a couple of those in a moment. They are things that the office does that are not part of their everyday business but they are asked to do, and they do so on a cost-recovery basis, so they receive income to employ more people to do those things.

I am advised there are increases in the FTE count for doing things such as the South Australian Leadership Academy course, run in conjunction with the Institute of Public Administration; systems such as myCareer and Gov SAfety across the government; and the South Australia public sector employee survey, which is on a fee-for-service basis in doing that. It includes other cost-recovery programs delivered in 2024-25 but not included in the 2025-26 budget, such as whole-of-government coordination for the White Ribbon workplace accreditation, anti-racism strategy, and actuarial valuations where fundings transferred from agencies is required. There is a range of things that the office does that are not part of their statutory responsibilities. They cost-recover and they have FTEs that go along with them, is my advice.

Mr TEAGUE: How do you mean they have FTEs that go along with them?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: When they cost-recover, they receive money for the services they provide and they employ FTEs to deliver those functions.

Mr TEAGUE: Because I was going to give you an out, which I think you probably then achieved when I heard you say that the survey was outsourced. It cost half a million to do it, but that was outsourced, so there is no FTE for that.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that some of the work of the survey itself might have been outsourced, but a lot of that work in terms of interpreting and providing the results to public sector agencies resulted, I am advised, in two to three FTEs in the office for that.

Mr TEAGUE: Am I right that that is done, and therefore those FTEs go away and you are sort of on the trajectory that this looks to be revealing, because it is there again in the budget for 2025-26?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: From time to time these things do come up—the White Ribbon accreditation across government, providing services for leadership courses. My advice is it is essentially like the base-level funding for the statutory responsibilities and then, as there are those cost-recovery projects, FTEs are often added as part of that.

Mr TEAGUE: I am looking to interpret the FTE trajectory. You have an actual FTE of 51 for 2023-24 with a budget heading back down to 36. The estimated result is still 44—on a trajectory to reduce, but not quite there—and then we see in 2025-26 the FTE budget is still on that downward trajectory—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Downward?

Mr TEAGUE: Downward from 51 actual in 2023-24 to estimated result 44, and then down for budget 2025-26. So it would appear to explain that the things that are the subject of one-off work go away, the FTE goes away, and the baseline trajectory is towards about 36 or 37.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is, in a sense, correct: that 36 and then an increase of 1.5 FTEs represents the baseline, the statutory functions of the office, and then the one-off work that keeps coming with different projects that come and finish and then new projects start. So that is the underlying statutory function of the office, but there is significant one-off work, different work, that comes in each year.

Mr TEAGUE: Are we to read that then as: the 2025-26 budget of 37.5 FTE is not likely to be the result because who knows what comes up?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Indeed—but it is impossible to estimate what it might be, not knowing what work on a fee-for-service basis is going to come in.

Mr TEAGUE: So that is one of the less helpful line items in the budget papers, in that sense.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Well, it is; it is those unknown unknowns. You do not know. Past performance is probably a predictor that you are going to have more FTEs for one-off work that comes in, but you do not know what that is, and it is very hard to try to make assumptions and forecast it.

Mr TEAGUE: One thing that I was meaning to ask: we mentioned the Premier's Delivery Unit which, while we are talking highlights and targets, is fantastic because it is a unit that is established to oversee things, and the highlights are all having overseen things and the targets are to oversee things. It is a full oversee. The staff within that unit, those nine, they all sign the code of ethics, do they not? They are all subject to the code of ethics in the same way as everyone else and the same way as they participate in the survey.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I assume so. As they are public sector employees, that would be a reasonable assumption.

Mr TEAGUE: We have a few minutes. I just want to refer to the program 13 matters within Industrial Relations.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Remarkable—this might be Mr Johnson's first estimates question. You have made his day because he was going to get docked a day's pay if he did not get questions. What are we doing?

Mr TEAGUE: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1. We are back to AGD now. I refer to Program 13: Industrial Relations—

The ACTING CHAIR: Which page?

