HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-06-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

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

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

Department for Environment and Water, $192,478,000

Administered Items for the Department for Environment and Water, $33,270,000


Membership:

Mr Cowdrey substituted for Mr Batty.


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

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

Mr A. Kilvert, Executive Director, Policy and Community, Attorney-General's Department.

Mr D. Corcoran, Director, Financial Services, Attorney-General's Department.

Ms T. Brooks, Principal Accountant, Attorney-General's Department.

Mr J. Lai, Principal Adviser, Budgeting, Attorney-General's Department.

Mr B. Bruce, Chief Executive, Department for Environment and Water.


The ACTING CHAIR: I advise again that the government and the opposition have agreed to examine expenditure lines for the Department for Environment and Water to ask questions on the review of sand management on metropolitan beaches that has been delegated to the Attorney-General by the Deputy Premier. I declare the proposed payments open for examination once the Attorney's advisers are in place and then I invite him to introduce anyone new to us.

Mr TELFER: I will do the omnibus questions while they are settling in:

1. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many executive appointments have been made since 1 July 2024 and what is the annual salary and total employment cost for each position?

2. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many executive positions have been abolished since 1 July 2024 and what was the annual salary and total employment cost for each position?

3. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what has been the total cost of executive position terminations since 1 July 2024?

4. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, will the minister provide a breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors with a total estimated cost above $10,000 engaged since 1 July 2024, listing the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier, the method of appointment, the reason for the engagement and the estimated total cost of the work?

5. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, will the minister provide an estimate of the total cost to be incurred in 2025-26 for consultants and contractors, and for each case in which a consultant or contractor has already been engaged at a total estimated cost above $10,000, the name of the consultant or contractor, the method of appointment, the reason for the engagement and the total estimated cost?

6. For each department or agency reporting to the minister, how many surplus employees are there in June 2025, and for each surplus employee, what is the title or classification of the position and the total annual employment cost?

7. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what is the number of executive staff to be cut to meet the government's commitment to reduce spending on the employment of executive staff and, for each position to be cut, its classification, total remuneration cost and the date by which the position will be cut?

8. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what savings targets have been set for 2025-26 and each year of the forward estimates, and what is the estimated FTE impact of these measures?

9. For each department and agency reporting to the minister:

(a) What was the actual FTE count at June 2025 and what is the projected actual FTE account for the end of each year of the forward estimates?

(b) What is the budgeted total employment cost for each year of the forward estimates?

(c) How many targeted voluntary separation packages are estimated to be required to meet budget targets over the forward estimates and what is their estimated cost?

10. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how much is budgeted to be spent on goods and services for 2025-26 and for each year of the forward estimates?

11. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many FTEs are budgeted to provide communication and promotion activities in 2025-26 and each year of the forward estimates and what is their estimated employment cost?

12. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what is the total budgeted cost of government-paid advertising, including campaigns, across all mediums in 2025-26?

13. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, please provide for each individual investing expenditure project administered, the name, total estimated expenditure, actual expenditure incurred to June 2024 and budgeted expenditure for 2025-26, 2026-27 and 2027-28.

14. For each grant program or fund the minister is responsible for, please provide the following information for the 2025-26, 2026-27 and 2027-28 financial years:

(a) Name of the program or fund;

(b) The purpose of the program or fund;

(c) Budgeted payments into the program or fund;

(d) Budgeted expenditure from the program or fund; and

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

15. For each department and agency reporting to the minister:

(a) Is the agency confident that you will meet your expenditure targets in 2025-26? Have any budget decisions been made between the delivery of the budget on 5 June 2025 and today that might impact on the numbers presented in the budget papers which we are examining today?

(b) Are you expecting any reallocations across your agencies' budget lines during 2025-26; if so, what is the nature of the reallocation?

16. For each department and agency reporting to the minister:

(a) What South Australian businesses will be used in procurement for your agencies in 2025-26?

(b) What percentage of total procurement spend for your agencies does this represent?

(c) How does this compare to last year?

17. What percentage of your department's budget has been allocated for the management of remote work infrastructure, including digital tools, cybersecurity, and support services, and how does this compare with previous years?

18. How many procurements have been undertaken by the department this FY. How many have been awarded to interstate businesses? How many of those were signed off by the CE?

19. How many contractor invoices were paid by the department directly this FY? How many and what percentage were paid within 15 days, and how many and what percentage were paid outside of 15 days?

20. How many and what percentage of staff who undertake procurement activities have undertaken training on participation policies and local industry participants this FY?

The ACTING CHAIR: I now declare the aforementioned payments open for examination. I call on the Attorney to make a statement, if he wishes, and to introduce his advisers.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will take you up on the latter, Chair. Behind me I have Darren Corcoran, Director, AGD Financial Services; Tanya Brooks, Principal Accountant, Attorney-General's Department; and Justin Lai, Principal Advisor, Budgeting, Attorney-General's Department. On my far left I have Adam Kilvert, Executive Director, Policy and Community, Attorney-General's Department; and Caroline Mealor, Chief Executive, Attorney-General's Department. On my right I have Andrew Swanson, Chief Financial Officer, Attorney-General's Department, who, I would like to point out, is in his 27th year of budget estimates.

The ACTING CHAIR: That is quite an achievement.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is a superhero effort; like, holy guacamole, Batman, 27 years! I thought it might be bitumen or gravel, but I am informed that the gift at a 27th anniversary is sculpture, so I will be sure to present Andrew with maybe a homemade sculpture from one of my kids at a later date.

The ACTING CHAIR: I look forward to that. Do you have anything further to add to your statement, minister? That is your opening statement? Excellent. Member for Colton, do you have an opening statement? Are you the lead speaker? Perhaps we will just open it up for questions.

Mr COWDREY: I will start by expressing my gratitude to the government for allowing questions in regard to the beach management review.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Perhaps, Chair, if we are going to do a couple of beach management questions, I can talk about the government's review that is going on at the moment, but in terms of day-to-day operations that is not something I have control over. Maybe if we can swap with Ben Bruce from the environment department for a moment to help provide answers.

The ACTING CHAIR: Did I understand from that that you have a statement to make, minister?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No; I do not have a statement to make. I am happy to refer to the budget papers and take questions.

Mr COWDREY: I interpreted the most recent comment in the same way you did, sir, that a comment was about to be made in regard to day-to-day operations, which I thought was outside the scope of the minister's role.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No; to clarify, in terms of day-to-day operations that is outside my role in taking on the review and future—

Mr COWDREY: I can assure the minister I would never dream of stepping outside the scope of his responsibilities, so I will ensure the questions are constrained to the beach management review itself. The budget reference is Agency Statements, Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 142, with reference to Adelaide Beach Management Review in the first paragraph below the table. When will the government release the outcomes or make a decision, if that is more specific for you, in terms of future steps and activities to be undertaken on the Adelaide metropolitan coastline?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We are actively looking at what has been put forward for the review and the results of testing that is being done.

Mr COWDREY: Minister, why has my community had to wait more than three years for the results of a review?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Because we wanted to do this properly, not in any sort of rushed way. I might add that those beaches in the West Beach, Henley Beach area this year have received a record amount of sand to replenish those beaches, more than has happened in any other year before. So the idea that nothing is happening and that there is not sand being replenished—I think it is very important to be very clear that more sand has gone onto those central beaches in the West Beach, Henley Beach area than has ever happened before.

Mr COWDREY: Yet if you step down there, minister, the beaches are in the worst shape they have ever been in. Henley South in particular has seen significant erosion events to the extent—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is just as well the government is putting on record amounts of sand, more than the Liberal government did in any one of their four years in government recently.

Mr COWDREY: Have any options been ruled out by the government based on feasibility, cost, environmental damage, or any other reason?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am not going to start pre-empting the results. As I said, they are under active consideration.

Mr COWDREY: Has a suitable sand source, offshore or otherwise, been identified for any long-term dredging program and, if so, when and where, noting that advice previous to now was that one did not exist?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can advise that is exactly why such an in-depth program of testing has occurred.

Mr COWDREY: Yes, minister, but has any been identified?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I said, I am not going to pre-empt the release of what actions are going to be taken, but it is under active consideration.

Mr COWDREY: But you do not contest that prior to now a significant enough or suitable sand source had been identified?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is exactly why the most thorough testing of these things, I think, that has ever occurred has been undertaken as part of this process.

