Estimates Vote

Legislative Council, $6,102,000

House of Assembly, $9,103,000

Joint Parliamentary Services, $11,572,000

Auditor-General's Department, $16,598,000

State Governor's Establishment, $3,531,000

Minister:

Hon. J.W. Weatherill, Premier.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr R. Crump, Clerk of the House of Assembly.

Mr K. Nelson, Chief Finance Officer, Legislature.

Mr A. Richardson, Auditor-General.

Ms M. Stint, Manager, Finance, Auditor-General's Department.

Mr I. McGlen, Director of Audits, Auditor-General's Department.

The CHAIR: The estimates committees are a relatively informal procedure and, as such, there is no need to stand to ask or answer questions, although members are reminded that normal standing orders remain in play in the chamber at all times. I understand that the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition have agreed to an approximate time for the consideration of proposed payments, which will facilitate a change of departmental advisers. Can the minister—in this case, the Premier—and the lead speaker for the opposition confirm that today's timetable, as distributed, is accurate?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes.

Mr MARSHALL: Yes, thank you.

The CHAIR: Changes to committee membership will be notified as they occur. Members should ensure the Chair is provided with a completed request to be discharged form. If the minister undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the committee secretary by no later than Friday 30 October 2015. This year, estimates committee responses will be published during the 17 November sitting week in corrected daily Hansard over a three-day period.

I propose to allow both the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition to make opening statements of about 10 minutes each should they wish. There will be a flexible approach to giving the call for asking questions based on about three questions per member, alternating each side. Supplementary questions will be the exception rather than the rule. A member who is not part of the committee may ask a question at the discretion of the Chair. Questions must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget papers and must be identifiable or referenced at the beginning of each question.

Members unable to complete their questions during the proceedings may submit them as questions on notice for inclusion in the House of Assembly Notice Paper. There is no formal facility for the tabling of documents before the committee. However, documents can be supplied to the Chair for distribution to the committee. The incorporation of material into Hansard is permitted on the same basis as applies in the house, that is, that it is purely statistical and limited to one page in length. All questions are to be directed to the minister and not the minister's advisers. The minister may, however, refer questions to advisers for a response.

During the committee's examination, television cameras will be permitted to film from both the northern and southern galleries. I declare the proposed payments open for examination and refer members to the Agency Statements, Volume 3. Premier, did you wish to make an opening statement this morning?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No.

The CHAIR: Leader?

Mr MARSHALL: No.

The CHAIR: Premier, would you introduce your advisers?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: To my left is Rick Crump, Clerk of the House of Assembly; to his left is Kent Nelson, Chief Finance Officer of Parliament House. To my right is Andrew Richardson, Auditor-General, and behind me are Megan Stint, Manager, Finance, Auditor-General's Department and Ian McGlen, Director of Audits, Auditor-General's Department.

Mr MARSHALL: I indicate that we do not have any questions with regard to the House of Assembly, the Joint Parliamentary Services, the Legislative Council or the State Governor's Establishment.

The CHAIR: All those advisers can go?

Mr MARSHALL: Correct.

The CHAIR: So, you are looking purely at the Auditor-General. Is that right, leader?

Mr MARSHALL: We will start with the Auditor-General, but of course we also have the Economic Development Board and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. We are happy to start wherever the Premier would like.

The CHAIR: And where are we looking—Volume 3?

Mr MARSHALL: If we are starting with the Auditor-General's Department, it will be Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 80. It starts on page 78.

The CHAIR: But your first question is on page 80; thank you.

Mr MARSHALL: Can you please list the investigations which were commenced before 1 July 2015 which are ongoing?

Mr RICHARDSON: On the departure of the previous auditor-general, we were in progress with two reviews in local government: on the indemnity schemes that are operated by the Local Government Authority and a review into a drainage scheme, or at least a flood mitigation scheme, through Brown Hill Creek.

We had in progress work on ICT works that were to do with Health, and part of that was reported at 30 June. There are a couple of systems that we are still completing the work on together with a first-stage review of progress on the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. We are also completing some work that was started on advertising. They are the main examinations and reviews that were in progress at that time.

Mr MARSHALL: I understand that these would be what you would refer to in the budget papers as 'special investigations'; is that correct?