Mr TEAGUE: Page 40, Sub-program 1: Industrial Relations. This is a question—it might be a couple of questions in the minutes remaining—in relation to the status of what is a fairly large number of enterprise agreements that are the subject of the first highlight, and more particularly the first dot point target for 2025-26, in that the continuation of negotiations and the providing of advice about public sector enterprise agreements is then a rather long list that might take me more than the remaining two minutes to read out, but it is there at page 41. How is that going, and do you anticipate that that list might be reduced and completed in an orderly way in the course of the year ahead?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think it is fair to say that you could anticipate that that list will reduce in an orderly way. As you have highlighted, the vast majority of public sector agreements are currently at various stages—some of them very early, some of them quite advanced—of negotiation. Teachers, for example, is not up in the very near future, but—

Mr TEAGUE: Sorry, I missed that: teachers is what?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Teachers is not up—

Mr TEAGUE: It is not up?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: —for negotiation, but the vast majority of public sector agencies, as I say, are in various stages of negotiation. Some of them are only just starting negotiation. Others are very well advanced, like the allied health professionals' agreement, for example, for allied health professionals and allied health assistants. I am advised that it is looking at commencing a ballot within the next week from the proposal that was put. Others are less well advanced, but we have made a commitment and we will continue to bargain and negotiate in good faith. There are regular meetings that occur between the IRAP section of government and public sector unions.

Mr TEAGUE: I think I have asked the Premier—

The ACTING CHAIR: The allotted time has expired. The examination of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment and Industrial Relations and Policy is complete. The examination of the proposed payments and Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet is adjourned until tomorrow; however, we are continuing with the examination of the proposed payments and Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department. I will wait for you to change your advisers, Attorney.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr M. Francis, Chief Executive Officer, ReturnToWorkSA.

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

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

Mr G. Farrell, Executive Director, ReturnToWorkSA.

Mr P. Caskey, Executive Leader, Finance and Investments, ReturnToWorkSA.

Mr B. Pfeffer, Director, Compliance and Enforcement, SafeWork SA.

Mr R. Templeton, Director, Workplace Education and Business Services, SafeWork SA.

Mr S. Johnson, Manager, Government Services and Stakeholder Engagement, ReturnToWorkSA.

Ms C. Phung, Senior Accountant, SafeWork SA.

The ACTING CHAIR: We are now moving to the portfolios of ReturnToWorkSA and SafeWork SA, with your hat on as the Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector. When you are ready, minister, the proposed payments will be open for examination.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: To introduce those who have joined us, to my right is Michael Francis, Chief Executive Officer, ReturnToWorkSA. To my left is Glenn Farrell, Executive Director, SafeWork SA. Behind me, we have Rob Templeton, Director, Workplace Education and Business Services, SafeWork SA; Brett Pfeffer, Director, Compliance and Enforcement, SafeWork SA; Paul Caskey, Executive Leader, Finance and Investments, ReturnToWorkSA; and, of course, once again from the Attorney-General's Department, Caroline Mealor and Andrew Swanson. I am Kyam Maher, the minister concerned.

The ACTING CHAIR: Welcome, thank you. No opening statement from you, minister, or you, member for Heysen?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No.

Mr TEAGUE: We will certainly call, though, Chair.

The ACTING CHAIR: Certainly, go ahead.

Mr TEAGUE: I might turn first to SafeWork SA. My primary reference point throughout is going to be Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 43, for the sub-program and its performance indicators. The SafeWork SA FTE budgeted for 2025-26 is 208.4; correct?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, that is what the budget paper, down the bottom of page 42, says.

Mr TEAGUE: How many of those roles are inspector roles? Is there anything in particular to be said about that in the context of what is a 10 FTE increase on budget last year and a 1.5 FTE increase on the estimated result from last year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that in terms of regulatory staff they include inspectors, including scientific and technical inspectors, senior advisers and specialist staff within a professional stream, 13 investigators, managers and team leaders, and that the number that would be incorporated within the estimated result for the 206.9, the FTEs for the regulatory staff, is an estimated result of 108.9. Then for the 2025-26 budget year, where it is budgeted for FTEs at 208.4, it is anticipated that it will be of regulatory staff.

I will go back: the budget year of 2024-25, the 198.1, it was budgeted for 119 regulatory staff and for the estimated result of 206, it is 108.9. Somewhere in the order of half of those are regulatory staff. My advice is that it has been a year-on-year increase since the last election where I think the number of the regulatory staff was very significantly less than what it is now.

Mr TEAGUE: Is there a forecast vacancy rate across SafeWork SA? If so, what is it?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is there is a current vacancy rate of 8 per cent, and that the ambition and forecast is to fill all the roles.

Mr TEAGUE: What is the budgeted cost of employment of SafeWork SA staff for 2025-26?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For 2025-26 for the 208.4 FTEs, what is the dollar amount associated with the 208.4?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will have to take that on notice. I will have to go away and come back and bring an answer back to that. We just do not have it here with us.

Mr TEAGUE: We are addressing regulatory staff overall, how many regional inspector positions are funded for 2025-26?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: So your question is: of the 208.4 budgeted for 2025-26, how many of those are the regulatory positions of which we have said over the last couple of years it has been about half? Is that your question?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, and how many are regional?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that it is somewhere in the order of 10.