Mr COWDREY: Why was dredging of the West Beach sandbar included in the dredging trial, having not been mentioned previously or consulted with the purpose-built consultation groups or the community more generally?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, notwithstanding consultants identifying the sand source that the member has mentioned as being extremely suitable, that option to dredge, even for testing, was not taken up.

Mr COWDREY: That was not the question, minister. The question was: why was the dredging undertaken without prior consultation with the community groups that had been established?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: What dredging is the member referring to?

Mr COWDREY: Perhaps if we want to get into semantics, why was the proposed dredging at West Beach considered without any consultation with the purpose-built community consultation groups?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Why did something that did not happen, not happen; is that the question?

Mr COWDREY: Yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Because it did not happen. You are welcome.

Mr COWDREY: Have you or any member of your staff ever spoken with or communicated with the member for Port Adelaide, the Deputy Premier, in regard to directions or decisions of the review or the review more broadly?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Not since taking on the role of actually undertaking the review.

Mr COWDREY: Why was the responsibility for the beach management review given to you, noting that Minister Scriven is responsible for PIRSA and makes decisions on a day-to-day basis in her ministerial responsibilities with scientific-based evidence and research? I also note the fact that under the portfolio of PIRSA there is significant research undertaken in regard to seagrasses and other issues that are directly relevant to the Adelaide metropolitan coastline. Having selected a different minister, there conceivably could have been an argument that it would not have been seen as being as close to the Deputy Premier as perhaps a decision to hand that responsibility to you.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not understand most of what was asked, but in relation to why I am doing it it is because I was asked and I am happy to do so and I am a team player. I understand these are foreign concepts to the South Australian division of the Liberal Party, but that is how we work in the South Australian division of the Labor Party.

Mr COWDREY: You are close personal friends with the Deputy Premier, are you not?

The ACTING CHAIR: The minister can answer this in any way he wishes. We are all good friends.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not see the funding allocated to my friendships in the budget, but if you have a budget line for that I am happy to. I am happy to have a budget for my friendships. That would be awesome.

Mr COWDREY: I will finish by again asking on behalf of my community: when will the government make a decision and give certainty to them?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We are looking at this matter as quickly as possible, but we are also taking into account as much of the information for long-term solutions as possible.

The ACTING CHAIR: Do I understand there are no further questions in relation to the Department for Environment and Water?

Mr COWDREY: There are no further answers, I assume, so no.

The ACTING CHAIR: In that case, minister, would you like to rearrange your advisers.

Mr TEAGUE: I have a question for the Attorney-General's Department. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 15. That is the Attorney-General's Department, Investing expenditure summary table. About halfway down that table, about point 5 or 6 on the page, there is the South Australia Forensic Centre. We see there an estimated completion of June 2031 and a total project cost of $362,088,000 and a 2025-26 budget of $15,900,000 and, moving further to the right, an estimated result for 2024-25 of $22 million, which is considerably in excess of the budget amount for 2024-25 of $14 million.

There are a couple of figures that are not there. This is a comparator to the questions earlier about works on Sir Samuel Way. For comparison, last year the estimated completion date was June 2028. We now see it is June 2031, so there is a three-year delay in the estimated completion. Last year, we saw the total project cost reported in the budget papers as $348 million and that is now being reported as $362 million, which is about $14 million of budget blowout for the project. Could the Attorney explain, firstly, reasons, if any, for the delay and, secondly, for the budget blowout?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will be happy to. I know that the member for Heysen likes to use loaded terms like 'budget blowout'. What I can say is, my advice is—

Mr TEAGUE: If there is a technical term that I might better use, I am happy to.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Okay, 'acquisition of land' is a better term to use and I will explain why. I am advised the original budget of $348.9 million excluded land-related costs. During 2024-25, additional funding for land of $13.2 million was provided, bringing that total budget to the $362.1 million. So I do not think it is fair to say 'budget blowout'. It would of course be very hard to complete a building project like this without any land. You need to build on the land. So that takes into account the acquisition for the funding of the land—

Mr TEAGUE: That begs the question of: why the $348 million budget previously?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Sorry, it is additional funding for the acquisition of land. In terms of the completion dates—I think that was the first part of the member's question—I am advised that the revised project completion date will more closely align with the proposed lease period of the existing facilities at Divett Place in the city, to ensure a more effective transition between the current site and the new site. The relocation of the forensic centre will be a very significant process involving, I am advised, around 320 staff, including the fit-out and transfer of very finely calibrated machinery and instruments.

This reflects also that it is an extraordinarily complex facility. These sorts of things, forensic centres, are one of a kind. You do not build other ones like this in each jurisdiction. They have very specific needs in terms of reducing the possibility of contamination and exactly what is needed for, as I say, the finely calibrated instruments and machines. It is exceptionally complicated, but it is also closely aligned with the lease period of the existing building.

Mr TEAGUE: That is a helpful answer, with respect. There are no perfect analogies. I have already made some passing reference to the government's hydrogen project being a $593 million project until it was not at all, and here we see, perhaps in some ways, an imperfect analogy to the new Women's and Children's Hospital, a more substantial project but where time and cost, if they are extended, have these effects.

That answer perhaps then begs a follow-on; that is: we have seen the total project cost at $348 million in repeated budgets, I think for two or three years. I think that has been the budget amount. Does the change to $362 million—if that is to be explained away by the Attorney making what is a pretty obvious point, namely, if you are going to decide to build a new building you are going to need land on which to build that new building—reflect a late change of approach, away from using the existing land on which the existing building is located, to renovate or replace the building on a greenfield site?

My recollection is that at all times it might have been well and truly in the mix that building a new building was an easier, more productive and likely outcome. In which case, who forgot to budget for the land acquisition, in the first place?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that Treasury was managing the land acquisition.

Mr TEAGUE: So it is their fault.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No; a proportion of this. In terms of putting it on the same site, I do not think we own that site in Divett Place.

Mr TEAGUE: No, it is a lease.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is a lease. Until some more work had been done around what land might cost and the actual needs of where it might go—because, as you say, it is correct that it would be much more effective and efficient and would serve the needs of South Australia in a much better way to have a brand-new build. But the initial budget, I am advised, was the cost of the building, and then more work needed to be done about where it might be located.

Mr TEAGUE: Alright, but—and you will forgive me—does that say that Treasury accounted for that additional $14 million until now, and that now that the delay has been sort of set out it is now convenient to set out that additional cost that we could have found elsewhere in other agencies until now?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I would have to check with Treasury in terms of internal accounting processes and how they represent what things might cost—or it simply might be when there is more information as to how you are going to do a project, to include them. But I am happy to go and check that.

Mr TEAGUE: That does not sound like a yes. It certainly does not sound like an accounting tool, so one is left to—and I am glad if the Attorney wants to take on notice some aspects of that. But I think the proposition for the time being is that for some years we have had a total project cost of $348 million against an anticipated completion of June 2028.

I said this was an analogy to Sir Samuel Way because there you have a significant delay in the completion of the project, and I was flagging that one might anticipate that comes with a project cost increase, just through the CPI and general process; whereas, in that case, the Attorney said, 'No, $11.5 million is still the figure. It is two years delayed but $11.5 million is still the figure.'

Here we have a three-year delay and a $14 million increase in the total project cost, but the Attorney is very quickly and readily saying, 'No, that's because we have just discovered we need to account for the acquisition of land.' Leaving aside that whole question of the responsibility for whoever has forgotten to account for that until now—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, I am happy to take that on notice, but the inference initially was that it was a budget blowout. When I was able to say that it takes into account land cost, it was as if someone has been negligent in forgetting it. I am happy to take it on notice but I will not agree with the characterisation that the honourable member is—

Mr TEAGUE: Chair, from the committee's point view, I make it clear that I am very glad to associate myself with the characterisation, unless and until further advised. It strikes me that it is a clear budget blowout and that without more the delay in the estimated completion itself would be the obvious explanation for that budget blowout.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Except that I have said that is not the reason.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, I appreciate that.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That could be true except for the facts.

Mr Telfer interjecting:

Mr TEAGUE: That is good.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is, isn't it?

Mr TELFER: We took it on notice, so we do not know all the facts, do we?

Mr TEAGUE: There are two sets of disturbing outcomes here, as far as I can tell. One is that there is a significant cost increase, the result of a significant delay, and the other one is that we are told that the cost has not changed despite the delay, but we have an extra element that was heretofore not accounted for. Either of those two, I think, need to be explained. I appreciate that the Attorney has taken that on notice and I am sure the committee will be glad for that information more particularly in due course.