Mr RICHARDSON: No, the special investigations are occasions when we have been referred specific work that ultimately would be done on reference. The work that we have been doing is all for us within our ordinary mandate. We call most of those activities 'public interest reviews', which in other states they would probably call 'performance audits', but it comes within our existing mandate. Virtually all our funding is directed to our normal business, and that comes under the auditing services, program 1.

Mr MARSHALL: Can you indicate to the committee how a special interest investigation is triggered?

Mr RICHARDSON: All the work we are doing at the moment—

Mr MARSHALL: How a special investigation is triggered, sorry.

Mr RICHARDSON: A special investigation is triggered by reference from the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption and the Treasurer is also able to refer investigations to us. We had, you will see on page 81, back in 2013-14, funding there that was actually provided for the Adelaide Oval, so that came under a specific mandate under that legislation. Since then, we have absorbed the ongoing costs of that work within our ordinary work.

Mr MARSHALL: Under sub-program 1.2, it says that an examination work can be 'requested by', and it lists 'the Parliament of South Australia, Treasurer, minister or the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption'. How would the Parliament of South Australia instigate a special investigation? Would that be by motion?

Mr RICHARDSON: Yes, it would have to be. Under that section of the act, there would have to be a motion that set out terms of reference for the Auditor-General, and that would be the process.

Mr MARSHALL: Just going back, you are saying that as of 30 June there were public interest reviews underway regarding the Royal Adelaide Hospital, government advertising, the local government and also the South-East drainage; is that correct?

Mr RICHARDSON: The local government review incorporates not the South-East drainage but the local water authority that is related to that.

Mr MARSHALL: The water authority is the subject of the local government review?

Mr RICHARDSON: It is the local government review under section 32.

Mr MARSHALL: Can you give an indication to the committee when those current public interest reviews are likely to be completed?

Mr RICHARDSON: I expect that all bar probably the Brown Hill Creek flood would be tabled at least by October in the same time frame as the annual report that is due. We still have some work to do on the Brown Hill Creek one, so that may be slightly after that.

Mr MARSHALL: And the others—the Royal Adelaide Hospital, the advertising review and any supplementary report to the IT—when are they due?

Mr RICHARDSON: I expect all of those to be due when parliament resumes in October this year.

Mr MARSHALL: Is that handed down simultaneously with the annual—

Mr RICHARDSON: That is likely to be the case. If I can complete any of those prior to that, then I will be looking for a tabling date that I can get those in. At the moment, I am not assured that I could do that, so I will make sure that they would be available at the time of the annual report.

Mr MARSHALL: Just in relation to the advertising, how did you determine that you wanted to look at the government advertising? Was that a referral from a member of parliament, was it a referral from the parliament, or was it just something that you took up yourself?

Mr RICHARDSON: In fact, that one was started by my predecessor and I have chosen to complete the work that was started. The basis of that was simply we go through a process of identifying issues of the moment and that was one that was chosen to be a review that we would perform, so it is at the discretion of the Auditor-General.

Mr MARSHALL: When was that investigation begun?

Mr RICHARDSON: The planning for that was identified much earlier in the year. It did not actually start until pretty much I took over the reigns.

The CHAIR: Before the next question, could I just let people in the galleries behind us know that their voices carry down. There is too much noise. If they could just keep the noise down, we would be really grateful. Also, are there any questions on my right today?

Mr HUGHES: No.

Mr MARSHALL: When did you take over?

Mr RICHARDSON: Mr O'Neill finished at the end of March, so we were working towards completing the program of work that had been set out that we had identified. Up until 1 June, I was acting in that position, so I took the decision to make sure that work that we had planned would continue. As it turned out, I was appointed to the position.

Mr MARSHALL: You have outlined to the committee today what were all the public interest reviews underway on 30 June which are continuing and you have told us that all but the Brown Hill Creek component of the local government review are likely to be completed in October. Have you instigated any public interest reviews since 30 June?

Mr RICHARDSON: No. The process we are going through at the moment is to get ourselves in a position where we will make sure we will finish off all the work that is necessary to publish the annual report, including those public interest reviews I have outlined. We are also going through our planning stage at the moment to identify projects we are going to perform as soon as we have completed the annual report for this year. For us, a planning year essentially goes from November through November on a calendar basis, and we will start and have ourselves in a position where our new plan will be ready to go come this November.