Mr TEAGUE: And that has not changed substantially?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is: no.

Mr TEAGUE: What is the turnover rate for inspectors, not just regional but overall, over the last year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Just to check: is the question regarding the last 12 months?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Is it the regulatory staff or everyone? Do you want how many have left and how many have come in?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For regulatory or for everyone?

Mr TEAGUE: Regulatory is the focus; inspectors in particular.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Without doing some pretty quick mathematics, I am trying to compare a whole lot of different dot points. We might take that on notice and bring back an answer.

Mr TEAGUE: How many inspectors are classified as trainee, provisional or junior?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that, in total, there are about 40 staff who have completed their training and are in the phase of working with other officers to get further experience.

Mr TEAGUE: About 40?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: About 40. I am advised that there was an inspector development program in 2024 that had about half of those, and another one in 2025 that had about the other half of those.

Mr TEAGUE: Just to round out that inquiry, is there a guide that might be consistently applied in relation to the workload for each of them? Is it at any material variance regionally?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Do you mean like a thingamajig that has what is expected and a guide in different places, or is there—

Mr TEAGUE: Yes. Of each of them, and are we seeing regional variance in case load?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is—and I think this goes to the answer, but if it does not I am happy to have further questions—that in terms of case load it is a pretty even spread between those who work regionally and those who work in the metropolitan area. But if there are times when, in certain areas, there are decreases in the usual case load, then the officers do more proactive work rather than the reactive work of responding to reports or complaints. My advice is that it is reasonably even between regional and non-regional.

Mr TEAGUE: Do you have any idea of volume per?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We will have to take that on notice and get the detail.

Mr TEAGUE: Perhaps it might be helpful to have some reference more specifically to the activity indicators on page 43. We see there, in the first of the three criteria, a target number of compliance and enforcement visits. There is a note there that the minister might talk to. We see that it is not expressed in terms of a target but as a projection of 10,000, which is the same in 2024-25 and 2025-26.

That is at very significant variance for the actual for 2023-24 at 6,813. Nonetheless, and notwithstanding an estimated result for 2024-25 that is closer to that actual for 2023-24 at 7,500, it is increasing. It might perhaps be observed to increase in line with the additional FTE but still at considerable variance to a projection or target that has been maintained at the same level. What is the interaction between the target and the actual result, and is it anything other than just a shortfall to expected performance?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is the ambitious projections and targets in compliance and enforcement visits are expected to be closer to coming to fruition, as the inspectors, who have gone through their training and are in the early stages, start to be able to operate independently. So it is expected that the projections of 10,000 get much closer to being realised as those officers become able to function independently when there is that increase in compliance staff.

Mr TEAGUE: There is at least two years' worth of examples of a considerable shortfall of result compared to projection. Has that led to or in any event has there been concern raised to the minister or to the department or management in relation to the capacity for case loads applied to an individual's visits, and has that come from unions?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Unions put a whole range of concerns about how many things operate, including the regulator. But in terms of the compliance and enforcement visits, it is not something that has been complained about the case load or not being affected because there are too high case loads. Certainly, I think we went to extraordinarily low levels a few years ago in terms of the regulatory officers and we are now building up the numbers and the capacity again.

Mr TEAGUE: And I have differentiated out those who are working in a regional area. Particularly with regard to the regions, no expression of concern that has come to the minister's attention?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, I do not recall anyone expressing concern in relation to that.

Mr TEAGUE: There are two dynamics going on. One is the recruitment of additional FTE, then what I would describe as a relatively substantial proportion of those under training, and then the tertiary point being that they are, no doubt, all aware of what has been maintained as a target or projected level of visits that is well in excess of actually achieved levels of visits, so whether that combination of dynamics might be seen as something that could lead to concern, but none of that is—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Certainly, and in relation to that, no, I do not recall having had that expressed.

Mr TEAGUE: This might be something the minister could be assisted with: does the minister presently have confidence that site visits for serious issues are being completed, more or less covering the full gamut, or are there serious issues that really are not the subject of visits because of a lack of capacity?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that serious matters are responded to possibly more quickly than they might have been in the past and more thoroughly, but for serious matters my advice is they are responded to generally within one or two days. Unfortunately, we see regularly in the media very serious injuries happening at workplaces, so it is one of the primary functions of SafeWork to respond to those sorts of incidents.