As it stands, on the face of the budget papers, and at the risk of repeating myself, we have a three-year delay and we have an increase in the project cost of $14 million. Is there anything else that the Attorney might have to say to the committee about the reason for the delay, or is the Attorney telling the committee that that is entirely virtuous in that it more appropriately lines up with the lease period for the existing building?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to repeat and say that I am advised that the project completion date will more closely align with the proposed lease period, and also the complexity, as traversed before, of this sort of facility.

Mr TEAGUE: At the risk of being really trite, we have known the lease period at all times, have we not?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: And the revised project completion date more closely aligns with that.

Mr TEAGUE: Which we have known at all times.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: So it would seem that the government is making good decisions.

Mr TEAGUE: But not until this year, so someone has made a bad decision until this year on that analysis.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, I do not accept that characterisation.

Mr TEAGUE: Alright. I just flag that, as far as I am concerned, all balls remain somewhat up in the air while the Attorney has taken a series of things on notice.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: To be clear again, in terms of the budget, my advice is that the original budget of $348.9 million—and I am happy to find out the reason. It may well be because there was no decision on the type of location—distance from the city, etc.—that the facility might end up being built in. I know some of those factors were under consideration, so additional funding has been provided as a more detailed design phase occurs. I do not think there is anything at all unusual in that sort of process.

Mr TEAGUE: It kind of then stands in contrast with the Sir Samuel Way kind of scenario where the project cost has not changed even though we have had delay.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think $11 million for renovations to the facade of a heritage-listed building is a very different thing to a new state-of-the art forensic science centre, which, again, is a different thing to a Women's and Children's Hospital. I think they are obviously all different projects.

Mr TEAGUE: Just focus then on the estimated completion.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It might be worth just saying that I know that we are getting into the weeds a little bit in terms of exactly how costs are being accounted for—

Mr TEAGUE: I am not; you might be.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: —but I think it is worth noting and remembering that there has been a decision to invest over a third of a billion dollars into a new facility. I think this is a very good thing for South Australia.

Mr TEAGUE: Indeed.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We have seen, in different jurisdictions around the world, problems in the equivalent of their forensic science places, sometimes due to the actual physical nature of the buildings and how samples are contaminated. The government that the member was a part of previously, and Labor governments before that, had not seen fit to do this. So the fact that there is hundreds of millions of dollars being invested into a state-of-the-art forensic science centre I think is a very good thing.

Mr TEAGUE: It is fantastic. The SA forensic centre is a standout example of a centre in urgent need of replacement and the funds to do exactly that are enormously welcomed. That puts the spotlight on competence and capacity and an actual outcome, and so hence the keen interest in its completion and what I might presume is the sentiments of South Australians, let alone those experts who do that wonderful work, are somewhat disappointed, if not shocked, to see that that will not actually happen until three years later than what the government has been telling us in the budget papers throughout its term.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It will happen much quicker than any proposal the former Liberal government had for a new forensic science centre—much quicker, because there was none. So it is 'never' compared to '2031', which is a much shorter timeframe than 'never ever'.

Mr TEAGUE: Here we are directly jousting rejections of characterisations. So after wholeheartedly rejecting that characterisation—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We can look back at the 2018 to 2021 budgets and I am certain there was not any provision for tens, let alone hundreds of millions of dollars for a new forensic science centre.

Mr TEAGUE: What we have seen for now several years is a projected completion date of June 2028, which, without more, appears to have simply gone out the window to a new completion date somewhere further off towards the sunset, if not beyond the horizon.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Infinitely quicker than any proposal the former Liberal government have; that is also true.

Mr TEAGUE: I will take that as a comment, Chair. Perhaps then to illustrate the present sort of straitened circumstances more particularly, I am turning to page 29 of the same budget paper and volume, and there we see Program 7: Forensic Science SA, performance indicators. I stress, as the Attorney has indicated already, that we are talking about some of the best people not only in the state but in the country and the world doing this work.

We see in the performance indicators that the major indictable DNA cases, with the suspect completed within seven months—and it has been the subject of additional resources having been provided in 2025-26 to deal with demands going forward—we see this really substantial series of drop-offs in performance. The 2023-24 actual was 62 per cent. The target, which has been maintained year-to-year, remains 75 per cent, but the 2024-25 estimated result is at 45 per cent, which is a significant deterioration, even on that 2023-24 actual result. Is there any explanation the Attorney can provide? Have substandard facilities contributed to it, and is a more urgent application of additional resources necessary?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice in relation to that particular statistic is that the estimated result is mainly due to the impact of changing laboratory practices following a commission of inquiry into DNA analysis in Queensland, and upskilling of new staff in this area. The change to laboratory practices now means more biological samples are progressing to full DNA profiling, which results in more complex samples needing to be interpreted and reported. Since 2024, I am advised, four new positions in biology were established to address this increase in demand for DNA analysis, and significant training of these new staff members is underway.

I am advised that rejuvenation of the biology workforce will have long-term benefits for forensic science and, of course, as the member pointed out, additional funding on top of what has been provided in previous budgets and Mid-Year Budget Reviews. Through the 2025-26 budget we will see even more additional scientific staff, and an administrative report, provided to biology to further address the increased workload complexities, and eventually aim to decrease the turnaround times for cases being completed.

The member would be aware of some of the occurrences, particularly in Queensland, that have occurred, and a commission of inquiry into the handling of DNA analysis in Queensland, so it is making sure that there are changes to practices in South Australia.

Mr TEAGUE: Does that answer also account for the even more startlingly dramatic deterioration in performance that we see at the bottom of that table—illicit drugs cases preliminary results issued within two months—also the subject of additional resources in both the Mid-Year Budget Review for 2024-25 and in the 2025-26 budget? There is a deterioration that is really quite dramatic, from a target of 90 per cent to an estimated result of 20 per cent.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes. We were previously talking about the biology section, now to the chemistry section with illicit drug samples. As the notes in the budget papers indicate, there is an increased workload and also an increase in the complexity of the cases. Early this year (2025), three new positions in chemistry were established to address the growing complexities in these illicit drug cases. It follows ongoing funding that was provided in the 2024-25 Mid-Year Budget Review. It is expected that, within approximately three months, the chemistry part will again be issuing illicit drug preliminary reports within two months.

Mr TEAGUE: Is the government confident that those additional resources are actually going to resolve that current low case load, or is there going to be more to be done? Are you satisfied, Attorney?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We will obviously monitor how the extra resources we are providing improves and impacts on the case load and the turnaround time. We have, in a couple of budgets and in the Mid-Year Budget Review, progressively increased the resources available, particularly for FTEs. The fact that we have done that consistently demonstrates that we will monitor and respond as necessary.

Mr TEAGUE: What kind of backlog does that actually represent, in terms of numbers?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: How do you mean?

Mr TEAGUE: It is expressed in terms of percentages in that table.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have figures in terms of raw numbers, but I am happy to take that on notice.

Mr TEAGUE: Thank you. I see that the Attorney does not lean on this data as an explanation for the increased project cost of the new centre, despite having said things have changed, in terms of what we have seen in Queensland, changed methods, etc. I would have been interested if that was the case, that the centre needs to be somehow beefed up or altered in terms of its capacities, given what we have learned over time.

The Attorney has not lent on that as an explanation. We have seen that, okay, it is a land cost point, but the scope of the centre has not changed. I was going to head to saying: is that performance indicator table itself a pretty good argument for saying, 'All the more reason to get on with the job,' or is it actually a resourcing matter that, with appropriate resources applied, new methods, you can deal with it in the current facility, you struggle on until the new one comes along?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the impact of the inquiry in Queensland has changed the way tests have to be done, and that has resulted in some of the figures we have seen. The inquiry in Queensland was known when work started on looking at a new building, so that is already factored into account, is my advice.

Mr TEAGUE: To give the Attorney the full benefit, does the lease run until June 2031, or does it run six months after that to allow moving of equipment or anything like that?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have the lease details with me here, but I am happy to take the question on notice. I have some high-level advice that I was able to provide, but details I will have to take on notice. As the member is probably aware, most lease management issues are through the Department for Infrastructure and Transport, and I think that is the case with this one.

Mr TEAGUE: No-one is saying that no-one has been aware of the term of it, obviously?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: How do you mean?

Mr TEAGUE: Everyone has been aware of the term of the lease the whole time?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will have to take that on notice in terms of the details of the lease.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, but you are not suggesting that it has somehow come to light that the lease runs until some time that was not known, and that therefore that is now impacting on the estimated completion?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am giving you the advice I have been provided; I am happy to see whether there is more detail.