Mr MARSHALL: The agency has put a lot of focus on reviewing IT projects in the past, and you have just indicated to the committee that there will be a further investigation or public interest review into IT and some of the IT areas that were not covered in the supplementary report. Are you talking specifically there about the Oracle system or RISTEC? What other systems are you currently looking at?

Mr RICHARDSON: There are five IT systems that are central to the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. We have reported on EPAS, ESMI and Oracle. Oracle is the most advanced of those and is pretty much settled now. The systems that are still under review by us are called EPLIS, which is a pathology system, and iPharmacy, which is an update of the pharmacy systems that they have been operating and which would bring it in line with being able to deal with the technical requirements of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital.

We wanted to make sure that we had covered off on all of the major ICT systems that were necessary for the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. We were also looking at the overall ICT arrangements, which is matching up our enterprise systems with those of the providers. That is part of the overall scope of our review of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital.

Mr MARSHALL: Are you looking at the CHIRON system?

Mr RICHARDSON: No, we have not looked at CHIRON. CHIRON, as we all know its status—the court case will determine the future for where that goes. From our perspective, where Health was at, EPAS is the system that they were seeking to put in as an enterprise patient administration system. Whether that continues to be the case—if CHIRON is able to be used in the near future, then what we would expect to see is some planning at the appropriate time for its replacement.

Clearly, right now, Health is doing a lot of things, and I do not think they are probably very well placed to try to tackle another IT system, as opposed to bedding down those that are already very significant developments for them. So, there has been a coinciding, I guess, of the fact that there is a range of systems that are still in development. That was not the original plan; it is the way it has turned out. To add another on top of that I think would probably be stretching their capacity, and that probably would not be worth their while.

Mr MARSHALL: Are you aware that the CHIRON system is currently being used without a current licence?

Mr RICHARDSON: Yes, I understand that. I understand the basis on which they have sought to continue to use that. Again, those circumstances have occurred, they are well known, and they are being challenged. We will see what happens out of that challenge, and whether or not that creates a different issue, at which point I guess we would have a look at that. But, should they be entitled to continue using CHIRON—as I say, I think they need to spend their effort in settling down the other systems.

Mr MARSHALL: As the Auditor-General do you, as part of the scope for your annual audit, look at the currency of the software licences that are used across government?

Mr RICHARDSON: We do not specifically go looking for that. We were aware of the circumstances of CHIRON. We were aware of the advice that the department received, and going on that advice, we have focused on the systems that required implementation.

Mr MARSHALL: And so you are satisfied that there is a very low risk regarding the CHIRON system?

Mr RICHARDSON: I probably cannot evaluate the risk for us. We were aware that they had advice that they were entitled to continue to use the system, notwithstanding the licence lapsing, and, as I say, we have focused on other systems.

Mr MARSHALL: Are you aware that there is currently legal action against the state government for the continuing use?

Mr RICHARDSON: Yes.

Mr MARSHALL: What would be the consequences if they were successful and South Australia was unable to continue to use the CHIRON system, which, I understand, is used in all but one or two of our country hospitals right across South Australia?

Mr RICHARDSON: If that occurred, then the consequence would be that Health would have to make the relevant arrangements, either with the provider or alternatives. Until we know that outcome, there is considerable risk in the other systems that they are operating. That matter—

Mr MARSHALL: More than using non-current software which is subject to a court challenge at the moment? There are riskier things than using a non-current piece of software where there is currently a legal challenge to a continued use.

Mr RICHARDSON: Given that they were in possession of advice that said they were on a good basis to be able to use that, we took that into account in making our—

Mr MARSHALL: Who provided that advice?

Mr RICHARDSON: The Crown.

The CHAIR: Leader, can we just ask that the questions be finished and answered before you get into your next question, because he was still going.

Mr RICHARDSON: The Crown provided that advice.

Mr MARSHALL: Have you looked at the veracity of that advice and got any independent opinion on that advice?

Mr RICHARDSON: No.

Mr MARSHALL: No. So, at this stage there is no interest from the Auditor-General's Department in looking at the issues regarding the CHIRON system?