Mr TEAGUE: I think I am perhaps most conveniently back at page 42, in terms of a reference to ask about advertising and communication. What is the budgeted cost of government advertising across all SafeWork SA platforms for 2025-26? You might be about to take that on notice.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am about to take it on notice. In terms of the breakdown of the education programs that SafeWork engages in I am happy to take it on notice, but do you want the strict advertising costs with media outlets or the broader costs of that education and information program?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can get that. In fact, rather than take it on notice this may be of some help. For the next financial year it is in the vicinity of $550,000 that broadly sits in the education space for SafeWork SA.

Mr TEAGUE: That might be contributing then. I asked that in the context of these visits for serious issues. In that context, where there is a substantial amount of money being spent, does that lead to the minister having confidence that all site visits are being completed, including specifically in relation to serious issues?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes. As I said, my advice was that for serious issues there is generally a site visit within one to two days, and often same-day service.

Mr TEAGUE: I am conscious that we do not want to leave ReturnToWork out in the cold entirely. There are a couple of questions for ReturnToWork.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The Industrial Relations and Policy Branch got their first question in three years, so I think ReturnToWork can get some of your attention now.

Mr TEAGUE: We are covering ourselves in glory here. In order to ask a couple of questions of ReturnToWorkSA, I will be resorting to Budget Paper 3, pages 77 and 78, but not a lot more specifically than that. We see there that the Return to Work Corporation of South Australia is a public financial corporation. At page 78, in the table describing the public financial corporations, the ReturnToWork Corporation of South Australia is described as having a steady number of FTEs at 321, which is the same as where it is presently as at 2025. I want to ask about the premium rate. What is the average premium rate for the 2025-26 period?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The average premium rate is 1.85 per cent. This is the third year it has held steady at 1.85 per cent. I can indicate that probably as important as the rate is the scheme's capacity to be sustainable. We are at a funding ratio now of 99 per cent—so almost a 100 per cent funding ratio—with a projection, if all goes well over the next year or so, to hit the 100 per cent funding ratio. I might just say that, when we came into government, the funding ratio was down to below 92 per cent. Once you hit 90 per cent, that is a level that triggers a review of the scheme in relation to how it is performing.

We have traversed early on in this term of government the issue of the Summerfield decision that was left completely unabated by the former Liberal government that had the scheme almost funded below what triggers a review. We have turned that around, and it is now funded, as I say, at 99 per cent, with an estimate to be funded at 100 per cent.

Mr TEAGUE: We were going so well.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: When we came to government, it was on a huge downward trajectory to fall below the 90 per cent.

Mr TEAGUE: We were going so well. I will move to the—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Well, you did ask about the premium.

Mr TEAGUE: I will go on. I presume, therefore, that you would describe the break-even premium rate as—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The average premium rate is different from the break-even premium. They are not the same thing.

Mr TEAGUE: No, they are not. The break-even premium rate has assumptions that underpin it, but you have been able to talk to the trajectory that we have been on at 1.85. So what are the assumptions, and are you satisfied that they are accurately feeding into then an accurate break-even premium rate?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There is an independent actuary, and I think for quite some time Finity has been the scheme's actuary. I think Finity probably do a lot of this actuarial work for schemes right around Australia. I have to say I am not going to pretend to understand how every one of the inputs work for the actuaries who understand this scheme.

Mr TEAGUE: Why not?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: One thing I have come to understand is that it is extraordinarily complicated work.

Mr TEAGUE: No!

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Given we have had the independent actuary, who is exceptionally well experienced at other schemes around Australia, I think we can have a fair degree of confidence that we can rely on how they go about taking into account the assumptions and measuring the scheme's performance. The 1.85 is covering our break-even premium, which I think is almost self-explanatory, because we are heading towards a proper funding ratio of closer to what the scheme needs.

Mr TEAGUE: We could go on, but time is short. Perhaps if there is time for one more: when is the next scheduled internal audit of the premium rate setting, have there been any changes to risk management policy and what contingency measures are in place if there is an underperformance?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that typically a review of premium rates will happen in about April of each year to review and set the rate for the next financial year.

Mr TEAGUE: On those contributors, is there confirmation that there has been no change to risk management policy based on audit or board findings in the last 12 months?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice, in terms of building in risk factors, is it is quite a dynamic process in terms of different areas of the scheme and different areas of the economy. It is quite dynamic in terms of how they are accounted for when this sort of work is done, but the risk margin that is calculated and taken into account for the scheme has been very steady for some time.

The ACTING CHAIR: The allotted time has expired. The examination of ReturnToWorkSA and SafeWork SA is complete. The examination of the proposed payments and Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department is now complete.

Sitting suspended from 14:16 to 14:30.