Mr TEAGUE: To be really clear, the Attorney has referred wholly and solely to a decision made about the term of the lease as explanation for the estimated completion date of the project changing from June 2028 to June 2031.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I did not say wholly and solely anywhere.

Mr TEAGUE: I am giving you the benefit—if there is any other reason.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: You have asked for an explanation. I have said this is a factor.

Mr TEAGUE: Are there any other factors?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take that on notice, but certainly factors will include the complexity we have talked about of this sort of facility. I am happy to take on notice whether there is anything further I can add. To try to characterise me as saying it was wholly and solely only this, I do not think is particularly fair.

Mr TEAGUE: That is why I have given you the benefit.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: And that is why I am saying this.

Mr TEAGUE: I appreciate you taking that on notice.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: And I appreciate you appreciating it.

Mr TEAGUE: But for the time being, there is no other reason the Attorney is providing to this committee?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: With all projects there will be a variety of reasons—this is one I have been advised of.

Mr TEAGUE: The one you have advised the committee of just now.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Mentioned to you, yes.

Mr TEAGUE: Sir Samuel Way, the total project cost: I might just indicate, as I perhaps already revealed my surprise, that the—again I will use the words wholly and solely—reason for the total project cost increasing from $348 million to $362 million is acquisition of land that was not previously accounted for.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Sorry, I was not listening. Can you just say everything you said again?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes. In terms of the total project cost, the Attorney has said now, in a number of different ways, that the whole and sole reason for the total project cost blowing out, to use that term that I have adopted for myself, from $348 million to $362 million is the acquisition of land that was heretofore not accounted for in the budget line.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can repeat what my advice is: the additional funding for land of $13.2 million was provided. That brings the total in the budget to $348.9 million; add $13.2 million and it takes it to $362.1 million.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, that is what we see in the budget.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: Did the Attorney just say at the outset that the acquisition of land was included previously as well?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, my advice is that the original budget excluded land-related costs.

Mr TEAGUE: Right. Curious, given what the Attorney said about the rather obvious point that you need land in order to build a building.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes. That is why it is accounted for as the project develops and there is more information about the types of locations that might be suitable.

Mr TEAGUE: So in the future, whenever we talk about a new building—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No; in relation to this.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not think you can take something in relation to one thing and extend it to everything.

Mr TEAGUE: Can't you? Why not?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: What is that?

Mr TEAGUE: Is it not a common accounting standard or something? Somebody has made the call. This has been much vaunted, and I might say welcomed. There is nothing controversial about a lot of what the Attorney said about characterising the urgency of the need for this, but we have seen it in the budget, year on year on year on year—unchanging project cost.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Year on year on year. How many years does the member think it has been in the budget, because year on year on year would take it back to the last government and, as we have discussed, they had an ambition to do nothing with the forensic centre.

Mr TEAGUE: I reject that characterisation. The whole time this government has been in government, year on year on year—I think there are three previous ones—we have had a project cost of $348 million. My proposition is: are we to have to, when we first see that, say, 'Hang on, does that include the land on which you are going to build the building?'

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For any project, if you ask does that include the land you can answer if it includes the land, yes, sure.

Mr TEAGUE: In this case, it was kind of just going under the radar until now, and now it pops up as, 'Hang on, we are now going to account for the land on which we are going to build the building.' It is not a very reliable project cost if it at all times contemplated a new building but only just now does it budget for the cost of the land on which to build the new building.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: What is the question?

Mr TEAGUE: I guess the accounting question is: why now? Why include it in the budget now and not three years ago? And two years ago? And one year ago?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I say, I am happy to check with Treasury. This is not something that I have actively made a decision about, how these things are reported. I am happy to go away and check with Treasury. As I have said before, it is a stark difference to the policy of the former Liberal government not to have a new centre.

Mr TEAGUE: There is the proposition as it stands. I am grateful to the Attorney for taking the opportunity to add to that, if you would like to. I move to page 26, same paper and volume. We are now in Legislative and Policy Services, program 6 of AGD. You might find it before I do, but my recollection is it was earlier this year that the government announced the creation of the new Young Offender Plan. That included a range of things: bail laws, penalties, and a focus on youth street gangs. As far as I can see they do not get mentioned as highlights or targets. Is Legislative and Policy Services doing any work on those matters? If so, how do we see that sounding in terms of the budget?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to answer, but it is novel way to address budget papers to say, 'I am referring you to this page and I don't see something on this page, therefore I'm asking a question about it.'

Mr TEAGUE: I appreciate that.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As novel as that may be, I am happy to answer the question. In relation to the work in the Young Offender Plan, certainly Legislative Services has been heavily involved, as the honourable member knows from having been the planning minister responsible for the functions of the Attorney-General for a number of months. If you included every single thing that Legislative Services do over the course of a year you would run up many, many pages of budget papers, but they certainly have been involved.

Mr TEAGUE: Has it finished its work on the Young Offender Plan?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No; that is still ongoing. The member would be aware that there are a number of elements to that. Changes to the law to deal with street gangs is being finalised, and also—

Mr TEAGUE: I think they were described as bikie-style reforms—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Of course, Legislative Services were involved in this part as well, looking at whether we could just add them, essentially, to the laws that have been extraordinarily successful in disrupting outlaw motorcycle gangs in South Australia.

Mr TEAGUE: Has any work commenced on those?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Absolutely; there is very well developed and well progressed work on those, but the different structures, the less formal and less rigidly hierarchical structures of street gangs, have meant that we are looking for a bespoke approach in relation to them. Work is very well developed.

Mr TEAGUE: Does the Attorney have a time at which SALRI is expected to complete its bail law review?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes; SALRI is doing a bail law review. As I am sure the member appreciates, SALRI does exceptional work in doing very indepth and complete analysis of issues they take on board. I do not have a date for that, but part of the Youth Offender Plan is looking at that very small cohort of young people responsible for a disproportionate number of matters that come before the Youth Court.

We have previously announced and are doing work, discrete work, in relation to that small cohort of offenders in terms of bail and sentencing. It does not appear on page 26, but Legislative Services are necessarily involved in that as well.

Mr TEAGUE: Just like the roundtable meeting for the Young Offender Plan that was held, I think, back in March, are AGD involved in that as well?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, AGD was the driver of that.

Mr TEAGUE: Are there going to be more of those? Has there been feedback to attendees—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There has certainly been further consultation. I think there already has been with organisations and individuals who have attended that, as we have developed the responses, particularly the legislative responses.

Mr TEAGUE: Still on 26, we have a target now, it is actually appearing on the page. The second dot point and the first dash points, among those targets is 'Assist the passage through parliament of legislation to criminalise coercive control'. When is that legislation going to be implemented?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: All other things being equal, I would expect that legislation to pass some time after the winter break. It has passed the lower house of parliament and is now in the Legislative Council, and I would expect it to pass some time after the winter break. In terms of the actual implementation, when it comes into force, it will be significantly after that.

One thing that has certainly been impressed on me is how important is the education piece around coercive control. Just having new laws that criminalise this sort of behaviour is not nearly as effective as when it helps to influence the standards people accept. Those involved in the domestic and family violence sector have talked about a time of around 24 months from when the laws are finalised before they come into operation to allow that education piece. It is not just the education piece to make sure it is well understood that these are the standards that society expects, but it is also making sure that there is a significant lead-in time to make sure those who will enforce the law, SAPOL and others, understand what this behaviour is, what to look for, etc.

Something that was impressed upon me when we had consultations with those who have been involved in the sector and the groups that represent the sector for many years is the desire for a long lead-in time to make sure the laws are as effective and well understood as possible.

Mr TEAGUE: Not to verbal him but just to make reference to the portfolio responsibility, relevantly, the Minister for Police and Treasurer maybe in the course of estimates, publicly anyway, has given an indication that the government is not implementing those laws until 2028. I think that was coming from a Minister for Police perspective and, therefore, reflecting part of what the Attorney said about the need to make it work from the perspective of police. Nonetheless, does the Attorney agree it is significant? I think the Attorney is embracing that.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is significant. It is certainly, from those who have worked in for many years and represent the sector, a very deliberate very significant lead-in time. It is partly for those who will be enforcing the law to properly understand what it is but, as it has been impressed upon me, an ability to have that education campaign before these laws commence to try to change behaviours and attitudes, knowing that this is what society expects.