Mr RICHARDSON: No, there is not 'no interest'. Our interest is to see what the outcome is of the court proceedings; and we were aware of the fact that the company, potentially, would challenge the state on its ongoing use. We were aware of the circumstances of the proceedings, we are aware of the fact that it has been challenged, and notwithstanding those things we were looking at systems that were supporting the opening of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital; and for us, that was our priority review. So, there is not 'no interest'; we have been monitoring what the situation is with CHIRON, but we have put our efforts into what is going on at the new Royal Adelaide Hospital.

Mr MARSHALL: You are currently conducting a public interest review into the Royal Adelaide Hospital; can you give us an overview of the scope of that audit?

Mr RICHARDSON: Essentially, leading up to here there has been commentary in the Auditor-General's reports on governance arrangements and reviews that health have done on the new Royal Adelaide Hospital; so, referencing assurance reviews and gateway reviews that the department has had.

Our view on this occasion was that we would go through the detail of the underlying governance arrangements, such as project management, risk management reporting—essentially, the entire program, and it is a very broad program, right through to the transitioning of the hospital from the existing Royal Adelaide Hospital to the new premises. Because of the scope of that, we will tend to do that in two phases. Our first phase was to focus on the governance arrangements and aspects of that. The transitioning process is not in our first phase, it will be in our second phase, as will more detailed testing work that we would need to do.

There is a very large procurement program for furniture and equipment, and we have been looking at the oversighting and governance arrangements of that procurement process, but we have not investigated individual procurements. For us, in scheduling out the amount of work that needs to be done the most important thing for us was to get a view of what was behind some of the things that have been commented on by other independent reviews at those gateway reviews that the departments had done.

What I expect to be reporting on at least by October, as I said, is that overview of the state of the governance, the state of the project, the project reporting and aspects around that, and including progress with revising the business case, which is also a matter that is in progress. All of those matters we feel set the scene for the remaining stages of completing the move into the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, but we would also look back at that very large procurement program and some of the detailed testing that we need to do just to see what happened with individual procurements, for example.

We focused on those sorts of things because there have been a few changes in the governance arrangements especially with the program directors and senior people at the Royal Adelaide Hospital. So, it was important for us to see the transitioning of those sorts of governance arrangements; or at least was the transitioning of those governance arrangements affecting the project in any negative way or, indeed, in any positive way.

Mr MARSHALL: Have you formed an opinion as to when the new Royal Adelaide Hospital will open?

Mr RICHARDSON: I am aware of the two pieces of information that are publicly talked about, that is, the target date of 16 April. I am also aware that, with the reviews that are done of the project, that indicates there is potentially a lag in the delivery of the project. However, I am very keenly aware that everybody is working towards—and all the information that we have seen suggests that everybody is working towards April 2016.

Mr MARSHALL: I am sure that is the case but, as the Auditor-General, have you formed an opinion as to when the new Royal Adelaide Hospital will open?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Questions have to be directed towards me.

Mr MARSHALL: Has the Auditor-General or the agency, as part of their review of the government's arrangement of the Royal Adelaide Hospital, formed an opinion?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That is not the way in which this process works; it is questions about estimates here. The Auditor-General has already given his answer. We have contractual obligations for the hospital to be finished in April 2016 and, if they are not met, then we have certain rights under those contractual arrangements. You have seen that Treasury have made estimates about when they think the project is likely to be finished. There is a view that it may slip, but at this stage we are certainly seeking to hold the consortium to its contracted arrangements. These projects have a capacity to speed up or slow down depending on circumstances. It really just depends on the circumstances that occur at the site, so that is all that we can really offer.

Mr MARSHALL: Premier, the Auditor-General has had a strong interest in both IT projects and the new Royal Adelaide Hospital project. There is essentially no parliamentary oversight of those two projects, because they are not subject to the Public Works Committee of the parliament. Do you think that it would be prudent to have IT projects, and indeed public-private partnerships going forward, to be the subject of Public Works Committee scrutiny? At the moment I think the threshold for a public work is $4 million and these projects are some of the largest projects in the history of the state. In the case of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, if you believe some of the magazine articles, it is one of the largest capital projects in the history of the world, yet there has been no oversight by our own Public Works Committee.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think what we have sought to do is advance changes to the Public Works Committee arrangements where some of the smaller-value projects are actually excluded by lifting the threshold. I think the Public Works Committee spends a lot of time on projects which are very low value, but we are always open to ideas about reforming the process of scrutiny of public works. Certainly, in some respects it is a bit the other way around: I think we scrutinise some very small projects, which take up a lot of time and effort for no good reason.

Mr MARSHALL: Premier, are you suggesting that you would be happy to trade off a lift in the threshold, but then with the inclusion of IT projects and public-private partnerships going forward?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am not going to have a debate about that here, but I just make the observation that I think the Public Works Committee considers projects that are really, I think, too small and create a lot of red tape for no good reason. I have not given any thought to the capacity to include ICT projects, but I suppose it depends on how one measures the value of those projects.

Mr MARSHALL: The government has been very clear that it expects efficiency dividends right across government, and they have been pursuing these efficiency dividend targets by agency for the last four or five years. Has there been an efficiency dividend imposed upon the Auditor-General that you could outline to the committee?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The Auditor-General can answer that question.

Mr RICHARDSON: In the year that the ICAC legislation went through there were significant changes to our budget. We were provided with funding that would put us in a position to deal with a range of things that came out of that, essentially at a local government capacity, which we did not have. As part of the negotiations of the outcome, where we ultimately had an FTE increase in the department, we had some offsetting of previous arrangements.

The department had carried a vacant executive position for a very substantial period of time, but we did need to reinstate that position. In prior years, we had been making those sorts of contributions and, indeed, returning surplus cash in the past. The arrangements were put in place were at the beginning of 2014-15, so we are still bedding down the outcome of that and we are still settling into local government. We have a number of people allocated to that task. There is an executive who oversees that who also oversees a number of the public interest reviews and ICT reviews that we do.

Having come into the position, I am now just looking at how those arrangements work to make sure that we can deliver those sorts of individual reports that my predecessor was talking to the parliament about over the last couple of years. Underlying that, what I am saying is that we have been included in the efficiency dividends in negotiating our overall outcomes. Last year, our overall outcome was to increase our budget.

Mr MARSHALL: So you have done a lot better than most agencies?

Mr RICHARDSON: On the way down here, I was thinking that we are used to—

Mr MARSHALL: The government don't want to poke the stick at you.

Mr RICHARDSON: We are used to operating at a bare minimum, shall I say.

Mr MARSHALL: Well, you say that, but every other agency has had very significant efficiency dividends to meet. It seems to me, looking at your budget, that it has increased every year and there has been no diminution staff required and there has been no increase in scope for the Auditor-General. You mentioned earlier that there had been a requirement to return surplus cash, but I have looked at the balance sheet and there has been no such return of cash to Treasury; in fact, there has been an increase in cash and cash equivalents on the balance sheet virtually each and every year.

Mr RICHARDSON: We are in fact looking at that. I am looking at that myself right now, but—

Mr MARSHALL: Right now, did you say?

Mr RICHARDSON: Yes, that is correct. On the efficiency side, our view is that we have had very stable staffing for many, many years, and our structure has been very stable over these years. The underlying work has changed considerably in that period of time. If you go back, you will find that the volume of the Auditor-General's Report predominantly increases with the volume of the financial statements and the financial framework that is in place.

In responding to that and the professional standards that we are obliged to do, we have picked up a lot of underlying work, which, unfortunately for us, is a bit like painting your room—you probably do not see the real significant effect, you just see a fresh coat of paint. For us to achieve the work outcomes that we have, we have had to build a lot of work into being more efficient about the processes that we are obliged to do.

Mr MARSHALL: On page 78, what are the minor capital works and equipment that you plan to purchase this year?

Mr RICHARDSON: Our capital program is generally directed to just replacing our portable computing capacity and our local servers. We have a routine replacement program. All our staff—we have 90-odd field auditors—use portable computers.

Mr MARSHALL: So you purchase those; it is not a lease arrangement?

Mr RICHARDSON: That is correct, and then after about three years we turn them over.

Mr MARSHALL: Can you give an overview of what the principal or the larger items are under the Supplies and services heading on page 79?

