House of Assembly Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1) 54 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Equal Opportunity Commission Equal Opportunity Commission Mr TEAGUE House of Assembly Heysen Equal Opportunity Commission Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (14:50): My question is to the Attorney-General. Can the Attorney-General update the house on the Equal Opportunity Commission's budgetary position? The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN House of Assembly Bragg Deputy Premier Attorney-General Equal Opportunity Commission The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (14:50): The Commissioner for Equal Opportunity holds a statutory responsibility under the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 to prevent discrimination based on sex, race, disability, age or various other grounds, to facilitate the participation of citizens in the economic and social life of the community, and to deal with other related matters. The overall activity of the commission has been in general decline over the past five years. For instance, the number of inquiries from the public to the EOC has reduced by 65 per cent from the five-year average between 2008-09 to 2013-14; that is, 1,618 down to 570. The number of discrimination complaints lodged in 2017-18 has declined by 20 per cent from the average of the same five-year period, from 263 to 211. The commissioner sought an increase in funding for her office. A bid for additional resources was considered through the recent budget process; however, that was unsuccessful. The EOC suffered significant cuts for years by the former Labor government, which the commissioner has previously described as 'death by a thousand cuts'. The Marshall Liberal government, however, has not reduced funding to the EOC. The EOC has received budget assistance through one-off funding contributions from the Attorney-General's Department since 2016, which amounts to $300,000 for a range of measures. Various other government agencies provide significant additional funding to the EOC in addition to its core operational budget for dedicated projects, including $750,000 over three years from various government departments, and $200,000 from SA Police. I was surprised, therefore, about concerns expressed by the commissioner published in an article in The Advertiser on 28 June about the funding levels of her office— Mr Malinauskas interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN House of Assembly The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —and there are several matters that I wish to reassure the house on. Firstly, the commissioner is reported to have said that the current funding will eventually reduce to three staff, including the commissioner. The core salary budget for her office is estimated at $661,000 by 2022-23. This amounts to an average cost of $220,000 for each of these three staff. Salary costs of this order only apply to senior executive positions. It is not the case that the commission will have two staff, plus the commissioner. Mr Malinauskas interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Leader! The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN House of Assembly The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Secondly, the budget assistance provided by my department since 2016 through one-off funding contributions was understood by the commissioner to be one-off funding, which was welcomed at the time. However, it appears this may have been characterised as a funding cut for the article. This is incorrect. In April this year, my department offered additional funding of $32,000 in 2019-20 to extend current staff while the EOC moved to a new organisational structure. Given the commissioner's concerns about funding, surprisingly, this offer was declined. I have also been surprised to learn that the commissioner has chosen not to utilise some corporate resources. Rather than using the media and communications support that exist in the Attorney-General's Department, the commissioner has spent nearly $50,000 on a private public relations firm since October 2017. On occasion— An honourable member interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN House of Assembly The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —the private firm has charged for even engaging with the Attorney-General's Department's own media team. This is an absurdity, and the use of private public relations companies is not justified or sustainable. All statutory officers must manage their budgets and their offices— Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN House of Assembly The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is my expectation that the commissioner manages— Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN House of Assembly The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —her own office within the existing resources, and my department will continue to assist the commissioner to ensure that she does. I trust that clarifies the matter.