Mr TEAGUE: I take it, therefore, from those two or three answers—and, I might say, I put it to the Minister for Child Protection in particular, who is on the record back as long ago as 2021 saying these are urgent matters—in terms of what are a variety of shared responsibilities within government for legislating through to implementation, from the Attorney's point of view, is the Attorney satisfied with the actions necessary to achieve the target and that the implementation phase that is subsequent to it, including the timeline to 2028, is about right and necessary and desirable for the best outcome?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes. Based on those who have much more experience and much more understanding in this area, yes, I am, for the reasons I have outlined.

Mr TEAGUE: I turn to pages 58 and 59 in the few minutes remaining and questions in relation to the Victims of Crime Fund. I could run through these fairly quickly and, to the extent the Attorney would like or it might be more convenient to take on notice, please let me know. What is the total balance presently of the Victims of Crime Fund?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that, as of 31 May this year, it is $248 million.

Mr TEAGUE: How much has been paid out of the Victims of Crime Fund this financial year, and how much has been paid into the Victims of Crime Fund this financial year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not think we have a year-to-date figure, but I am happy to take those on notice. Certainly, for some of the last couple of years, the amount that was paid in by way of victims of crime levies was less than the amount that was paid out. But I think in a couple of years we have seen the fund actually increase because of interest that is paid on the accumulated capital account. Although $248 million is a substantial amount in the Victims of Crime Fund, it is regularly paying out a substantial amount as one-offs. For example, I am advised that payments from the fund are expected to exceed the revenues into the fund for both 2025-26 and 2026-27 financial years.

Part of that is some of the very substantial calls on the fund that happen from time to time. During the course of the previous Liberal government, states including South Australia signed up to the National Redress Scheme. I am advised that we have a further approval of what was originally budgeted for but an extra $135 million for the National Redress Scheme budgeted from our Victims of Crime Fund. There is a substantial amount in there now, but there are things that total hundreds of millions of dollars that are outside the normal operation of the fund in recent years as well.

Mr TEAGUE: Thank you. In the time remaining I have some questions in relation to the Justice Rehabilitation Fund. How much has been paid out of the JRF this financial year? How much has been paid into the JRF this financial year? How many programs will be funded out of the JRF this financial year? How many of those will be for youth? What is the nature of those programs and the average cost of the programs?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take that on notice, the year-to-date and a list of the programs.

The ACTING CHAIR: The allotted time having expired, I declare the examination of the Department for Environment and Water and the Administered Items of State Records complete, but further examination of the proposed payments and Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department will continue after the break.

Sitting suspended from 11:00 to 11:15.


Departmental Advisers:

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

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

Ms N. Saunders, Executive Director, Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation.

Mr D. Corcoran, Director, Financial Services, Attorney-General's Department.

Mr C. Macauley, Acting Director, Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation.


The ACTING CHAIR: Welcome back, Attorney, appearing in your role as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. The portfolio is Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation. I advise that the proposed payments remain open for examination. The committee remains the same and I call on the minister now to make a statement, if you wish, and to introduce your new advisers.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have no opening statement. I have with me Nerida Saunders to my right and behind is Craig Macauley from the Division of Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation and, once again, Andrew Swanson and Caroline Mealor from the Attorney-General's Department.

Mr TEAGUE: Thanks to all here attending. Minister, if I might start by directing attention to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 17. We see there the program summary for program 1 within the Attorney-General's Department, which is Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, and the program summary, first of all, going over the page to the top of page 17.

We see the net cost of providing services at the penultimate line and we see there that the 2024-25 budget was a tick under $1 million over the actual amount of net costs for 2023-24, which was $12.2 million. The budget for 2024-25 was $13.4 million. The estimated result for 2024-25 was $15.5 million as the net cost of providing services. So there is $2.1 million of—and I have used the words before—budget blowout or additional expense on a budget of 13.4, a significant amount of additional expense. Is there any particular reason for this significant overspend to the budget?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is answered quite extensively in the explanation for the significant movements immediately below it. In both of the years the member referred to, compared to the next year, there were carryovers approved. With the increase in the expenses from 2024-25, the estimated result compared to the 2024 budget, in fact the majority of it is primarily due to a carryover but also in relation to additional funding of 0.4 of a million for Closing the Gap and an increase in the grant funding to SAACCON of 0.3 of $1 million. When you add all of those together, the 1.4 plus 0.7 takes you to $2.1 million.

The refresh of Closing the Gap and the current model was something—and I pay tribute to it—that was signed up to by the former Liberal government. After the original Closing the Gap targets were refreshed, there was significant work that the state has done, and continues to do, in relation to that, and we see additional funding for that.

Mr TEAGUE: The minister is therefore one step ahead of where I was heading—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Always one step ahead.

Mr TEAGUE: —and I appreciate it might save the committee some time, in that we indeed see in that first paragraph that there are those two items of additional funding for Closing the Gap and for SAACCON, of $400,000 and $300,000 respectively. Dealing with the carryover of funding—and perhaps also the minister has referred to that not being the first time it has occurred—what is the reason for the carryover? How do we see that explained by reference to the actual in 2023-24, then the budget in 2024-25 and then the estimated result, each of them increasing year on year? Is it due to less-than-anticipated activity each year and then carryover with additional—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that it is multifaceted; there are a number of reasons. Some of the reasons are around having filled some but not many positions within the department, which has allowed for a carryover to be requested and to be made. It also reflects some of the funding programs—for example, for Aboriginal monuments and statues—and when they are going to be delivered. The program is well underway, but of course, in a budgeting sense, you allocate a certain amount each year and if it does not happen in that year but is going to happen then carryovers are often requested, particularly for things that are not going to be delivered in the timeframe that had originally been allocated in the budget.

Mr TEAGUE: We now move to the second paragraph of the explanation. Interestingly, the first paragraph of the explanation does not include that reference to Aboriginal monuments and statues but the second does, insofar as that is $500,000. My recollection was that in the first budget, upon the current government coming in, there was provision of $250,000 in each of the four years.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I cannot remember, but it was something like that. It was $1 million all up, and I think it was, as is done, allocated evenly over the forward estimates. Perhaps with hindsight—knowing that there is a significant degree of planning that needs to go into this, not just in terms of physically deciding what the statue will be, where it will go and getting permission for where it is going to go but also in having consultation with the family of that Aboriginal person, which is exceptionally important—it might have been rather optimistic to start expending that in the very first year. But yes, it is my recollection that it was allocated reasonably evenly over the four years, I think, and that has certainly given rise to carryovers.

Mr TEAGUE: I do not mean this in any particular pejorative way, but I have raised the question of whether the carryover funding, year on year, is a reflection of a certain amount of inactivity—or the non-deployment of funds, if 'inactivity' is not the right term—that would include the monuments and statues program as a good example of a non-spend of money in the previous two, three or four budgets.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think it is probably a particularly good example, because it is an indication that it is not as if there is not activity happening and it is not the case that the money is just going to be kept and not spent. It is going to be spent, but the way it has been apportioned between budget years has meant that it has not been spent early in those years.


Membership:

Mr Batty substituted for Mr Cowdrey.


Mr TEAGUE: I notice the minister was referring to something along the way and I was anticipating an answer, but is there nothing more to add?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In terms of the allocation of the budget, I am advised the honourable member was partially right in his recollection. It was split over a number of years. It was two lots of $500,000 rather than four lots of $250,000 over the 2022-23 and 2023-24 budget years.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: But the result is the same in terms of it.

Mr TEAGUE: That makes that $500,000 then more directly referable to one year's allocation. If that is then to be explained by way of carryover, as I read the second paragraph, that might be ambiguous. Is it actually part of the $1.4 million that is carryover, or is it that $500,000 allocated in a previous budget has not been spent and that has gone away and there is now new funding of $500,000, or is it part of the $1.4 million carryover?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the $0.5 million in that second paragraph for Aboriginal monuments and statues is not included in the $1.4 million, but it had been moved to that year. I am happy to take it away and see if it might have been a carryover from the year previous perhaps, but it is not included in the $1.4 million. It is not money that went away and had to be sought for again, it is the money that was there previously. It is not in the $1.4 million, but exactly how that has been accounted for I am happy to find out for the honourable member.

Mr TEAGUE: I guess my curiosity is why it finds its way into the second paragraph at all. If it is spent in the sense that it is sitting in Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation and earmarked for deployment or committed or contracted and so on, that would make sense in circumstances of it not having gone further than that. But it is included in this explanation of the increase in expense for the 2024-25 estimated result, so I flag that I am just not 100 per cent clear on how that is derived. Do we go back to the previous budget where the $500,000 first appeared?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I said, I do not have that information with me now from that previous budget year but I will take it on notice so that I can provide some clarity on that.