Mr RICHARDSON: Our major outlay is contracted audit services. We contract some of our audit work, whether it might be ICT specialists. We contract out a couple of Health audits to private auditing firms. We get specialist advice on occasion and that tends to be the major outlay that we have in our goods and services line. Beyond that, it is simply rent for our office space followed by bits and pieces, really.

Mr MARSHALL: And this year you plan to increase that outsourced service?

Mr RICHARDSON: We have facility for that, that is correct.

Mr MARSHALL: Also in the budget paper, it says that you have administered items. What are the administered items?

Mr RICHARDSON: That is the salary of the Auditor-General. It is a specifically appropriated line.

Mr MARSHALL: Why does the salary of the Auditor-General have a balance sheet with a cash balance of $1.3 million? Is this part of the overall cash and cash equivalents review you are doing? I presume that is more than one year of salary for the Auditor-General.

Mr RICHARDSON: Sure.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: What page?

Mr MARSHALL: Page 87. Can you also indicate what the receivables would be for that administered item?

Mr RICHARDSON: The most activity that goes through our administered item is our audit fees. Under the act, we recover audit fees. The money does not go directly to the department. We are funded by appropriation, but we do return the audit fees we raise to the Treasury, so the fees we raise are accounted for as an administered item. That is the main line of activity that goes through there.

Mr MARSHALL: Just to clarify, earlier you said that the administered item was your salary, but what you are saying now is that the administered items are interagency transfers: you bill individual agencies for the work and they pay you.

Mr RICHARDSON: That is correct.

Mr MARSHALL: That is the administered item. So it is not your salary?

Mr RICHARDSON: No, the salary is in there as an expense. For example, my predecessor's settlement arrangements were an administered item and—

Mr MARSHALL: But the bulk is the interagency?

Mr RICHARDSON: The bulk is the interaction with the agencies on the audit fees; that is correct.

Mr SPEIRS: Referring to the same budget paper, Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 78, I have a general question relating to the Auditor-General's role with auditing local government. In the December meeting of the Economic and Finance Committee, when the previous auditor-general spoke to that committee he mentioned that the Auditor-General's office was going to be broadening its role, or was in the process of broadening its role, with regard to looking at the processes of local government in the state. He made comments that there was some work to be done in that area. Could you give an overview of how that is going?

Mr RICHARDSON: Our starting position was, as I have mentioned, a number of reviews that we essentially put into action quite quickly under my predecessor, so we are completing that work. Where we are at at the moment is, because local government is new to us—we have been in that area many years ago, but so long ago that there is no real contemporary reference that we can make out of that—renewing our understanding of the sector and getting an overview of the sector, getting engaged with aspects of the basics, if you like, that the governance arrangements are in place. We have been in contact with not only the councils but the auditors who operate in that sector.

We are not the auditor of any particular council. The mandate that was given to the Auditor-General is an examination mandate, so it is a discretion, but on the expectation of exercising that discretion we need to have a good understanding of the activity of the sector and where we perceive the appropriate areas to be for us to perform examinations.

As it stands, we have three staff allocated to that under the supervision of an executive and they are going through a planning process, just like the rest of the activities are at the moment, at the same time as completing their existing work. That planning work builds our knowledge of the sector and will identify some areas that we will then move into once we have completed the current round of examinations.

Mr SPEIRS: Are there any areas that you have identified that warrant particular focus or concern at this stage or is it too early to tell?

Mr RICHARDSON: Too early at the moment.

Mr SPEIRS: Just a final question: will it be an ongoing process or time limited in terms of your focus on local government?

Mr RICHARDSON: It is certainly ongoing in the sense that the mandate is there and until we have gone through sufficient work that suggests that we either have a continuing obligation there or, indeed, we could step back, and I expect that would not occur for perhaps up to three years. I am working on a planning cycle of about three years at the moment to see that we would do appropriate work in that sector.

Mr SPEIRS: Are you working alongside the Local Government Association and other stakeholders with regard to building that understanding?

Mr RICHARDSON: That is correct.

Mr MARSHALL: There are no more questions for the Auditor-General. Thank you very much.

The CHAIR: So we are happy to close that line? We are going to close the line. There will be no further questions. The examination of closed payments is completed.