Auditor-General's Report

Auditor-General's Report

In committee.

(Continued from 28 November 2019.)

The CHAIR: We now proceed to the examination of the Auditor-General's Report 2018-19 in relation to the Minister for Child Protection. I remind members that the committee is in normal session, and therefore any questions need to be asked by members on their feet. All questions must be directly referenced to the Auditor-General's Report 2018-19.

Ms STINSON: I refer to Part C, page 58, employee benefits expenses. This section reads that the DCP budgeted to expand its workforce with an additional 340 FTEs, to be recruited in 2018-19, but actually only recruited an additional 100 FTEs. Minister, is that data correct?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Yes, that is correct as at 30 June. However, I would like to point out that there have been 84.6 further staff members recruited since that time, and an extensive recruitment drive is underway and has continued. It is important that we get the right staff for the job, and it is more important to continue to do that rather than just fill vacancies to meet a target. There is considerable competition in the market with the expansion of the NDIS, and we are doing a lot of work on retaining and retraining their existing staff, which is also incredibly important.

Ms STINSON: So you are finding it difficult to recruit staff?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I did not say that it was difficult. I said that it was important to get it right. We have been extensively recruiting. Unlike the former Labor government that held open vacancies in order to cover the cost blowouts in their department, we have actively been recruiting for the entire almost two years that we have been in government, and I think we are making good progress.

In fact, right now we have the highest number of front-line child protection staff we have ever had, so we are doing very well. This government broadened the qualifications in order to expand our recruitment abilities. We have done everything possible to work to look after our staff, to recruit more staff, to retain those we have, and I think that the department is doing a good job. I would rather we took our time to get the right staff than fill the vacancies just to meet a target.

Ms STINSON: So 340 additional roles were budgeted in the last financial year. What has been the problem or the delay with recruiting that number of people within the 12 months for which those roles were budgeted?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Let me explain again. As you have stated, 100 staff were recruited in the last financial year, and since 30 June 2019 we have recruited a further 84.6. We are extensively recruiting throughout the state, and as a government we broadened the qualifications to allow expansion, which has occurred. We are recruiting.

As I said, there is competition with the NDIS, which is expanding and which is also looking for staff. If anyone is listening, we are looking for more staff. Please go online. We are recruiting in earnest. We would, as I said, prefer to get the right people. We prefer to also work on retaining the staff we have through staff training.

We had a our first leadership forum this year. We have had two. It is the first time it has happened in this department. We also had our first ever recognition of service and awards for recognition of good work as well this year, which has never been done before. So we are recognising our staff, retaining our staff better and actively working to recruit more.

Ms STINSON: Maybe the minister does not understand the question, so I will just go through it again. There were 340 roles that were budgeted for in the last financial year. Clearly, that money was meant to be spent in the last financial year to recruit those 340 FTEs. Obviously, that was not reached, and in the last financial year only 100 of those positions were hired. That leaves 240. My question is: what was the problem? Why were you not able to recruit the additional or the remaining 240 roles which you budgeted for and which were your target for last financial year?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I would like to just point out that it is a relatively new department, so all the systems and processes and the human resources department were set up and continued to be managed. When there was the separation from the education department to child protection, there was a lot of work that needed to be done to separate the two and to set up the correct structures.

We have been working very hard as a department to recruit more staff, and we have been doing that for almost two years, as I have stated. I cannot explain it any better to you other than by saying that we are continuing to recruit, we are retaining the staff that we have through staff engagement and training and it is more important to get the right staff than just to fill vacancies for the sake of it.

Ms STINSON: Minister, you said in your previous answer that you are not facing difficulty recruiting enough staff. What is the reason that you are putting forward to the parliament for not being able to meet your target of recruiting 340 people in the last financial year?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: What I am putting to the parliament is that under the former Labor government front-line positions and positions within the department were particularly held open to save money.

Ms STINSON: Point of order, sir: debate, reflecting on what the previous government did is in no way addressing the question.

The CHAIR: Member for Badcoe, we are not actually in question time; we are in committee. We are not as firm on the debate issue in committee as we would be in question time. Minister, you were getting to answer the question.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: As I said, we are not purposely holding open any vacancies, as was the former government's position, which was to cover the massive blowouts in their costs and their departmental budget. We are actively recruiting and, as I have said endlessly, there is no point filling spaces just to reach a goal. We want the right staff. I speak to children, and they express to me the importance of having consistency of staff, whether it be their caseworkers in the department or whether it be their residential careworkers.

We are working on training, we are working on award recognition for good work to move to encourage other work processes to improve and we are actively recruiting. We have recruited 84 since 30 June. We are doing statewide recruiting. It is a competitive market with the expansion of the NDIS, and we are in earnest filling vacancies.

Ms STINSON: Have you got any idea why you have not been able to recruit those 250 workers you committed to recruit and did not in the last financial year?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I do not know any other way to explain this to the member for Badcoe, who is clearly having a lot of trouble. It is a competitive market. There are other state government departments and non-government organisations—

Ms Stinson interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Badcoe, you asked your question. Minister.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: —who are competing for very similar types of workers. We are in a competitive market. We are not going to just fill a vacancy with anybody who applies. We want the right people. I have been out to many residential care facilities and offices, and staff have expressed to me that putting people through a training program is pointless if they are not going to last in the job.

This is a difficult area of work that is not for everybody. I would prefer that the department maintained their recruitment strategy, which is getting the right people. As I have already stated in the house, we now have more front-line child protection staff than ever before.

Ms STINSON: When does the minister expect that those 340 budgeted positions will be filled?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I thank the member for her question. Current vacancies sit at around 142, and we are actively recruiting. We will fill those vacancies as soon as possible. Some of those vacancies are not permanent vacancies; some are due to secondments. Some of our staff can often work in other government departments and some are on long service leave or maternity leave. The 142 that were under does not account for permanent vacancies and it also does not include agency staff who are used to fill temporary vacancies.

Ms STINSON: On the figures that you have provided, there should be an outstanding number from the 340 extra positions of 155.4. How can you explain that you are saying now that there are 142 vacancies? Can you also detail what vacancies there are on top of the 340 that you committed to fund under the last budget?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I would have to take that on notice.

Ms STINSON: Do you expect to recruit all the 340 roles by the end of this year?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I refer the member to my previous answer. I have already covered that.

Ms STINSON: Just for clarity, your previous answer was that you would be taking the question on notice, so are you taking that question on notice?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The question prior to the previous question then.

Ms STINSON: Do you expect to recruit all the 340 roles budgeted in the last budget by June 2020?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Let me explain it all to you again, which I think is about the fourth time now. It is important to get the right staff. There is no point in filling a vacancy to keep the opposition happy, if you think that is the way to go. Both children and staff have expressed to me it is more important to get the right people who are dedicated to working in child protection. You cannot just take on anyone, which was a mistake of the former government—high churn, high turnover, staff being burnt out, the wrong type of staff.

I am speaking directly with staff and children during my visits and they want continuity. They want staff who are going to stick around because we know that is important for good outcomes for children—that it is the same case worker, that there are the same residential care workers and there is consistency. I am not prepared to set a date or a time line. What I can tell you is that we are actively recruiting statewide and will continue to until we fill our vacancies.

Ms STINSON: How much money has been saved by not recruiting the full 340 FTEs that were budgeted for in 2018-19?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will take that on notice.

Ms STINSON: Can you provide a breakdown of how many of those 340 positions were operational, professional or administrative?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will take that on notice as well.

Ms STINSON: Thank you. Could you please also provide the classifications for each of those 340 roles?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Yes, we will take that on notice.

Ms STINSON: Further, could we get a breakdown of what the remaining 240 unfilled roles were in terms of a breakdown of operational, professional or administrative roles and what the classification for each of those roles is?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: We can only work that out for the 142 vacancies as of now. They shift over time. Currently, as at the end of November, there are 142 vacancies, so the department can look up those vacancies, classifications and everything for you.

Ms STINSON: How many additional positions were budgeted for in 2019-20 and is the allocated number of additional staff, if indeed there are any in 2019-20, a carryover from last year's unfilled positions?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: That is not in this report.

Ms STINSON: With respect, it goes to the matter of staffing. The minister herself introduced facts in terms of how many recruitments there have been since the Auditor-General's Report was released on 30 June, so I think it is fair to ask about that.

The CHAIR: For my benefit, member for Badcoe, could you repeat your question, please.

Ms STINSON: How many additional positions were budgeted for in 2019-20 and are those positions, if there are indeed additional positions, a carryover from last year's unfilled positions?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will take advice on whether that is a relevant question and, if so, we will bring back an answer.

The CHAIR: I think, given that the member for Badcoe has related it back to this Auditor-General's Report, the minister could answer it, but as she sees fit, obviously.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Those are really figures that are in the estimates. They are not in this report, so there are no figures here for me to refer to.

Ms STINSON: I am happy for the minister to take it on notice. I feel it is a relevant question that is allowable by the Chair, so I am happy for her to take it on notice.

The CHAIR: Yes, you have made your point. Perhaps if the minister is prepared to take it on notice—

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I am advised that that is an estimates question so I will not be taking that on notice.

The CHAIR: That is the minister's prerogative, member for Badcoe.

Ms STINSON: I refer to Part C, page 56 under the subheading of 'Commercial care placements and projected costs not always properly approved'. The report states:

As at 30 June 2019 there were 103 children in commercial care, an increase of 10 children from 30 June 2018.

It goes on to state that that is an expensive form of care and that controls are needed before this form of placement is approved. How many instances were there in 2018-19 of commercial care memorandums not being authorised until late?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: While the Auditor-General took a sample, we would have to take on notice to get those figures. However, what I can say is that several new processes and systems are under development to centrally manage placements and related costs, including a centralised register of all commercial care placements, automated reminders prior to the approval end date and a commercial care cost calculator with an electronic workflow solution.

The department continues to reiterate to staff the importance of receiving written approval prior to placing children in commercial care at the biannual business managers' forum. Longer term, the department is addressing the Auditor-General's commercial care finding through its much broader out-of-home care system reform agenda, which includes an overhaul of contracting approaches, which will reduce reliance on commercial care. The department will include commercial care in its internal audit program, which will provide assurance that these new approval processes are effective.

Ms STINSON: How late were those late memorandums?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I would have to take that on notice, but I would also just point out that this is not a new thing. Certainly, when I actually became the minister there were a lot of contracts that were out of date that were left by the former government, which I had to quickly sign. This is something we are working on. The department is aware of it and I have indicated some of the solutions that are underway.

Ms STINSON: Were there any late memorandums about placements that were ultimately not approved or rescinded?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I am advised, not that we are aware of.

Ms STINSON: Are you aware of any instances where no memorandum was submitted within the period that a child was in commercial care or another form of care?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will take that on notice.

Ms STINSON: What was the total cost of payments that were made before each memorandum was approved?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will take that on notice.

Ms STINSON: How many late memorandums have there been since 1 July 2019?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will take that on notice as well. Clearly, I do not have that information here.

Ms STINSON: Of the late memorandums in the last financial year, how many of those late instances were extensions and how many were new placements in commercial care?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will take that on notice also.

Ms STINSON: I refer to Part C, page 61, functional responsibility. Minister, how many children are in care right now and what is the latest information you hold about how many children are in care today?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The latest published advice is 4,040 children in care.

Ms STINSON: What is the latest information that you hold about how many children are in care?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The published and accurate data that has been audited is currently available online and that is 4,040 children.

Ms STINSON: To clarify, do you hold any information that is more recent than the 31 August published figures on the DCP website?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: What I can tell you is that delays in uploading our monthly data have occurred in recent months due to the high volume of statistical reporting required between August and November. In this period, a compilation of statistical information was required for the Report on Government Services, the performance framework reporting, the annual reporting, including the departmental annual Nyland royal commission reporting and the commonwealth royal commission reporting, as well as the development of new reporting pro formas, the C3MS data improvements and the development of new data sources.

The September report has recently been finalised and will be approved for upload in the coming days, whilst the October report has just been compiled and is undergoing a final departmental quality check.

The CHAIR: I thank the minister for that answer and remind the member for Badcoe that the question extended beyond 30 June.

Ms STINSON: I am grateful for the minister's additional advice; that was very helpful. What is your target for the number of children in care by the end of this financial year?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I thank the member for her question. Clearly, I do not have a target. What I can say is that we are doing a lot of work as a whole of government on early intervention and prevention to reduce the numbers of children coming into care. This is something that was neglected and is a new area.

I can advise the house that we have had some great success already in the north with the Anglicare pilot, the intensive family support services, directing families away from child protection and supporting them to maintain and stay safely at home. We have an Aboriginal family-specific pilot in the west that will be starting very soon, and in January we will be starting our family group conferencing, which is part of our latest budget; $1.6 million was announced over two years, I believe. That will also build stability and capacity in families to prevent children from coming into care.

Some of the reasons that children are coming into care are a statewide issue, a whole of government and also a whole of community issue, so we cannot respond and I certainly do not have a target of children coming in. We are dealing with mental health issues, drug and alcohol abuse issues and domestic violence, so as a government we are doing extensive work around our domestic violence policies, our mental health plans and our support for families.

We are doing a lot of work in the early intervention space. Of course, my goal is to minimise the children coming into care; however, as the child protection department responsible for protecting children, when a court determines it is no longer safe for a child to be at home, we will remove that child. However many children there are, we will remove them from danger as required by the court, as is our role.

Ms STINSON: Do you have a target in terms of reducing the rate of increase in children coming into care?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The rate of increase in children coming into care for the 2018-19 year was 7.9. That was lower than the average for the last five years which was 9.375. Of course, I would like to get that down but that takes time and we are working on it. It takes time to set up your early intervention and prevention policies and programs.

What we know from the early intervention research directorate is that what Labor was doing failed our children. In fact, they went as far as to say that children would have been better off left at home without any government intervention. So we are working hard, but we are not going to respond with knee-jerk reactions and policy on the run. We have evaluated programs that are being set up. They are starting now and we are making good progress.

Ms STINSON: In Part C, page 53, under the subheading Weaknesses in IT controls for C3MS, the Auditor-General identifies a range of IT and system weaknesses. How many complaints have been lodged of privacy breaches or unauthorised access to personal information relating to DCP?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The management of the C3MS technical environment is contracted to a third party, NEC. The department has worked with NEC to put in place a monthly report that details which third-party staff have access to the C3MS system using privileged accounts. The department began receiving those reports from August 2019. The department will develop a comprehensive annual review of all C3MS user access accounts for currency and update access where required. This is on track for an end date of the end of December.

The department will also review its current procedure to incorporate this review of user accounts, including the process in place to remove access for terminated staff in a timely manner. The department is working with NEC to determine how audit logs can be maintained and reported. Once this is determined, a process will be developed and documented to ensure there is appropriate audit logging practices.

The department recognises that regular patching and upgrading applications helps provide an optimal operational/security model; however, the decision was made not to patch the PeopleSoft technology stack C3MS due to the risks associated with the C3MS ceasing to function if patched. The department acknowledges and accepts this as a potential risk, noting that a program to replace C3MS has begun and the patch management will be an integral part of this new system.

An external review has also been conducted by the department's cybersecurity practices. In response to this review, the department is currently formulating an information security strategy and work plan that will incorporate these components. The department has contracted a secondary security services partner, which will enhance the delivery of activities related to the review and strategy.

Ms STINSON: I am not sure that addressed the question. Just to be clear, I am not sure that NEC would be the ones making complaints about any privacy breaches or unauthorised access. How many complaints have been lodged, or, for that matter, how many notifications of violations have been received in relation to privacy breaches or any other unauthorised access of personal information?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: We will take that on notice.

Ms STINSON: What has been the result of those complaints or notifications of violations? Were they upheld or rejected, and which authority decides on those?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: We will take that on notice.

Ms STINSON: I refer to Part C, page 53, 'Significant events and transactions'. The Auditor-General in this line talks about the requirement for all residential carers to be psychometrically tested. Can you provide an update on whether all residential carers in DCP's employment have now been psychometrically tested and how many residential carers have been psychometrically tested in non-government organisations?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Could you please just refer to where on page 53? I cannot find that yet?

Ms STINSON: To help, it is about a third of the way down, under 'Significant events and transactions'.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I believe that, as of September 2019, all the DCP residential care workers were compliant and the NGOs have until April 2020 and they are on track.

Ms STINSON: Were there any DCP staff who were so-called red flagged? I understand it is not a pass/fail-type system, so how many DCP staff were red flagged after psychometric testing? How many staff were terminated as a result in either full or part because of their psychometric testing results?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: We have been asked this question before, not necessarily by you, but our advice is not to identify exact numbers so as not to identify the staff. There has been a very small percentage.

Ms STINSON: Can you provide a percentage at all?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: We will take that on notice.

Ms STINSON: I refer to Part C, page 57, under the subheading 'Ineffective review of payroll reports'. Have there been any instances of employees being paid incorrectly or leave balances being inaccurately recorded?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I note that since the 2017-18 interim audits, the department has implemented the automated online bona fide processes and documented related procedures consistent with my response to previous audit recommendations. That has now been completed.

Ms STINSON: Thank you to the minister and her staff.

The CHAIR: Yes. I, too, say thank you to everyone involved in the Auditor-General's examination. We now proceed to the examination of the Auditor-General's Report 2018-19 in relation to the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development. I remind members that the committee is in normal session and, as such, questions need to be asked by members on their feet. All questions must be directly referenced to the Auditor-General's Report 2018-19.

Mr HUGHES: I refer to Part C: Agency Audit Reports, page 306, regarding PIRSA. In the section 'Significant events and transactions', it states that PIRSA incurred $4.5 million of targeted voluntary separation packages for employees. On the following page, page 307, under 'Functional responsibility', it states that PIRSA's objective is to grow primary industries and drive regional development in South Australia. What impact do the targeted separation packages have on the department's capacity to meet its objectives?

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: There were 50 PIRSA employees who accepted the TVSP packages and that make-up represented $4.5 million. The number of employees who exited the agency primarily came out of corporate services. We saw 32 leave there. The agriculture, food and wine programs had come to a conclusion—fisheries, aquaculture (three), regions (three), biosecurity (one), SARDI and Rural Solutions (one).

Mr HUGHES: Were any of the people targeted directly involved in providing any assistance or advice to that element of primary industries affected by drought?

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: No, not that I am aware of. I guess all people in the agencies all have a level of contact with industry and within those department regions—Biosecurity SA, SARDI, Rural Solutions. All of them are touched in some way by drought but, no, no-one directly.

Mr HUGHES: With the people who were targeted in agriculture and the food and wine divisions, was that all as a result of programs coming to an end, or were there other individuals who were targeted in relation to programs that had not come to an end and for one reason or another were regarded as being surplus to requirements?

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: As I said in my first answer, in agriculture, food and wine there was one who moved to another department. Food SA or the food sector moved into DTTI, but, as I am advised, the remainder were people whose programs finished and then they moved along.

Mr HUGHES: Can you specify which programs had come to a conclusion?

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: I am advised there were a number of programs that came to an end. The South Australian Premium Food and Wine Credentials Grant Program, the Food and Wine Co-Innovation Cluster Program, the Advanced Food Manufacturing Grants Program and the economic sustainability program all concluded. That made up the movement of those nine people out of those programs.

Mr HUGHES: Was there any rebadging of programs or initiatives on the part of the government to pick up those areas that might well have been lost as a result of those programs coming to a conclusion, or was it felt that the work that had been undertaken was not valuable enough to continue with?

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: Not that I am aware of, no.

Mr HUGHES: I refer to page 312 of Part C: Agency Audit Reports, other expenses, which states there was a decrease in PIRSA's workers compensation liability resulting from a review by a consulting actuary. Can you provide a bit of clarification around how those savings were actually achieved? I understand it was $2.5 million in savings.

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: It was a whole-of-government review and the workers compensation liability revaluation was $2.453 million. There was a decrease in the workers compensation provision of $5.647 million in 2018-19 following the review of the department's liability by the consultancy actuary. The significant decrease reflects the reassessment that the department has no open serious injury workers and claims assessed above 50 per cent compared with two in the previous year's valuation. I am also advised that the upward re-evaluation reflected in 2017-18 of $2.453 million under 'other expenses' is offset by a downward re-evaluation in 2018-19 recognised in other income, which equated to $3.194 million. That was the reason.

Mr HUGHES: So the savings did not come at the expense of injured workers in any way?

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: No, it is just a book entry. As I said, the actuary was for the entire government, not just for PIRSA. It was not just a PIRSA-related incident; it was a whole of government approach.

Mr HUGHES: Given it was a whole-of-government approach, my next question is: what was the cost of the consultant fee? Are you aware of that? Given it was whole of government, I think that is reasonable. I refer to page 309, Legislative compliance. The Auditor-General has found that PIRSA has no central record of identified breaches of legislation to facilitate reporting to the executive. Can you provide a list of the types of breaches of legislation that we are talking about?

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: This is about the central framework. This is not about PIRSA walking away from legislative compliance responsibilities. That pretty much gives you the understanding that assessing the legislative obligations embedded within PIRSA are governance and compliance requirements was acknowledged, but significant work has been undertaken on the framework of that legislation.

Mr HUGHES: You say that significant work has been undertaken. How far are we away from the conclusion of that particular work?

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: I am advised that the quarterly monitoring is in place for the executive.

Mr Hughes interjecting:

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: Quarterly monitoring is in place for the executive of PIRSA.

Mr HUGHES: So essentially the deficiency that was identified has now been addressed?

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: It was acknowledged that there was significant work to undertake. We think the department is about 90 per cent of the way there. It was a huge undertaking, but they are somewhere close. Ninety per cent of that work has been done, and we are almost there.

Mr HUGHES: When you say that you are almost there, when do you anticipate a conclusion? I take it that this is something you are quite serious about, which has been identified by the Auditor-General?

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: Obviously, I would think that work will be completed in the upcoming financial year. As I said, we have completed 90 per cent of that work in the Auditor's assessment. There is 10 per cent to go. It has been a very, very large undertaking, I know that, but I think the executive are well on their way to achieving what was asked of them, and if we are 90 per cent on our way, we are most of the way there. Maths tells us there is 10 per cent to go.

Mr HUGHES: Can you give me a flavour of the types of breaches we are talking about within PIRSA? What would be the most predominant category, say, from one to four? I just need a flavour about the type of breaches we are talking about, and the potential seriousness of those breaches.

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: We do not categorise what area had the most breaches. It was about the Auditor's assessment overall in the department of where the compliance needed to be more robust as a department itself, not just about certain arms of the agency that had more work that needed to be done. It is an overall approach rather than individual parts of the agency.

Mr HUGHES: There have to be some parts of the department where compliance is probably far more important than other parts. Can you just give me a bit of a flavour about that, a bit of clarification about what areas we are talking about and the type of compliance issues we are talking about, given that there does seem to have been maybe insufficient reporting, or a lack of coherent reporting?

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: I think I have already explained to you that there is not any particular part of the department that is more important than another, or that has more of a focus on compliance. You have been around long enough to know that we have sections in the department that are driven by compliance and cost recovery, much like the rest of the department is, so there is no one area of significance.

Mr HUGHES: Getting back to the job losses within the department, we established earlier that 50 full-time equivalents received their targeted packages. For those additional people who for different reasons are no longer employed—I think an additional 20 full-time equivalents are no longer with the department—can you give me a breakdown of what areas those people were from and the sort of broad scope of reasons why they are no longer with the department? Given, I assume, it is natural attrition, is there any intent to fill those job losses in the future?

The CHAIR: Member for Giles, we are back on page 306, correct?

Mr HUGHES: Page 310, Statement of Comprehensive Income.

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: You are comparing June of 2018 to June of 2019—from 890 back to 819?

Mr HUGHES: Yes.

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: What I can tell you is that the decrease is mainly due to the saving measures in the 2018-19 year—23.6 FTEs—and then the completion of programs in the 2017-18 year resulting in a decrease of nine FTEs, including the Agribusiness Accelerator program, which I have already explained, and the international wine markets program. There was the removal of ministerial positions located in the offices of the former minister for regional development—that was obviously a restructure—and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries in 2018-19, where three FTEs were making up the numbers. Also, with casual staff there was a reduction. The seasonal factors with the agency's activities resulted in a reduction of 14 casual staff.

Mr BOYER: I refer to page 306 and the net cost of providing services. What was the total cost of the fruit fly zero-tolerance policy?

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: It is not in the report.

The CHAIR: Refer me to the page, member for Wright.

Mr BOYER: Page 306, net cost.

The CHAIR: 'Net cost of providing services.'

Mr BOYER: The amount spent on running this program would be included in that line item on page 306. If it is not, then the minister's agency has not given all the information they should to the Auditor-General.

The CHAIR: Your question relates to the net cost of providing services and refers back to the fruit fly program?

Mr BOYER: Yes.

The CHAIR: Minister.

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: Any of the additional costs to the zero tolerance program were born out of existing resources within the department, including the extra 14 staff that were employed at Yamba.

Mr BOYER: How much was that amount? How much was spent out of the existing resources? What was the cost of running the program?

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: I am advised that it was approximately $1.1 million.

Mr BOYER: Is that the total cost of running the entire zero tolerance policy at Yamba from the commencement of the program, I think it was 4 January, all the way through to when you suspended it?

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: The approximate $1.1 million was part of bolstering the zero tolerance approach. Also, approximately $1.9 million was spent on infrastructure upgrades.

Mr BOYER: That $1.1 million plus the $1.9 million is the total amount of money spent on the zero tolerance policy at Yamba from start to finish; is that correct?

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: Well, no. As I explained to you, if you were listening, a lot of that money was out of existing resources. We did what we could with those existing resources. That is when we had to go to Treasury to find the extra money as well as find money for the infrastructure upgrades.

Mr BOYER: Am I correct in saying that the amount of money spent out of existing resources to fund the program is included in the $1.1 million and/or $1.9 million; is that correct?

The Hon. T.J. Whetstone: Could you repeat that?

Mr BOYER: Am I right in saying that the amount of money you say was taken from existing resources, is that amount, whatever it is, included in the $1.1 million or $1.9 million figures you gave in your answer before?

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: Yes.

Mr HUGHES: I refer to page 316. Administered items starts on page 315. Page 316 states:

The Fisheries Research and Development Fund paid $13.3 million to carry out research, exploration and experiments for the conservation and management of living resources found in waters.

Can I have a breakdown of how this funding was spent?

The CHAIR: The first paragraph on page 316, minister.

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: I am advised that the $13.294 million were funds that were allocated to SARDI for those programs, but I am not able to tell you exactly what those programs were, other than SARDI's research and scientific studies into the water habitat.

Mr HUGHES: You will take that question on notice and come back with detail?

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: Well, I can. What I am saying is that PIRSA allocates a significant amount of money to those programs. It was money that was agreed with industry through the licence negotiations discussions. Obviously, when PIRSA implements cost recovery with industry, there are agreements with industry on how their levies and licence fees are spent and those agreements with industry are moneys that are spent primarily undertaking stock assessments and the monitoring of those industries' needs. Again, that was an agreement with all the industries through cost recovery and levy fees that would give the agreed money spent within those certain sectors.

Mr HUGHES: Are you saying the amount of just over $13 million is exclusively money raised from industry, or is there a state government contribution to that as well?

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: When you say 'money raised from industry', it is an industry-led initiative. It is a PIRSA agreement with industry, as a led initiative.

Mr HUGHES: Was the snapper survey funded through that money?

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: It is not in that year.

Mr HUGHES: Returning to Report 6, Part A: Executive Summary, page 43 states:

PIRSA paid $23 million in SARMS grants, with the payments being made over time as approved projects are delivered.

Can you provide a breakdown of the $23 million in SARMS grants paid out?

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: I can tell you that the implementation of the three IP projects are nearing completion. They are projects ranging from small farm turnaround propositions to the large irrigation trust. As at 25 November, 246 of the 255 projects were complete, and the remaining nine we are waiting on milestone reports to receive the remainder of their funding.

Mr HUGHES: I will not ask you for a breakdown of all those projects.

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: If you have a couple of hours.

Mr HUGHES: I think we have three minutes left, so I do not think I will go there. On the same report, Part A, page 44, PIRSA has entered into a $24 million funding agreement for 16 projects. Amounts paid in 2018-19 were for $440,000, as funds are not paid on approval but over time as project milestones are achieved. Can the minister, in the short time remaining, provide a breakdown of the $24 million of funding agreements for 16 projects paid under the Regional Growth Fund?

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: I can whiz through them. The first round in 2018-19 is obviously what you are referring to. For the competitive round of $5 million, we saw the Apple and Pear Growers Association, the Coorong District Council, Goolwa PipiCo., Mid Murray Council, Lot 100 Hills Distillery, Shield Intermodal, Royal Flying Doctor Service in the South-East, Outback Communities Authority, as well as the Ag Excellence Alliance projects all receive funding. They were the recipients of that funding.

If we are looking at the strategic projects, there was ongoing funding for the North West Indigenous Pastoral Project, the Mount Gambier Regional Community and Recreation Hub, the Coolanie Water Scheme Project on Eyre Peninsula, the Monarto Safari Park, the South Australian dog fence, Kingston District Council for their town centre upgrade, Thomas Foods International and Cummins Wanilla Streamcare Group for their drainage system.

Mr HUGHES: I thank the staff and the minister for their time.

The CHAIR: I thank everybody involved in that session as well.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.