Mr TEAGUE: Alright, thanks. To the broader point then, really the thrust of the question in more general terms is, is it possible for the minister to explain to the committee how the funds that are the subject of the carryover, the $1.4 million—I have described it a couple of times as inactivity or not deployed funds—what areas of budgeted activity does that actually work for? Is there a means of explaining, therefore, 'Oh well, the program has not been active as much as anticipated in this discrete area,' or is it sort of a generalised inactivity?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I might, just so I can provide as much clarity as possible, take that on notice to look at the constituent part of that $1.4 million and bring back a reply for the member.

Mr TEAGUE: In the same vein—and maybe this is an opportunity for the minister to add any relevant information in this regard—I was not taking too many clues from the final line of that table, the FTEs, at least as far as 2024-25 budget to 2024-25 estimated result is concerned. But there is a significant movement of FTEs from 2023-24 to estimated result 2024-25 and to budget. The relatively minor actual 2023-24 to budget 2024-25 increase in net cost of providing services would not perhaps be fully explained by the FTE change, but it is certainly not explained by the FTE change from budget 2024-25 to estimated result 2024-25, is it?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have advice in relation to the differences you see there. I am guessing some of the questions will be, 'What has been the dramatic increase in the need for FTEs?' because it is a third more in the 39.4, 40.3 and 39—significantly more. My advice is for the 2023-24 year, due to difficulty filling all the roles, there were 6.8 FTE vacancies that year. So if you had 6.8 filled there, you would have had 38.7, which would have been very similar to the other year. So my advice is it was in relation to vacancies that had not been filled that year at that time.

Mr TEAGUE: That might have gone some way to explaining the carryover—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Carryovers, yes.

Mr TEAGUE: —in that year, but it does not go very far to explain carryover—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I say, I will go and get some further and better details on that.

Mr TEAGUE: I am back to page 16. Just before I do, by reference to either the net cost of providing services or to the activities, highlights and targets generally—it is a matter that I have flagged with the minister—I am conscious that part of what the Attorney-General's Department is doing in the course of its responsibilities vis-a-vis Aboriginal heritage in South Australia is providing information services, including seminars and getting around the state.

I invite the minister to reflect on the extent and cost and nature of those services, but in terms of any programs of education in relation to Aboriginal heritage, has there been any change that might require any change of practice among landholders, farmers or pastoralists, including the result of any legislative changes?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is there has not been any change in the way that the education programs or roadshows or the sort—I understand that when organisations request people from Aboriginal affairs to come and talk to them and engage about how Aboriginal heritage works, they respond. I am informed that happens from time to time with people in the primary industries area or mining area. Wind farms are another area that interact significantly with the Aboriginal Heritage Act.

I am informed that, when requests are made from people, if it can be accommodated within their workloads, the Aboriginal heritage team at the department try to respond to those requests that are made to come along and provide information or a session. So it is not a roadshow that is going around continuously, but certainly where able, I am advised, the department is very keen to make themselves available to inform the community and different groups as much as possible.

Mr TEAGUE: That is rather more, with respect, accurately and elegantly expressed than what I have just done. I did not mean to flag anything new in terms of a roadshow. If that is appropriately in response to requests then, as I understand it, that is what has occurred. In the course of the last year in those activities, has there been any cause for raising of anything new the result of legislative change? I think it is clear that there has been recent legislation that has increased penalties for breaches that have been of long standing, but is there anything new that has actually been added to the range of activities?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think I understand the question. As of a result of, I think, the September 2024 legislation that passed both houses of parliament, changes came into effect on 1 January this year. In terms of the scope of the remit, and the protection under the Aboriginal Heritage Act, nothing has changed. Anything that was protected before there was some changes to the fines is similarly protected afterwards. Anything that the act does not cover, still does not cover, so in terms of the activity that landholders can undertake, in that sense there has been no change.

What there has been a change to, I think, is changing attitudes in the community over time, particularly when you look at the destruction of cave art at Juukan Gorge and other such matters, and a change in the fines in South Australia. It was an election commitment, and there has been a significant increase, with up to $2 million for companies and $250,000 or two years' imprisonment for individuals who intentionally or recklessly damage or disturb Aboriginal heritage.

There is now also a lower level fine, recognising that these sorts of big fines for that intentional reckless may not be appropriate. A lower level offence is created with penalties of $50,000 for companies or $10,000 fines for individuals who damage, disturb or interfere with Aboriginal heritage, but there is a defence available if the person did not know, or could not reasonably be expected to know, that it was Aboriginal heritage. The fines have changed. In terms of what is covered, absolutely no change. The sites and objects that were covered under the act in 2023 are the sites and objects that are covered under the act in 2025 and 2026.

Mr TELFER: Just further to that, the scope, the activities, have not changed?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No.

Mr TELFER: Has the management or the policing, for want of a better word, of the oversight structures changed at all?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No.

Mr TELFER: It is the same?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is no, that has remained constant. There are authorised officers who can conduct investigations and they happen from time to time. The policing, in effect of the provisions, has not changed either, is my advice.

Mr TELFER: So there have not been any further directions of those authorised officers to—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: An increase? No, there has not been. In my experience, having worked in Aboriginal affairs and with the Aboriginal Heritage Act for more than two decades now, it is often either traditional owner groups or others who will bring information to the department, and then the department will investigate. There is not some new unit that is going out proactively. It is as it has been in the past, and the scope of what is protected has not changed either.

Mr TEAGUE: In terms of the net cost of providing services, and the capacity to respond to those requests, is there—and this might just be a means of illustrating one aspect of Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation's work—a cost associated with such responses? Who is involved? Is there a dollar, an FTE—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For investigations of breaches?

Mr TEAGUE: No, for what I inaccurately described as 'roadshow', but the minister more accurately described as capacity for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation to respond to a request for participating in a seminar—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Did you mean in relation to Aboriginal heritage matters?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, in relation to what we have just been talking about.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice that I sought earlier is that is a function that is ordinarily undertaken, that there has not been a dedicated line or FTEs put on to do that, but it is within the existing budget, as it has been in the past.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes. To underscore that, it has been a part of Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation's work for a period now of many years. We know that the old act has been in place since 1988 and has been amended along the way lots of times, but there is no budget or FTE allocation or any significant change in activity that might be referable to pre and post September 2024?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In my advice, in relation to those changes that were made in relation to the amount of the fines and the changes that were made to the act, nothing has been budgeted, put in or done differently. As we traversed before, the scope remains the same. Any Aboriginal site or object that was protected pre these changes is still protected post these changes. It has not increased the scope of how the act applies in that respect.

Mr TEAGUE: A good demonstration of that might be to use a set of circumstances that have arisen before so far in the course of these committees. We might have been finding ourselves talking about something that does not appear in either the targets or the highlights for that reason.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: If I then stay with that table on page 16, highlights for 2024-25 include, as the first dot point highlight, the support for the implementation of South Australia's First Nations Voice to Parliament at a local and state level. How has Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation worked with the First Nations Voice to Parliament in terms of providing that support?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For the First Nations Voice?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, and how is that sounded in terms of cost and FTE deployment?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can advise that, in terms of the support provided for the elected First Nations Voice, it is approximately the secretariat that supports that elected body, which totals approximately $700,000 a year. I am advised that the 2024-25 budget is $690,000, rising in 2025-26 to $701,000, in 2026-27 to $711,000 and in 2027-28 to $725,000.

Mr TEAGUE: And the FTE?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that it comprises six FTEs.

Mr TEAGUE: That is six FTEs of the—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The Voice secretariat.

Mr TEAGUE: But what I was about to say was of the FTEs in the program summary table—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The question is: the program summary number of FTEs, are they included in there? My advice is yes, they are.

Mr TEAGUE: I recall there was a time—and there is nothing controversial about it for the moment—when the Voice and its associated bureaucracy was possibly going to be wholly outside Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not think there was ever a time where that was happening.

Mr TEAGUE: No. To the extent that there was ever a consideration—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am not aware of it and, as minister, I would probably be aware of it. I am not aware that the government was considering that.

Mr TEAGUE: That is all as stated as recently as just now. Those FTEs are within Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation. For completeness, regarding the terms of the 2023-24 actual, the minister has referred to the 6.8 FTE that were vacancies at that time. How many, if any, of those 6.8 FTE vacancies were secretariat vacancies?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will have to take that on notice. Just so I have the question right that I am taking on notice: of the, I think it was 6.8, vacancies that I mentioned in the 2023-24 actuals, the question is how many of those were attributed to the Voice secretariat? Yes, I am happy to take that on notice.

Mr TEAGUE: It might be the same question, but it might just be another way of getting there and the information might be available. How long have the six FTEs at the secretariat been engaged?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that recruiting commenced after the act passed, then ramped up once elections had occurred.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, taking that as read.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: We might revert to the question you have taken on notice. It is a possibility, at least, at the moment that the 6.8 FTE vacancies as at actual 2023-24 might have included some—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If there are six people, it may have included some.

Mr TEAGUE: But it was not all of them. There was some engagement of FTE by then at the secretariat?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: This is just off the top of people's heads; if it is different, I am happy to go away and bring back another answer. The inaugural head of the secretariat of the Voice started in around November 2023 and then other staff came on after that. If it is November 2023, and we are talking the 2023-24 financial year, there would have been four or five months where there was not—the head of the Voice secretariat commenced on 8 January 2024, so for half of that time of the 2023-24 financial year there was the head of the secretariat and the other staff had not commenced. In terms of the actual numbers and how they influence the vacancies, I am happy to take that on notice.

Mr TEAGUE: I will move off this in a moment, but that just means, to be clear, that we have six FTEs engaged at the secretariat as at right now?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is my advice.

Mr TEAGUE: That is the plan; that is the full complement. As at January 2024, there was one key appointment that had been made to that secretariat. We are filling in the gaps together. As at the 2023-24 actual, we know that the whole Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation had a 6.8 FTE vacancy and it is just how many of that five, as at that time—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If there was no-one there for half the year, that would account for half of the vacancies.

Mr TEAGUE: Or most of the vacancies.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Sorry, it is FTEs at a point in time. It is not rolling. That is why we will need to check.

Mr TEAGUE: I am only assuming in that that because you are ramping up FTEs and because it is such a short timeframe it is not as rolling as it might be if we were talking about the FTEs over the page within the office of the DPP, for example.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It may well, and it stands to reason to account for some of those. It has been pointed out to me that that FTE count is not the average number of people over the whole of that year, so you cannot apportion half a year to half a position. It is as at 30 June on that date, and we do not have those figures here with us today.

Mr TEAGUE: This might be a short answer. Indeed, it might already have been answered, but for clarity what functions, if any, does Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation undertake to assist the First Nations Voice, other than contain within it the secretariat for the First Nations Voice?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is it is largely the administrative type of support that is provided by any department that has people sitting within it. I do note that from time to time, when it is needed with programs, officers from Premier and Cabinet, as a whole of government agency, help coordinate, in particular, the meetings with ministers that members of the Voice have. However, in terms of support, the secretariat sitting administratively within Aboriginal Affairs provides that administrative support. They are the ones who, organisationally, support the Voice.

Mr TEAGUE: So that is what we can read as what the first dot point item means? That 'Supported the implementation of South Australia's First Nations Voice to Parliament at a local and state level' applies to the secretariat to the tune of $700,000 that employed six FTEs? That is what that support means, bearing in mind those other connecting—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I said, I am sure there are administrative, payroll, those sorts of ancillary supports that you provide anyone who works in a department, but it is that secretariat that provides that.

Mr TEAGUE: While being somewhat specific about it, given that is expressed as a highlight of 2024-25, 'supporting the implementation' might just as well be described as 'supporting the operations or the functioning of' the South Australian First Nations Voice, or as, 'provided the secretariat of', given that it is now relatively long-established.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I would not describe it as relatively long-established after only a couple of years; but it might well be described in a whole range of different ways.

Mr TEAGUE: Okay, but there is nothing that is associated with 'implementation' as such that is materially or significantly outside of secretariat functions year to year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The secretariat sits within Aboriginal Affairs.

Mr TEAGUE: When one reads 'implementation', one might tend towards phases that move from implementation to ongoing functioning and so on.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is a matter of semantics to a large degree. Certainly, with the implementation of the First Nations Voice to Parliament, for which the secretariat provides support, there were elements of it that happened for the first time that year. For example, there was the first address to the joint houses of parliament, the first meetings with the cabinet and then subsequent meetings with different groups of ministers on different policy areas.

I would not in any way describe it as long established; it is still relatively early and there are still elements of how it functions, certainly over the 2024-25 year, have been happening for the first time. I think it is probably correct to say 'implementing' in some respects, as well.

Mr TEAGUE: Those examples the minister has given might come at a cost, but they are also examples of things that are recurring.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Indeed, but a lot of those are occurring for the very first time in that year. If you are talking about being 'implemented', that may be a fair way to describe it.

Mr TEAGUE: For completeness, when one turns to targets 2025-26, the final dot point talks about continuing in the same sort of vein, but rather than supporting the 'implementation' it moves to supporting the 'operations'. As the minister said, we are talking about what might be semantics, but there has been a semantic choice made in the expression in the budget papers.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Sure; and I think in 2025-26, as compared to 2024-25, most of the things that happened are things that have happened before. I guess that is probably a reasonably fair way to describe it.

Mr TEAGUE: I think it has already been pretty thoroughly answered, but the costs of support for implementation and support for operations, in terms of the $700,000 rising to $725,000 figures the minister has just given, more or less wholly is by reference to the costs of the secretariat?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is my advice, yes.

Mr TEAGUE: We are still on Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 16, and staying with highlights and targets. To return to the topic but perhaps in a more specific way, highlights for 2024-25 include, as the second dot point, 'Continued to work on the design and delivery of new statues and monuments to commemorate Aboriginal leaders.' Rather than wait, we see the balancing point that features as the first dot point of targets for 2025-26, which is still on the planning side, 'Continue to plan and assist with the delivery of six statues to commemorate Aboriginal South Australians.' It is more or less expressed in the same terms—one talks about Aboriginal leaders, the other one talks about Aboriginal South Australians.

Substantively, we are talking about, on the one hand, a highlight which was the continued work on the design and delivery of those new statues, and then the target is continuing to plan and assist with the delivery. Do we read anything into that in terms of any progress that has been made? We have already addressed the fact that money has been brought forward now from several years ago.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The choice of the words I do not think you can read anything into. You could have almost repeated the top one to the bottom one, but I do know that there has been significant work that has happened. For a number of reasons, including needing to seek permission of family, etc., I will not talk about exactly where we are, but there has been significant work that has been undertaken on those. I would not read anything into the words that are used to note a difference between the highlights and the targets, except by the time 2025-26 rolls around it will be more advanced than it was the year before.

Mr TEAGUE: That sounds good. Only because the minister has reflected on it earlier by reference to the second paragraph on page 17, would the minister in hindsight say to the committee that this is one of those areas where it might have actually been better to have, in terms of forward estimates three and a bit years ago, zero, zero, zero, zero, $1 million at the end, rather than it being front-loaded? Is this a question of 'as it has turned out'? What do we know so far?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Maybe, given we are now in the fourth year of the current government, knowing everything that we know now, you might have reflected it differently so it was not in the second and third year, or the third and the fourth year, $500,000 each—loading it a bit more bit more towards the end, perhaps.

Mr TEAGUE: Put it this way: has any of that $1 million been spent at all?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that in the order of $200,000 has been spent.

Mr TEAGUE: It features as the second highlight, and that highlight describes 'work'. Has that all happened in the last financial year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, yes, I think so.

Mr TEAGUE: What has that been constituted by? What is it comprised of?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is commissioning and getting ready for that first statue. Once again, I will not go into details of that final step, but it is in relation to the process of getting statues. I never knew that the processes are quite intricate in terms of how these things are done and made, etc.

Mr TEAGUE: I appreciate that. I am not going to press the minister. It is maybe for a whole variety of reasons. The government might want to make announcements in its own time and all the rest and there might be other reasons, but, suffice to say, have the subjects of the six monuments been determined?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think it is fair to say, no, not all of them. There has been a process that former Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement, Dr Roger Thomas, ran early in this term of government to suggest some names. It is certainly something that we intend to have a discussion—it will not be determined—with the representative Voice about in some of those further ones.

Mr TEAGUE: So have any of the subjects of the monuments been determined?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Once again, I am happy to say that work has progressed, but there will be more to come in the coming months about it.

Mr TEAGUE: Right, but have any of the subjects of the monuments been determined?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Work has progressed and there will be more to come in the coming months about that.

Mr TEAGUE: It does not sound like an answer. I want to say it sounds like no.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I would not necessarily read it that way, but more will be said in the coming months.

Mr TEAGUE: So it is possible that some but not all of the subjects of the monuments have been determined. Is there some reason why the minister is not able or elects not to tell the committee that?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Work has progressed and there will be more that we will have to say about it in the coming months.

Mr TEAGUE: There has been no additional money that has been identified over and above the amount that was first identified in the 2022 budget, the $1 million?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: So there is $800,000 left?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think, yes, roughly, but I will go back and check and take it on notice because I want to double-check.

Mr TEAGUE: So there is about $100,000 left. There has been $200,000 of work on—it must be because it is a highlight of 2024-25—design and delivery of the new statues and monuments. What does 'design and delivery' mean in this sense, in that this committee is not to know, at least at this stage, whether or not that design and delivery includes work on the design and delivery of a monument in respect of a chosen subject? To rewind to our engagement a little earlier on forensic science, is it a matter of identifying the land on which the monument might—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will be able to say more about this in the coming months. I am just not in a position to at this stage.

Mr TEAGUE: Not in a position to say anything else?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, but I am happy to share more in the coming months. I know the member for Flinders is very interested.

Mr TELFER: It is a highlight of the budget. I want some information about a highlight.

Mr TEAGUE: It is the second highlight.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can tell you that, during the 2024-25 financial year, there has been work on the design and delivery.

Mr TEAGUE: That is what the highlight says.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I know.

Mr TEAGUE: It is the number one target for 2025-26. It is not number one, but the first dot point.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For the benefit of the member—and I am not sure if the member in his time performing the functions of the Attorney-General went through an estimates process—these are not in priority order.

Mr TEAGUE: Sure.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: These are dot points. There is not a 1, 2, 3, 4 next to them, but, yes, it is one of the dot points.

Mr TEAGUE: Alright, so they are all equal.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is one of the dot points.

Mr TEAGUE: It features as the first stated dot point.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, please, I do not want the member to take it that there is a hierarchical order of the dot points on the page. It might not be that all dot points are created equal. There may be some that are more important, but I would not take a position on the page as a definitive indicator of that.

Mr TEAGUE: What is really abundantly clear is that this is a matter of sufficient importance to the government that not only did it appear prominently as an election commitment but it has appeared, with this level of prominence, in both the highlights and the targets for each budget that we have seen under this government. It is described somewhat differently in the highlights than it is in the targets. We do not read too much into that, but what is clear is that the target for 2025-26 is not raising expectations too much, in that it is very clearly characterised in terms of the continuation of a planning and assisting phase. It is not indicating that it is actually the achievement of the delivery and completion, and so on, of six monuments.

The minister has not gone as far as to identify any subject of a monument and has at least made it clear to the committee that the balance of subjects, if not all of them, are yet to be determined. We are nearly four years on and we are talking about funding having been moved into another year. That is all there on the face of the budget papers. Is there anything else the minister is able to say to this committee about the delivery of the election commitment, to put it that bluntly?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If I had a date for when it is all going to be completed by, I would give it to you. I do not have a completion date. It was hoped and anticipated that this work, certainly when it was thought of, might be a continuing sort of work—that it would not just be this number but might encourage further investment in statues of Aboriginal people, right around South Australia, by other organisations, groups or councils as well.

Mr TEAGUE: The minister has mentioned Dr Thomas. Did the services of anyone outside of Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation contribute to that cost? Is there anything else that the minister can say to the committee about the constituent parts of that $200,000 that has been spent?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have details here with me, but I can see what I can bring back.

Mr TEAGUE: Will you take that on notice?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will take that on notice.

Mr TELFER: Minister, on page 16 the Aboriginal Affairs program speaks about providing whole-of-government policy advice and leadership. I am interested in what involvement your agency might have had in the development and upcoming finalisation of the Aboriginal Enterprise Procurement Strategy. Is that something that you have been working on hand-in-hand with Treasury? It is something that a lot of organisations within my electorate, in particular, are interested in, in making sure there are opportunities to be able to get involved in different levels of providing service and otherwise to government. Is it something that your department has been involved in directly?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Certainly in a whole range of areas, including procurement, it is something that I know comes across my desk—advice or thoughts are sought about such things. There is a very powerful way that government can directly help and benefit Aboriginal people's businesses and communities through procurement. We buy a lot as a government, as other levels of government do as well, in looking to see where we can support First Nations enterprises. It is an important way in which we can provide economic independence.

Mr TELFER: Has your department been working with Treasury? One of the targets for Treasury, in Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 162, is specifically about the development of that procurement strategy. Is that something you are—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Where is the reference? Actually, without you telling me the exact page, I am advised that, very regularly, Aboriginal Affairs provide advice and input on a whole range of—

Mr TELFER: On that particular procurement strategy?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have the budget paper in front of me, but in a whole range of areas they provide advice, as do I as minister.

Mr TEAGUE: I am still at the page 16 highlights and targets. In terms of highlights 2024-25, we see, at the fourth of those highlights, there is work with the South Australian Fire and Emergency Services Commission to create Aboriginal cultural heritage maps of the state for use in emergency and disaster events. Is there anything the minister can provide to inform the committee of the use of Aboriginal cultural heritage maps in emergency or disaster events?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can provide a bit of information. When I was out meeting with traditional owners, particularly after the River Murray flood events, this came up when there necessarily needed to be very quick responses and the taking of soil and sand to fill sandbags and putting them in different places was needed in a very quick response.

Some of the feedback I received when visiting Aboriginal communities in the River Murray area, during and after that flooding event, was that there was maybe bit of a lack of proactive understanding of what is there. When local councils or emergency services get sandbags they do not know if there is any knowledge that this could be a burial ground or have important Aboriginal culturally modified trees there.

Particularly as a result of some of the feedback in relation to the River Murray flood events, there is now a signed memorandum of administrative agreement with SAFECOM and, as part of the program, Aboriginal Affairs—and this is just at the very start of this program—are looking to research and prepare a method for developing a digital heat map of Aboriginal heritage across the state. It would not replace the central archive, the central register of Aboriginal sites and objects, but they want to be able to derive some sort of heat map where, in emergency situations, emergency services could use it to mitigate the risk of impacting upon Aboriginal heritage.

Mr TEAGUE: The highlight talks in terms of creating these maps. Obviously that is based on existing knowledge, but the creating process is presumably referable to the map for the purpose. I think the minister has partly addressed that point but, by reference perhaps to the flood, can the minister advise the committee of any information about the use of those maps to the extent that they have been created, and perhaps outline the process of creating the map, and are copies available?

The ACTING CHAIR: You have two minutes on the clock, member for Heysen.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that there is not a map that has been finalised and published, but the way that I am advised that this is intended to be rolled out is on a local level—local emergency services working with traditional owner groups in the area to develop that understanding and a map in those local areas, rather than something that is done on a complete statewide basis. My advice is that it is with local emergency services groups and TOs.

Mr TEAGUE: But there is no such map in existence?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, but it is being developed.

Mr TEAGUE: So it has not been deployed in terms of the flood, but that is an example of the kind of thing.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No. In terms of the flood response I gave, that really gave rise to awareness of why this would be beneficial. No, it certainly was not developed for the flood event.

Mr TEAGUE: But it is a highlight again.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: Once created, the map would then be available to a local CFS, SES brigade, would it?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that is the intention but also I think, from my memory of talking to Aboriginal groups and those responders in the River Murray, it was not just the State Emergency Services but often local councils that were doing a lot of the work in terms of the sandbags and the moving of soil to influence water flows.

Mr TEAGUE: That is a pretty generalised explanation. Is there any particular cost associated with the creation of the maps, and is there any sort of centralised protocol in terms of, once created, the custodianship of the maps? Will they be as accessible as possible, including for those local purposes, centrally and coherently able to be drawn upon? For example, if you as minister were to roll in to a local area and say, 'Have you got any of those maps that were created? If so, where are they? I don't have them because they are in the local area,' or is there also a carbon copy that is sent to Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will have to take that on notice. I do not have that minutia of operational detail. As I understand, there has been a memorandum of administrative agreement signed with SAFECOM, but I am happy to go away and see what I can bring back in terms of some more of that detail.

The ACTING CHAIR: The allotted time having expired, the examination of Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation is complete. Further examination of proposed payments and Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department will continue after the lunch break.

Sitting suspended from 12:16 to 13:15.


PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT