Auditor-General's Report

Auditor-General's Report

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (16:21): By leave, I move my motion in an amended form:

That standing orders be and remain so far suspended as to enable the report of the Auditor-General for the year ended 30 June 2020 to be referred to a committee of the whole house and for ministers to be examined on matters contained in the report in accordance with the amended timetable being presently distributed.

For the benefit of members here this would start, with the Speaker's blessing, immediately.

Motion carried.

Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan.

In committee.

The CHAIR: Welcome everybody. The house is in committee to examine the Auditor-General's Report. We are today examining the Premier, and I invite questions. If you could make reference to where your question is coming from, please, leader, it would be great.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I refer the Premier to Part A: Executive Summary, page 44, dot point 3.7.6, Other ICT challenges. The Auditor-General says, 'There are a number of ICT challenges that agencies need to address,' including the 'urgent delivery of improved technical solutions to help protect agency data'. Can the Premier advise what these solutions are and if there are any specific agency data that have been at risk and/or need improved protections?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I thank the leader for his question, and he goes straight to the heart of a great concern, I think, for most governments around the world at the moment. I have spoken at length publicly about the increased attacks on data in the world at the moment, and we are not immune to that.

In fact, one of my very first briefings, which I received as the chair of the Emergency Management Council, was about the growing and changing threat from a cybersecurity environment, and that is why we moved very quickly to make sure that we had the right framework to support the protection of our data within government but more broadly across South Australia. It is one of the reasons why we as a government have invested in the Australian Cyber Collaboration Centre, which is the largest commercial cyber range in the country, and a very large commitment to training and getting the skills in place that we need.

More specifically to government, we have developed a cross-government strategy for cybersecurity. We are constantly looking at the changing threat and updating our systems. The cabinet continues to invest tens of millions of dollars into the ongoing upgrade of our systems. We are currently in recruitment phase for a new chief information security officer in South Australia following the departure of David Goodman, who had been in that role for an extended period of time and who had done an outstanding job. He tendered his resignation at the end of last year.

We are reworking on the scope of that office, which is so critical to us, and I think it is quite right that the Auditor-General does identify this issue. It is an issue for all governments, and one that we are moving very quickly to address.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: With respect to the same line, is the Premier aware whether there have been any significant data breaches in the last six months?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am not aware of what the Leader of the Opposition would be referring to.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am just asking the question: is the Premier aware whether there have been any significant data breaches in the last six months?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Is it something you are referring to in the Auditor-General's Report? We are here now at the moment for the examination of the Auditor-General's Report. It does not reference any data breach here.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: It talks about the need for some urgency in terms of the delivery of improved technical solutions to help protect agency data. Given the urgency, I ask the question just with respect to the last six months. I accept that could equally be the last three months, but I thought that the last six months speak to a degree of recency that might have underpinned the reference to an urgent need to address here.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, I just refer the leader to my previous answer. The sense of urgency that is required is the same sense of urgency that would exist for all governments. At the moment, we have seen very significant attacks on data in most jurisdictions around Australia—at the federal government level, at the state government level and, of course, also at the local government level.

I think that we have excellent protections here in South Australia, but we cannot become complacent, because the threat changes, the sophistication of the attacks is ever increasing and so we must be very vigilant. That is one of the reasons why we do commit more and more resources and more and more time within government dedicated to making sure that we do have those adequate protections in place.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Again, on ICT challenges in that same line, does the Premier accept that it is important in his role as Premier and his office and his ministers that everything is being done, particularly at the moment in the context of an extraordinary amount of data being collected by the government in the course of COVID-19? Does the Premier accept that it is critical that those high officers acknowledge that their responsibility associated with their own conduct in regard to data is important in maintaining community confidence in data collection regimes that the state government has?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am not really sure what the leader is referring to in the Auditor-General's Report. It is a pretty odd question. I am not sure what you are even trying to get at.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: In the Auditor-General's Report, in this section here there is a range of issues raised in regard to what government can do to address ICT challenges and help to protect data. Just at this point in time in particular—I think of concern generally, as the Premier has canvassed in his previous answer—as South Australians hand over to government an unprecedented amount of data, whether it be through QR codes or other means, it is critical that a degree of confidence is maintained in that arrangement. I am simply asking if the Premier accepts the responsibility that is invested in him, his office and ministers, in making sure that is done to the highest standard so as to maintain community confidence.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have nothing to add to my earlier comments on this important issue.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I refer the Premier to Part B: Controls Opinion, page 25, dot point 4.2.3, management of actual, perceived or potential conflicts of interest when procuring requires improvement. The Auditor-General states, quote:

Consistent with our findings in previous years we identified instances across many procurements where conflict of interest forms could not be provided for everyone involved in the procurement.

Is the Premier aware if any of those instances relate to the tender process for the tram or train privatisation?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That is not my portfolio. Certainly, nothing has been brought to my attention.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Will the Premier commit to bringing back an answer about what procurement the Auditor-General is referring to in that particular section?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not think it relates directly to my portfolios. I just suggest that if the opposition have queries that might be something they direct to the minister responsible for that particular procurement. If it were a procurement in my area, then I think it would be logical for me to make that inquiry, but I think it would be unorthodox for me to make that inquiry and far more sensible for the relevant minister to make the inquiry.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: This pertains specifically to the area of public sector accountability for which the Premier has a significant degree of responsibility. I would have thought that this was an entirely reasonable question.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: My understanding of the question is that the Leader of the Opposition would like me to go and ask another department about probity issues regarding a specific contract. It is just not a contract that I have personal control over. If he has any difficulties getting a commitment from the minister, then I am happy to follow it up. In the first instance, I think that would be the logical way to go.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am simply asking: is the Premier aware if the procurement relating to the trains and trams is one of the examples listed here? If he is not aware, then he is not aware, but I would have thought that, given the interest in this procurement—the public interest in this procurement, the political interest in this procurement—and given the special investigation being undertaken by the Auditor-General, this is something the Premier may have asked about. Has he not been briefed?

The CHAIR: Premier, do you wish to add to your previous answer?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, sir.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: In that case, we will move on. We have a bit of a theme of non-answers here, but we will persist nonetheless. I refer the Premier to Part C: Agency Audit Reports, page 387, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet expenses. Presumably DPC is a responsibility of the Premier. Can the Premier provide any explanation to the house as to why there has been a decrease by $10 million for grants and subsidies, given the significant impacts that COVID-19 has had on organisations that are eligible for DPC grants and subsidies?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am advised that this is a machinery of government effected change because areas that were previously administered by DPC were transferred to other agencies; for example, the History Trust grants and the Carclew grants were all moved as part of the machinery of government agencies to other areas of responsibility for other ministers in cabinet.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The same reference, Part C: Agency Audit Reports, Adelaide Festival Centre Trust, page 13 refers to the Adelaide Festival Centre redevelopment supplementation funding lost car park revenue of $1.4 million for the closure of the car park. Does the Premier believe that the car park will be completed by mid this year, or will the government have to provide further supplementation funding to the Adelaide Festival Centre due to further delays?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We certainly do not expect to be providing further supplementary payments. We envisage that the car park will be available by the end of this financial year.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I refer the Premier to Part C: Agency Audit Reports, page 617, Lot Fourteen and specifically the National Aboriginal Art and Cultures Centre. Can the Premier advise why there has been a blowout of three years for the expected completion date for the gallery?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We have canvassed this previously—in fact, only recently late last year during estimates—but I am happy to do it again. As I have said to the leader previously and more broadly in the public, our focus is on getting this right not rushed. I think we have very significantly expanded the scope of the project over and above what was originally envisaged after extensive and respectful consultation with a large number of people.

I still feel extraordinarily positive about this project. We should be turning the first sod on this important project toward the end of this year or early next year for some of those early site works, and then construction of this new Aboriginal Art and Cultures Centre will take some time. It is a complicated building. We are dealing with a very reputable international design partner working with a local South Australian architecture firm.

We believe that the new Aboriginal Art and Cultures Centre should be finished in 2024 and opened sometime in 2025. Obviously it takes some time after the completion of the building to make sure it is ready for opening with a full program. I remind the committee that this new facility is very large in scope and size. In fact, the area that will be covered in this new space is larger than the entire space of the Art Gallery of South Australia and the South Australian Museum, so it is a very large space.

It is complex for the design. It is not building a warehouse or a storage facility: it is building something which we want to be the repository for the many stories and songlines representing the Aboriginal cultures of more than 65,000 years, so I think it is acceptable to take the time to get it right, and that is what we are doing.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: On the same line, is the Premier in receipt for a business case regarding the Aboriginal Art and Cultures Centre?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think an interim business case was provided late last year, certainly in the second half of last year, which still required further work. My understanding is that that is now complete, and it will be something the government will be considering in the coming months.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: When you say the government will be considering it, is the government going full throttle with the expectation to start construction in less than 12 months' time regardless of what the business case says?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I was saying in my earlier answer, we have already received the interim business case and prior to that piece of work being done by KPMG there was a body of work done by PWC with regard to this project. As I have said, this is a project that we are absolutely determined to get right from a planning perspective and at the moment I think we are in the final stages. It is going to be an expensive project, it is going to be a very significant investment by the people of South Australia but I think it is a very important investment.

It will have a very significant capital cost, and you would note that in the most recent budget we increased that capital cost by $50 million up to $200 million. Some of that was provided by the federal government. In fact, I think around $85 million was provided by the federal government as part of the City Deal, but the remainder of the project has been provided by the taxpayers of South Australia and, of course, there will also be an annual operational cost associated with this new space.

As I said before, I think we have an obligation to this project. We are very fortunate to have in South Australia the very best collection of Aboriginal art and artefacts, and I think that they lend themselves to us having a unique opportunity to tell these stories and song lines for 65,000 years—the oldest culture on this earth. I also think from a tourism perspective that this will become a major attractor to our state and in particular to our CBD.

We have seen what galleries like this have done in other parts of the country and other parts of the world, especially when they are linked to exceptional architecture. It will become really an incredible facility, a gateway, to the Aboriginal culture, and I think that will have flow-on effects for our entire state. It will have flow-on effects for regional tourism as well as tourism into Adelaide, and it will also create extraordinary employment opportunities in construction but also in the operation of this new Aboriginal Art and Cultures Centre.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: On the same line, will the Premier release the business case publicly as he has previously been committed to? If not, why not? Why has the business case not been released publicly as yet, given that it has been completed and it is in receipt of the Premier?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is not the government's practice to receive a report and immediately make it public. The government needs to consider that report, and we are operating a cabinet government so all of cabinet consider that. Every department considers what is envisaged in that report and they will make their comments, and then it will ultimately go to cabinet for discussion. We will then advise of the appropriate action. Whether or not the report is released in its entirety will really depend on what is in that final report. I have not seen it yet. There could be elements that are commercial in confidence, so I am not going to commit to releasing it in full and—

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think the leader is referring to the report which we have already released, which was the PwC report. It seems to me that the leader, who has repeatedly said he does not like this project and he does not know if it is going to be a fantastic investment—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The Premier is answering.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Point of order: the Premier is completely misrepresenting or seeking to verbal me in terms of comments that I have made that are completely inaccurate or untrue. I have made no such remarks along those lines and I would ask that the Premier withdraw.

The CHAIR: Premier, you have obviously caused the leader great offence.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: There is no need for the leader to be offended. The leader has constantly asked questions—

The CHAIR: Premier, with all due respect, it is not your call to determine whether the leader has been offended or not. It might be best to just withdraw and let's get back on track. We only have 11 minutes to go.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes, I am happy to withdraw them if the leader finds them offensive, but the leader has unequivocally asked questions regarding the financial return on investment of this gallery—

Ms Stinson interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order, member for Badcoe!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —virtually since it was announced. I find it extraordinary that the opposition would be looking for a financial return on a cultural institution that I genuinely think will be of enormous importance economically in South Australia, as well as the very obvious cultural returns.

One of the problems associated with the consideration of social infrastructure is that some of the norms that have existed in regard to cost-benefit analysis just really do not apply to these types of institutions. Nevertheless, we are committed to this project. We will be going ahead with this project, but we constantly look for input into the best practice for how this Aboriginal Art and Cultures centre will be delivered, its model of operation and how it will provide an ongoing return to the people of our state.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I want to assure the Premier that, despite the fact that he clearly takes umbrage with the fact that the opposition of the day is asking questions of him regarding the expenditure of taxpayers' money, the opposition, under my leadership, will in no way, shape or form resile from asking him questions and I am sorry if that somehow offends the Premier.

The CHAIR: Now is your opportunity to ask, leader.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: In regard to the business case, I note the fact that the Premier has apparently withdrawn his commitment to release the business case publicly that has previously been stated. I refer the Premier to Part C: Agency Audit Reports, page 473, regarding the South Australian Tourism Commission advertising and promotions. Will the Premier provide an itemised list of the advertising campaigns and their specific costs?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: What was that reference?

The CHAIR: Page 473.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: What would the leader like?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: An itemised list of the advertising campaigns and their specific costs.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have that and it certainly is not something that is referenced by the Auditor-General. In fact, the Auditor-General has conducted his independent audit of the South Australian Tourism Commission and as far as I can see there are no significant issues or events that have been highlighted.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am just simply asking for an itemised list regarding the $32 million expended in 2020 and the $37 million in 2019. If you are not willing to provide that list just say you are not willing to provide it.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is just not relevant to an Auditor-General's inquiry. There are plenty of ways that you can ask those questions, but we are sitting here in the Auditor-General's report examination. There is no reference there and it is very clear to me, sir, that the Leader of the Opposition has obviously had other things to do over the break. I am not quite sure what they were, but he did not spend much time on coming up with any useful questions for this report examination today. Maybe there were not enough things raised by the Auditor-General. I do not know.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I take it that the Premier is not willing to answer. The arrogance is on full display. Is the Premier aware if any of the $32 million was used on any advertising campaigns that were developed but not used?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have any specific information with regard to that.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: You are not aware of any advertising campaigns that were not ultimately utilised?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: You just asked the same question in a different way, but the answer is not going to change.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Will the Premier be willing to get back to the committee and provide a list of the amount of money spent on advertising campaigns that were developed and not used in the event that that occurred?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am certainly happy to ask the question. I can imagine this is pretty commonplace. There are often things that are considered and worked up that ultimately do not go ahead. We do have a separate approvals process that goes through the Government Advertising and Communication Committee so that there is actually a further, if you like, filter that potential government advertising contracts go through. I would be surprised if there were not things that were envisaged that were not ultimately approved, but I am more than happy to ask that question.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I refer the Premier to the same document and the same page but to event operations. In 2020, there is a reference for $40 million. Are members of the Premier's Events Advisory Group being paid and, if so, how much?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: What was that reference again?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: 'Event operations' on the same page.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: What specific question did you have with regard to that dollar amount?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I was asking if the Premier's Events Advisory Group are being paid and, if so, how much?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Just to be clear, this is an extraordinary line of questioning when you consider that this is a report that is done on expenditure and the operation of government up to 30 June last year. I would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition would have recognised that that group had not even been created by that point in time, so it is a completely irrelevant question to be asking in this forum.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So I take it you are not willing to answer that question?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is just not relevant to what we are doing in parliament today.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Let's move on to the Auditor-General's Report, Part C, page 384, financial statistics. This page notes that the employee benefits expense was $51 million. How much of that $51 million was provided for staff who are delivering, monitoring or reviewing the Aboriginal Affairs Action Plan?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am happy to take that question on notice. I am not sure that there would be a breakdown to that level, but if there is I am happy to provide it.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I appreciate that. Similarly, on the same tenet, how much of that $51 million employee expense was provided for Aboriginal heritage staff?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Sorry, I did not realise we had gone from tourism to DPC. I was trying to work out how on earth we would have had a unit within SATC. I know you do cover a lot of areas, Rodney. So the question you asked about how many people were specifically involved in developing or monitoring the Aboriginal action plan—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Delivering, monitoring and reviewing.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We will take that question on notice and come back to you.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: It is essentially the same question for the same item in respect to Aboriginal heritage staff.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We will have to take those questions on notice.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: On page 387, it goes on to say that total department expenses were down by 7 per cent, or $22 million. What amount of that decrease was linked to Aboriginal affairs?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am advised that in 2019 it was $13.46 million and in 2020 it was $13.28 million.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: On the same document and page number, there is a reference to 'significant events and transactions' and it states that DPC returned surplus cash of $30 million to DTF. It states that DPC returned a cash surplus to Treasury of $30 million last financial year. Why was that $30 million returned to Treasury when the government has failed to provide the $2 million that Labor budgeted in 2017 for the Aboriginal Interpreter Service?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Again, I refer you to the answers that I provided to the estimates committee last year. That is a project that still remains a very high priority for us. We have had some problems with the implementation of the project, but we still remain committed to it. With regard to the $30 million, I am advised that, again, this issue really relates to machinery of government changes that went through during that financial year.

The CHAIR: I can advise the committee that time has expired and that the examination of the Premier is complete and we will move to the Attorney-General. Welcome, Attorney-General. Welcome back to the committee. I invite questions.

Mr PICTON: I refer to the Auditor-General's Report, Part C—which I think all the questions refer to—and page 30, where it states under significant events and transactions:

An increase in Commonwealth revenues of $2.3 million helped the legal assistance sector to respond to increased demand due to COVID-19.

Attorney, how does this one-off commonwealth payment compare to the savings targets that you have imposed on the Legal Services Commission and the Victim Support Service since coming to government?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There are really two different questions in relation to the application of these moneys related to two items, as I understand it, that is, Victim Support Service and also Legal Services Commission efficiencies. I will take that on notice.

Mr PICTON: Are you aware that the Legal Services Commission has said publicly that, not including cuts to victim services, your government has cut more than $6 million over five years from its budget in 2018?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am aware of comments that have been made by the Legal Services Commission, particularly in relation to the cuts of the former government.

Mr PICTON: This was in 2018, under your government.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am just making the point. There were very substantial residual deficits as a result of substantial cuts by the former Labor administration.

Mr PICTON: Is it accurate that $6 million has been cut over five years under your government?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will take it on notice.

The CHAIR: I will just remind both sides that we are examining the Auditor-General's Report for 2019-20, ending 30 June.

Mr PICTON: Thank you, Chair, as always. I refer to the Auditor-General's Report, Part C, page 43, where it shows that victims of crime payments reduced by $1 million last year. It has gone from $25 million to $24 million. It is quite surprising that that payment would go down. If your payments to victims are decreasing—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Sorry, member. On page 43, is it on the income of victims of crime levies?

Mr PICTON: Under the expenses: victims of crime payments. It has gone from $25 million to $24 million.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: From 2019 to the financial year 2020, and that is in relation to moneys paid out of the Victims of Crime Fund.

Mr PICTON: Yes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will just check that because it may also be ex gratia payments. In fact, it is compensation and legal costs. To give you the exact amounts, for the 2018-19 year, direct compensation and legal costs that were paid out were $24,868, then in this last financial year, which is the subject of this audit, it went to $24,155. So we are talking about $600,000-odd—sorry, millions.

Mr PICTON: Sorry, are you talking about $24,000?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Sorry. I meant to say millions, as per this. You will see it is in millions, on the top of the document.

Mr PICTON: It has gone from $25 million to $24 million, according to the Auditor-General's Report. Are you saying that is accurate or inaccurate?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am saying they are the rounded figures, which is what the Auditor-General uses. I am giving you the exact amounts. One is close to $25 million. For the 2018-19 year, which is described in here as $25 million, it is actually $24,868,000, so you will see the Auditor-General has obviously rounded it up. Then, for the last financial year, 2019-20, it is $24,155,000, so clearly he has rounded it down.

Mr PICTON: So it is about a $700,000 reduction that the government has made in payments to victims in that year?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In relation to compensation and legal costs for them. That is only one category.

Mr PICTON: Why has there been a $700,000-odd reduction in payments to victims for compensation costs in the past year under your government?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think it has to be taken into account as to what are individually all the amounts paid. If it turned out that legal fees that were sought by victims only added up to a much lesser amount in that particular financial year, what I have reported to an estimates committee and I think this committee before (but it may have been in general questions in estimates) was that the compensation payments, though, to victims have increased from $13.3 million in the 2016-17 year to $19.9 million in the 2019-20 year.

If you are looking at the same time frame, you will see that there has been a significant increase in relation to compensation payments that as Attorney-General I have approved to be paid out of the fund. What you are looking at in relation to the $24 million to $25 million is discretely in relation to legal fees and other compensation.

Mr PICTON: So you are saying there should be an additional line of expenses in this, or is that $18 million or $19 million included within the $24 million?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Correct.

Mr PICTON: So there has been therefore a significant reduction somewhere else?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That is less claimed for legal fees.

Mr PICTON: So there has presumably been a big reduction in legal fees. Do you have those figures for the legal fees?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am happy to take that on notice if it is available. We will just see if it is here. I am advised here by Mr Swanson, but I am just pointing out that I only have 2016-17 to 2019-20 and you are referring to a difference between 2018-19 and 2019-20, so I will see if we can get that information. I can only assume that in fact there has been less claimed for legal fees in that time by victims. On the other hand, I have been, it seems, quite generous in relation to victims compensation. My adviser here has just found it. The compensation paid from 2018-19 was $19.722 million, and for 2019-20 it was $19.923 million. We still do not have, though, the legal cost breakdown. We will see if we can get that for you.

Mr PICTON: That would be a very significant reduction in the amount the government has paid to victims for legal fees. What do you attribute that reduction to?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: On applications for that particular year is what I would attributed to.

Mr PICTON: There has been no change in the amount that has been approved; it is just a reduction in the applications, you are saying?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: My understanding is these are all based on applications made. We will see if we can get you the breakdown of the legal fees. We do not have the direct information here as to the specifics of how much was applied for in legal fees. I do not recall any amounts being rejected offhand, but it is possible, I suppose.

It is entirely application based; that is, a victim and/or their legal representative makes the application for the fund to reimburse legal fees, and at some stage in that process I think I have to approve it. I think it comes up on recommendation from somebody else. I do not recall any rejections, but if in a certain financial year there were less amounts claimed for reimbursement of legal fees, then that is what I am assuming it is. But as to the exact amount, we will see if we can find that and provide it to the committee.

Mr PICTON: Given overall that there has been a reduction in the cost to government of providing that support to victims, understanding the combination of the compensation and the legal fees together has resulted in this reduction in payments to victims, how can you justify the fact that you are increasing now the victims of crime levy by 50 per cent from last month even though the amount you are paying out is actually going down?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think the member perhaps misunderstands the presentation of the material that is there. To simply suggest that the $25 million or $24 million in the two years you have referred to in relation to compensation payments is the only payment that is made for the benefit of victims out of the Victims of Crime Fund would be erroneous. That is the first thing.

Secondly, many other things get taken out of the fund. If I were to identify those, they include the support provided for victims of domestic and family violence to navigate the court system. That is a program I think you are familiar with and we have discussed on previous occasions. It also includes extending the domestic violence gateway telephone service, which is a service provided through one of the domestic violence service providers, to a 24/7 program; providing rape and sexual services, including forensic medical examinations, at Mount Gambier, Berri and Whyalla—so we have expanded that service as well; and contributing to the on-call allowance for medical officers to conduct after-hours forensic medical services.

That is something which is very important for country people. We used to have to bring people, sometimes in their nightwear, on a plane from a major regional town to be assessed in Adelaide or other major regional centres. I am very pleased that we are working towards remedying that appalling circumstance. I recall, Mr Chairman, a woman in your electorate once being brought on a plane after a rape and then having to come to Adelaide for that purpose. The indignity of that whole process is just appalling.

The other is to maintain the register of victims and their next of kin where the defendant is mentally ill to be notified of key information affecting them, including court decisions relating to the defendant. They are actual programs that have been expanded, enhanced or started in relation to other money that comes out of the fund directly for the benefit of victims. We then of course have a number of other programs as well. I am happy to go through those, but I think it will lead you to the wrong conclusion if you simply indicate that the identified victims of crime payment for expenses in the highlights of the financial statements. It would not lead you to the accurate position.

Mr PICTON: Attorney, how do you then explain that the balance of the fund has gone from $153 million last year—I understand as of 30 June last year it then went up to $158 million—and, according to a response to a question on notice that you provided to me today, I believe it is going to be $174 million by the end of this financial year. Clearly, that increase in the victims of crime levy by 50 per cent that your government is bringing in is not all going out the door to victims, because the fund is increasing at a rapid rate.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I have provided—and I am pleased you have received them—the answers to the estimates questions last year. I think that is what you are referring to, but in any event there was quite a bundle of answers to questions from last year's estimates hearing, which I am assuming you have received and that is what you are referring to?

Mr PICTON: Yes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: To be absolutely clear, so that we can have a comparison of the fund over the past five years: year ending 2017, $271 million; year ending 2018, $153 million; year ending 2019, $153 million; year ending 30 June 2020, $159 million; and for the half-year we are currently in—that is, to 31 December 2020; it is only for those six months—it is up to $168 million. We will be able to identify the full flow of that once we have finished that financial year.

As you appreciate, the application of moneys in the December period—well, I suppose it is also going to be affected by COVID, and we will have to have a look at that as to where the big months are, but we may find that there is an accumulation of applications. I have not got to 30 June 2021 yet, because clearly we have five months to go, but nevertheless I think that you will see there has been a diminution of the fund.

Mr PICTON: I refer to page 58 in relation to the Public Trustee and the verification of goods and services received by clients. Without reading the entire page, one of the issues highlighted by the Auditor-General was that they had previously raised the issue of the Public Trustee not re-implementing a sample check of invoices to ensure that goods and services had been received by clients. He says that this is an issue that has been previously raised by the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption as well.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Sorry, where is that point? Is that point 5?

Mr PICTON: The first paragraph in the middle of page 58. He has noted that the process could identify circumstances where documents may have been falsified. This is on top of the risk that things are paid for by vulnerable clients but never received for other reasons. These clients may not have had the capacity to follow up or challenge problems with suppliers, but then in response, the Public Trustee has only committed to checking on orders for more than $2,500 and then only by a written declaration. Attorney, doesn't this process leave open the risk of multiple fraudulent transactions for less than $2,500 each and that they will go undetected?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think the report suggests that, unless there is a verification of the goods and services, it provides a circumstance where there is a risk not necessarily of fraud, or whatever you have suggested, but there is a risk. I think that is what the Auditor-General is saying. This is a matter where the verification process needs to be there. I do not see anything in the report that suggests that the cut-off point of $2,500 is unacceptable to the Auditor-General, but I will just have a look. I understand there is a reference to it on page 59. I will just read this:

The Public Trustee advised that the Trust branch had implemented a new procedure in February 2020, applying a risk-based approach to verifying that customer goods and services are received following an order. This applies to goods and services valued over $2500 (with certain exclusions) and they are verified by a written declaration. The Personal Estates Branch will employ a similar risk-based approach and request that a declaration be completed and signed by customers or their support people for goods over a specified amount.

I do not recall, in reading the Public Trustee audit, any indication that that is in some way inadequate.

Mr PICTON: You do not think there is a risk in relation to those transactions for less than $2,500 that are not going to be subject to an assessment process?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The Auditor-General has not identified that that is a risk.

Mr PICTON: I am asking for your opinion as the minister in charge of this portfolio.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: If the Auditor-General had brought to my attention in his report that there was any error of risk that any agencies under my responsibility would face, then certainly I would do it. I am not a trained accountant or auditor, and I would therefore not second-guess that as such or proffer my opinion on that. What I am responsible for doing, which I consider is a very important responsibility, is if the Auditor-General brings to my attention some deficiency and/or risk of any practice being undertaken by any agency in my area of responsibility then I would need to act on it, and he has not in this report.

Mr PICTON: Are you saying, Attorney-General, in your responsibility, that you are satisfied that your agency has implemented everything to abide by the recommendations of not only the Auditor-General but also the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption, who has also raised this issue?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The Public Trustee has reported to ICAC on all responses to the recommendations, and no issue has been taken. I am assuming that, in relation to ICAC, you are referring to Mr Lander's review that he undertook in relation to the Public Trustee. I have received regular briefings in relation to the implementation of those recommendations, and the last report I had was that they had all been implemented. I have received nothing either from ICAC or from the Office for Public Integrity and/or the Auditor-General that would suggest that the matters raised in this issue are remaining at risk.

Mr PICTON: Is it enough to rely on a written declaration for those orders above $2,500?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, I cannot act on something where the Auditor-General—or anyone else for that matter—has not identified a problem. It has not been brought to my attention that the verification in relation to the goods and services practices of the Public Trustee is anything other than it is in this report. In that regard, I am satisfied on the Auditor-General's Report that there is nothing else outstanding that I should be looking at to ensure that the Public Trustee is doing what is necessary to comply with its obligations.

Remember, of course, that it is an agency responsible for the investment and/or deploying of a very substantial amount of money to vulnerable people. It is an important agency but it is charged with that responsibility. There is nothing in this report that raises concern or that the Auditor-General is flagging to me that I need to deal with. For example, if he were to report to the parliament—he is not reporting to me: he is reporting to the parliament—that there was some further deficiency in this unit, then I think it is quite reasonable to act on that, but that is not the case.

Mr PICTON: I think it is important that you refer to the vulnerable people involved. I note that the report in relation to the agency's actions at the top of page 59 says that there will be potential declarations for clients who may lack the capacity to make a declaration or their support people. I am interested in whether those support people could involve carers. Particularly in light of the Ann Marie case, which I am sure you are applying the learnings of across your agencies, what else will they be doing to protect clients from fraud? Do there need to be additional checks where there is a small number of support people involved?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am not sure I fully understand the question, but I am happy to take it on notice. I think what you are asking—just so I am clear on what we are going to be seeking for you—is whether there is any procedure that currently applies to the declarations relating to goods of a value less than $2,500; is that what you are seeking?

Mr PICTON: The written declaration is for more than $2,500. There is a capacity for a support person to help a vulnerable person to do that. I guess in light of the Ann Marie case, where we have seen the abuse of a support person's relationship with somebody, what steps are you taking and what things are you putting in place, particularly where there might be a small number of support people, to ensure that there is no fraud that could occur in relation to those payments?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Firstly, I cannot comment on the Ann Marie Smith case because there is somebody being charged in the courts in relation to that. As to what the arrangements are for that particular case, I cannot and will not answer. What I think you are asking me, then—again, I will try to be clear about it—is what processes are in place to be able to verify the goods or services that are provided to a person to the value of less than $2,500 where they have a minimal support number of carers and/or supervisors; is that where we are?

Mr PICTON: Yes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will see what is being employed by the Public Trustee in relation to that. I would just make the point that if that had been an area of weakness in relation to the risk management of those verifications, I am sure the Auditor-General would have brought it to our attention, but he has not. Nevertheless, I will see whether there is a particular process that occurs in relation to goods or services that are provided at less than $2,500.

Ms MICHAELS: I have a question that relates to page 34 of Part C, in relation to financial delegations for the Small Business Commissioner.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Under 'Delegations not updated'. Is that what we are looking at?

Ms MICHAELS: Correct. Attorney, can you explain the delegations not being updated for a period of 11 months in terms of the Small Business Commissioner?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think the answer is there already. The report indicates that general ledger journals are required to be approved by staff and there is a process for that. It then reports from the Auditor-General that there has been a review of those delegations and they did not include the authorised delegations of the Office of the Small Business Commissioner, which were transferred to AGD on 1 July 2019. It states:

We could not confirm that the OSBC [Office of the Small Business Commissioner] journal was approved by an authorised delegate. AGD responded that OSBC general ledger delegations were approved on 28 May 2020.

I think the answer is in that, that is, that it was done then. Whether that was specifically because of the delay in the transfer of that agency from the Department for Innovation and Skills to the Attorney-General's Department as indicated. So it has been remedied and, it seems on the face of it, accepted by the Auditor-General.

Ms MICHAELS: Attorney, who made the decision to transfer the Office of the Small Business Commissioner to AGD?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That is a governance arrangement that is done by the Premier.

Ms MICHAELS: Attorney, do you think the lack of delegation that is highlighted in the Auditor-General's Report calls into question any of the transactions that were undertaken by the Small Business Commissioner in terms of legality or integrity?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not for the very reason that because this has been examined by the Auditor-General, it gives me comfort to know that whoever has done that part of the audit has been satisfied that there is nothing else to bring to the parliament's attention as to a deficiency. If there were, then I think it would have been brought to our attention.

Always with these matters, the bigger concern is if the Auditor-General has not inquired into a unit or a particular practice at all. That is where I like to be reassured. In fact, this year I have even asked for copies of all the extra audited financial accounts of all the other units. I am advised that sometimes the Auditor-General does not examine every unit, but I have asked for them all.

Ms MICHAELS: Attorney, can I take you to page 39, Births, deaths and marriages revenue system. It refers to a lack of critical IT controls like password management on systems linked to births, deaths and marriages. Are you aware whether any of these security failures present a risk in terms of theft identity?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, I am not. Again, I think the report speaks for itself, that is, the controls under the Promadis program, which is referred to there. Whilst they have identified some weakness in that regard and therefore the risk of there being a problem, it had not been identified that there has been a breach. It is always in the potential, as described in this particular area, rather than identifying that there had been any malicious activity or unauthorised transaction. You will also see—and this is always of some reassurance to me—at the bottom of that section:

AGD responded positively to our findings and agreed to take appropriate action, expected to be completed by the end of June 2021.

Again, I think if the Auditor-General were not satisfied with that approach he would have said so.

Ms MICHAELS: Is the Attorney-General's Department on track to complete that work by June 2021?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I certainly hope so, but I am happy to make an inquiry. In fact, I have good news. Consumer and Business Services (CBS), which is the agency in charge of births, deaths and marriages, has actually responded. In the instructions I have, CBS agreed to take appropriate action—which, of course, we know from the report—and advised that all changes to the Promadis system are now logged and managed separately. So good news: it is five months early.

Ms MICHAELS: Did the agency then go back and review any financial transactions as a result of being made aware of this IT risk?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not that I am aware of. Obviously, the Auditor-General has to be satisfied that this particular program, the Promadis program, is being implemented both adequately and, of course, to remedy the matters that have been brought to their attention. He specifically says that 'AGD responded positively to our findings', so I am sure we would have had a big red asterisk next to them if they had not.

Ms STINSON: I refer to page 376. The second dot point from the top talks about a contribution of $13 million from the Planning and Development Fund for planning reform. My question is: was all of the $13 million referenced there expended by 30 June 2020? How much money has been drawn from the fund to date for the planning reforms? Thirdly, how much has now been spent on the planning reforms in total?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: If I can take the indulgence of the committee to provide this information, my recollection is that, in response to some of the estimates questions, I have actually given some updates on that from last year's estimates meeting. For your benefit and the completeness of this committee, the total expenditure to 20 January 2021 was $42.1 million. I already have the $13.4 million for 2019-20; 2020-21, $6.7 million; and the previous 2018-19 year was the $5.3 million, which dealt with the $25.5 million from the fund. The rest of the moneys come from appropriation generally, not from the fund, but obviously that has been appropriated. An amount of $1.1 million came from a council levy, which has been referred to before, and $100,000 has come from the commonwealth under SAFECOM bushfire mapping.

The CHAIR: Thank you, Attorney. I can advise the committee that time has expired for this session. We have completed the examination of the Attorney-General. We will now move to the Minister for Energy and Mining. Minister, do you have your advisers in place?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes, I do.

The CHAIR: There is no need to stand to ask or answer questions. Member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I refer to page 110 of report 13, which states:

The State's emergency electricity generators with a value of $217 million were transferred to the Department of Treasury and Finance in June 2020, before being transferred to the State Owned Generators Leasing Company Pty Ltd.

Does the Generators Leasing Company have a board?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: As the member would be aware, the generators have been leased. They were transferred essentially from one government agency to another to another. In regard to the specific question about whether the leasing agency has a board, I am happy to take that on notice. It is probably a question for the Treasurer rather than for me, but I am happy to take on notice.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I take you now to the Home Battery Scheme referenced on page 114. For the audit period, how many batteries were installed and how many grants were issued?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The number installed during the audit period was 6,950 and, barring any hard-to-explain administration error, every battery that is installed in the Home Battery Scheme attracts a subsidy.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If I can ask a process question, if you apply for a home battery and you receive a subsidy, is that subsidy paid to the home owner installing the battery, or is it paid directly to the installer?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The home owner versus the installer?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes, the actual payment, the transfer, goes directly to the installer but with a credit system that is connected to the approval process. As you might know, you can only qualify if you have the right type of batteries and the right type of installer. The quality of the equipment and the quality of the installer are obviously incredibly important. You have to be qualified with DEM and the program to do that.

There is also a six-month period from approval to installation so that people are not just sitting on it for ever. From memory, there is a 12-month approval period for new dwellings so that if somebody were to buy a new house and get a battery in the new house under this scheme they have 12 months to do that. We have tried to make this as easy as possible for home owners and installers but as tight as possible for all the obvious right reasons.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Can I also ask this: the total budget of the scheme is what, minister?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: It is $118 million.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: How much was expended in the audit period?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: During the audit period, $43.208 million on subsidies and $1.725 million on implementation costs.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You spent $43 million of the $100 million budget on subsidies but only installed 6,950 batteries. The scheme on page 114 says 'the aim of providing 40,000' batteries. I am trying to understand the numbers here. I am not making a judgement yet. You say you have spent $43 million of the $118 million budget. I assume the $18 million is not part of the grant scheme because the grant scheme is $100 million. How are you going to get the remaining batteries?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I think this is a question that came up last year as well, in this same forum. I am happy to go over it again. There are many intentions on behalf of the South Australian public tied up with this Home Battery Scheme. We want the households to invest to benefit. We want them to be able to generate their own electricity during the day when they are not using much in the house. We want them to be able to fill their batteries during the day when they are not using that electricity. We want them to be able to come home in the evening when their electricity demand is higher and draw out of their battery, rather than drawing out of the grid, so that they are saving themselves money. That is one benefit.

Another benefit of course is that once we get the critical mass of households with batteries—and there is a range of different ways we are doing that in addition to the Home Battery Scheme—and those households are drawing out of their own batteries instead of out of the grid, that is an enormous amount of electricity that is not being drawn out of the grid at the highest demand time—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: With all due respect, minister, that is not the question I asked. I asked: if during the audit period you expended $43 million and got 6,950 batteries, and the aim of the scheme is for 40,000 batteries with a budget of $100,000, how does the remaining money get the 30,000-plus batteries into homes?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I will get to that. Very importantly, we need people not drawing out of the grid because they are drawing out of their batteries. If you get a critical mass of people doing that, then that takes pressure off the grid in the evening, which allows prices to go down and then supports all other South Australian electricity consumers in addition to those who have invested in the batteries.

Another of the benefits is that we want to draw down the cost of these batteries to consumers. Like lots of schemes that lots of governments of both persuasions have done over time—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order: this is debate now. I asked a specific question. The budget is $100 million. The government has spent $43 million and installed 6,950 batteries. It has a target of 40,000. I am not asking about the benefits of the batteries. I am asking about how he expects the remaining budget to install the remaining 30,000-plus batteries.

The CHAIR: Yes, that is the question you asked absolutely, member for West Torrens. I am sure the minister is coming to the answer.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: One of the other benefits we want is to bring down the cost to consumers of the batteries, so—

The CHAIR: Minister, we will get to the answer to the question.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: When that happens, we do not need to offer the same subsidy level. What we have seen over the life of the scheme is approximately a $2,500 on average per battery reduction in the retail price of these batteries. It was always clearly articulated in the rollout of this scheme that we would offer more generous subsidies at the start of the scheme and less generous subsidies at the end of the scheme, with an aim of trying to get the net purchase price, after the subsidy is taken off the retail price, fairly level for consumers.

It is important to outline all that because we made it very clear that we would offer more subsidy per battery at the start and less subsidy per battery at the end. That is exactly how we will deliver on this scheme because the batteries in the back half of the scheme per unit will attract a lower subsidy than they did at the start of the scheme. We are seeing that work already.

As I said, it is roughly $2,500 per unit, so using very simple maths—and of course there is a lot more calculation going into it than that—we can drop the subsidy per battery by $2,500 and have the outlay for the household to be exactly the same. Again, using very simple maths, people in the department have essentially provided a time line linked to time and also to the number of batteries that have attracted the subsidy so that, as we move through, we get to a point in time and then the subsidy drops. That is what we did to begin with. Now what we are doing is when a particular number of batteries have been purchased the subsidy drops down for the next tranche of batteries.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So the logic that the government is implementing is that, with the larger subsidy spending nearly half the budget, you have less than a quarter of the batteries you needed, but as you drop the subsidy, inversely, miraculously, the number of batteries installed will increase.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: No, that is a very poor characterisation of it. In fact, the less than a quarter that the member refers to is only the number of batteries from the actual audit period. His question was about 12 months. The scheme has been running for more than 12 months, so it is inappropriate to characterise that as all the batteries that have been attracted during this scheme.

But, very simply, yes, as more batteries are purchased, as demand grows, as confidence grows, as installers get their skates on and can drop their costs—a whole range of things, including the battery manufacturers that we have attracted into South Australia in the northern and southern suburbs, so we are having batteries produced here in Adelaide—as all these things roll out as outcomes of the scheme, in addition to the benefits to the households, we are seeing the cost of the batteries reduce.

When the cost of the batteries reduces, the subsidy required to offer the householder the same incentive or essentially the same net purchase price can also reduce. That is what is happening. That is one of the goals we wanted to achieve up-front and one of the goals that we are achieving.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If I can move on to page 115 and the topic of EnergyConnect. I apologise, minister—on page 113 there is an interpretation and analysis of the financial report. Under the headline Statement of Comprehensive Income, it states that appropriations to the department have decreased by $20 million, $17 million of which is for the state-owned generators. Can I ask: how many FTEs were capitalised within that operating $17 million cost?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am advised none.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: On the same reference, can the minister explain how the transfer from the $20 million Green Industries Fund to the Home Battery Scheme operates?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: You would be aware of the commitments we made before the election, information that needs to be provided by both parties leading up to the election. This is perfectly consistent with that. The Green Industry Fund is a source of finance for appropriate complying programs. It was a decision that was made when this scheme started, and it is a decision that we have stuck with. There is an allocation of funding from the Green Industry Fund that goes to the battery scheme on an annual basis. The numbers you are seeing there are exactly what was reported for this audit period.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The statement says:

Revenue from intra-government transfers increased by $26 million, 118%, in 2019-20. The main increase was the receipt of an additional $20 million in funding from the Green Industry Fund for…the Home Battery Scheme.

How many transfers from the Green Industry Fund to the Home Battery Scheme have occurred since the establishment of the Home Battery Scheme?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The transfers occur monthly with invoices from DEM to DEW.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Have the only transfers that have occurred from the Green Industry Fund been in the last audit period, or have there been transfers in previous audit periods?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: As I said before, consistent with the Home Battery Scheme life, it has been happening that long.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: How much has been appropriated from the budget for the Home Battery Scheme?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The $100 million, which was the initial figure, has all come 100 per cent from Green Industries, and that is all that has come from Green Industries.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No money has been appropriated from the budget for the Home Battery Scheme?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The additional $18 million.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The additional $18 million?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The operating costs?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: No.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: My next question is about the Economic and Business Growth Fund, from which the department received a $6 million grant, of which $3 million is for your Accelerated Discovery Initiative. How did that transfer come about?

The CHAIR: For my benefit, member for West Torrens, do we have a reference?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: At page 114, where the top line states:

DEM also received $6 million…in funding from the Economic Business and Growth Fund. $3 million of this was for the Accelerated Discovery Initiative…

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The Economic and Business Growth Fund is a separate fund. It is a pool that was set aside. It has been available for government departments and others to apply to for a while now. In terms of where did the money that DEM received come from, it came out of that distinct separate EBG Fund.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You fund your accelerated discovery program from that grant. What is the remaining $3 million used for?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I have to say that I have been extremely pleased with the key DEM staff and people in my office because our area of work in energy and mining has been extremely well supported by the Economic and Business Growth Fund. We have put proposals forward in a competitive sense and we have been supported by the fund to do new economic and business development work within the energy and mining sector.

All of that is available in the budget. I do not have that information available here but I can tell you that it is more than $6 million in total out of that fund that has come to us—$6 million is probably what this financial year includes (the audit year that we are looking at). I would be happy to get together for the member the list of projects that have been announced that have been successful under that fund, but I say again it was a fund that is very clearly available. The private sector applies for it, internal opportunities can apply for it.

The key issue is that it is economy and business-growing type projects. It is very competitive. It is not easy to get that money. DEM has put forward a raft of extremely good projects, not all of which have been accepted but certainly some of them have, and we are doing very good work on behalf of the state with that money.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Just so we are clear, minister, you are not given an allocation of $6 million for the Accelerated Discovery Initiative; the department applies to the Economic and Business Growth Fund on behalf of exploration companies, or are you given an allocation and then you can decide how it is handed out?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: What happens is the relevant minister puts an application forward, potentially on behalf of the private sector, potentially on behalf of an internal program. Whatever seems to be the right type of project put forward, the relevant minister puts forward that application. For example, the Accelerated Discovery Initiative was actually a $10 million grant out of the EBGF over three years. So you are seeing $3 million of that $10 million in this one 12-month period. To the heart of your question, it is a competitive program. It is not just a, 'Transfer here, you go off and do something that is good for the economy with money,' you actually have to put a proposal forward and earn it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: My point is that the department has not been given an allocation of $10 million over four years to spend on accelerated discovery initiatives. The Economic and Business Growth Fund has and they decide which of your initiatives are accepted.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: It is $10 million over three years rather than four years.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: My point is you do not have geologists in your agency deciding which target should be picked: it is them.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: No—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So you have given the money? You have autonomy over this?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: No, you have not characterised it properly. At the end of the day, it is actually the Treasurer who is—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The Treasurer?

The CHAIR: Continue, minister.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: He is a geologist?

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am trying to help him.

The CHAIR: There are only 10 minutes left. You have asked your question. Let the minister answer.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: At the end of the day, it is actually the Treasurer who is the minister, if you like, who has authority over the Economic and Business Growth Fund. There is a governance committee and also another committee that assesses these things. There is a very thorough assessment process, as I mentioned before. It is a very competitive assessment process.

It is not financial people assessing the geological viability of a program and it is not the geologists advising on the economic benefits of a program. There are layers and layers. For example, this $10 million over three years—and I know I am talking outside the audit year at the moment, but hopefully this is a very helpful example—was given for the Accelerated Discovery Initiative because the economic and business entity, if you like, that does the assessment said that that work is important.

Once that money is available, then it actually moves on to key people within DEM and external advisers, and then they make the assessment of the applications that come in. Ministers compete, essentially, for a share of EBGF. Once a program is established, then it moves on to another round of competitive process to see where the money will go and how it will be best used from there.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Of the $10 million outside the audit period that we are talking about here that you have been able to access or can in the future, do you have any FTEs capitalised within those grant payments?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: No.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: For what it is worth, minister, do not let the Treasurer convince you that these things are good ideas. If I can go to page 115, EnergyConnect again. We have had this discussion for a while now about a $200 million contingency for EnergyConnect. If I can just paraphrase what it says—again, I am trying to do this without my glasses—the interconnector was proposed in 2018-19, initially costing around $1.5 billion, which would require approval from the AER. There has been additional money provided to TransGrid of $3 million. From what I can understand, this money is being allocated from a $200 million fund held in contingency. Is that correct?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: This will now go back over the two previous times we have discussed this together in this forum. The Treasurer has a contingency fund for a range of opportunities, as you know. As I said to you last year and the year before, the Treasurer has made it very clear that while there is not a $200 million budget line to contribute towards the interconnector, that money is contained within the broader Treasurer's contingency fund.

What we are seeing in the early works that the government is supporting to keep the interconnector delivery on the time line that we want it to be on is proof of what I have said to you just now and in the previous two years. While there is not a $200 million line item, as nice as it would be for you and in fact for me to see, the Treasurer has been good to his word. When we have needed money to put towards the interconnector, he has provided it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So there is no $200 million contingency as such?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: It is in the broader Treasurer's contingency budget.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I got a question back from you on notice today and I will read it out to you. The question I asked you on 24 November last year was:

Do government press releases and media reports say that those advance works are on top of a $200 million contingency or as part of that $200 million interconnector fund that was announced in 2018?

This is your response, with your signature:

…I have been advised that:

The Government has underwritten early works activities from ElectraNet and TransGrid as part of the $200 million commitment to expedite the delivery of an interconnector to New South Wales.

In your answer, you just said to me there is no $200 million ElectraNet/TransGrid/EnergyConnect fund or contingency, but in your answer to me here, you say that there is a $200 million commitment.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: What I have said consistently all along is that there is a $200 million commitment but there is no line item that identifies that. This is the third year in a row we have had this discussion. There is no line item that identifies it but, consistent with what I have said every year for three years and consistent with what you just read out, that money is held in the broader Treasurer's contingency fund. The Treasurer has been good to his word and we are using that money for the right purposes.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If I can turn you now to page 116, minister, to the Grid Scale Storage Fund, I understand from this that the fund is intended to provide up to $50 million in grants. Only one grant was offered in February 2019 for $15 million. What is the process for the remainder of that $50 million?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Again, it might be the lack of glasses or something else. You are quite right about the $15 million in this audit year but money was actually spent out of this fund in the previous audit year as well. A little bit like your characterisation of the home batteries that attracted subsidies in this 12 months, trying to say that they are the only ones that have ever attracted subsidies being incorrect, it is also incorrect to say that the money that was expended this year out of the Grid Scale Storage Fund is the only money that has been spent because there was money spent in the previous year.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: How much of the $50 million is left?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I do not have that information here. I am happy to confirm it, but I believe it is $25 million.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The grant was established in 2018 and half has been spent. During the audit period, which is the last financial year, there was one project for $15 million. Is there another project for $10 million or is that divided up among a series of projects?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: There is one other.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So two projects so far. Could I ask what the total storage capacity is for those two projects that have been funded?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes, but I would have to take that on notice. I do not have that here as part of the Auditor-General's preparation.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I understand. The Auditor-General says that the $15 million that was granted during the audit period will be paid out over the remaining six years. Does that mean that the project will not be completed for six years, or are there staggered, tiered payments as they reach milestones?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: This is actually an important question and I am glad that you have asked it. We are not doing these things in every case but very often and very differently from the way the previous government did. Broadly speaking, the previous government had a grant fund for one purpose or another, contributed towards the up-front costs of a project and then hopefully taxpayers received the benefit of that project being developed.

We are actually using taxpayers' money to pay for the benefits; we are not putting it toward the capital. That $15 million is actually $3 million per year for five years. That is not for the project to be developed but is actually after the project is up and running. We pay for the benefits. When the project delivers the benefits to taxpayers, which the proponent of the project said it would, then we make a payment in return for those benefits. When it happens for five years in a row, they will get their $3 million every year for five years. So we are paying for benefits, not towards somebody else's up-front capital cost.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have one last question. The Auditor-General has your department's financial report on his online portal as part of the annual report. In table 1.2, it talks about commonwealth sourced grant funding. You received a grant for $866,000 and the previous year you received a grant for $322,000. What were those grants for?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I will take that on notice and get back to you, given the time has expired.

The CHAIR: Thank you, minister, and thank you, member for West Torrens. Time has expired. We have completed the examination of the Minister for Energy and Mining. We move now to the Minister for Education. Welcome, everybody. Over to you, member for Wright.

Mr BOYER: Thank you, Chair, and thank you, minister. Welcome, Mr Bernardi and Ms Riedstra. It is good to see you both and happy new year to you. If I can refer you to page 97 of Part C, the first page of the education section of the Auditor-General's Report. Under significant events and transactions, I note the third dot point talks about an independent chair appointed to the Capital Works Governance Committee. Could you perhaps tell us a little bit about who that chair reports to, their role and why it was deemed necessary to have an independent chair?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The appointment and the person in question is former Premier Dean Brown. The appointment was made by Rick Persse, the Chief Executive of the Department for Education, and reporting is directly to the chief executive on a fortnightly basis.

Mr BOYER: What kind of selection process was in place for the appointment of the independent chair of the Capital Works Governance Committee?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I will take that on notice.

Mr BOYER: Who was the person who appointed him? Was it you or was it the Premier?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: It was Rick Persse.

Mr BOYER: I will take you to page 99, under funding to support private schools. It refers to a 12 per cent increase 'in funding to private schools due to an increase in capital funding, enrolments and indexation'. In reference to the capital funding in particular, minister, can you tell us how many loans, or capital loans in particular, have been approved for private schools since the change of government—ideally, the value of those loans as a proportion of the overall increase in funding to the private sector.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Can I indicate that I suspect that, while there is a loans program and I am sure we can get some information without too much trouble (although it is in the Treasurer's portfolio, I am happy to find it in relation to the loans program), the funding here also would be, and I think particularly references, the grants program which were—

Mr BOYER: The capital funding grants as opposed to the loans themselves.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: This was an election commitment from both parties that there was $5½ million for the Catholic sector and $5½ million for the independent sector and that is indexed, so I think they are a bit more than that now. This current financial year—not in the Auditor-General's Report but the current financial year we are in, in last year's budget—was doubled as a one-off as part of COVID stimulus.

Again, if the member has a particular part of the question that I am missing here, it is probably worth explaining the process slightly. Catholic Education has a process where they seek expressions of interest, effectively, from all their schools and identify how to split up that $5½ million in their grants. In the independent schooling sector, there is a process where almost all the independent schools get a smaller grant. They have to identify the purpose for that and it has to meet criteria, but effectively the methodology is based on their size as much as anything, so almost all the independent schools are in that process.

Mr BOYER: I appreciate that this may have already been published somewhere and I may have missed it, but is there a list somewhere publicly available of the non-government schools that have been awarded capital funding and, if it indeed exists, does that list include the amounts for which those schools were funded, or the amounts they were provided by the government?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: It is possible that these have been provided or are being provided through answers to omnibus questions from estimates as grants. If that was not in today's batch with the Speaker, it is not far away, but if there is not through that process we will look into that for you.

Mr BOYER: Thank you, minister. I refer you now to page 100 under the heading Employees. The final paragraph of that page talks about school services officers (SSOs) having increased in number by 16 per cent or 977 full-time equivalents due to a number of programs over several years since 2017. I accept that this is not something you would have on you, but could a breakdown of the years in which the additional 977 or 16 per cent of SSOs were employed across those years 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 be made available?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I believe we can get that for you and we will make endeavours to do so.

Mr BOYER: On page 101, the first paragraph of that page says that there was a decrease of 10 per cent or 162 FTEs in admin staff. I wonder if you could elaborate a little on that paragraph in this report about the areas in which those admin staff were employed before they were no longer employed. Are they head office or Flinders Street staff? I assume they are not schools, but I am sure you can clarify that for me.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I think that while the staff numbers being decreased are identified as 2020, what we are seeing is the outcome of some of the efficiencies from the 2018-19 budget in particular; nevertheless, there may be some other people. In terms of what the particular jobs are, I know that we have on occasion gone through some of these. In relation to the 162 identified here, if there is a particular category we will look into that, and I think that should not be too difficult. Obviously, there is a range of ways in which we have had efficiencies in automation, doing our processes in different ways and being able to reinvest a number of expenditures back into schools and education and other priorities, but what those particular jobs were we will take that on notice.

Mr BOYER: I am just looking for some kind of assurance of sorts that they are not being taken from school sites and a general idea of the tasks they may have been performing and how the tasks they were performing have been absorbed in their absence.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Yes, you are correct that we are not talking about school sites. That is not to say that there might not be some admin staff in some schools the principal may have determined was a contract that was no longer relevant and replaced with an SSO or an extra teacher, but that is not what this is talking about.

Mr BOYER: I take you to page 103. Just below the graph, there is a reference to automatic approvals. I note that the Auditor-General found that, although there was an improvement, which is a good thing, in the number of invoices for minor works and maintenance expenditure that was being paid automatically without review, there was still $32½ million in 2020 paid automatically without review or approval. I wonder if you could give some information to the committee about what is planned to bring that number down further.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I am very pleased to provide some information. Minor works and maintenance performed at all government schools and preschools are managed by contracted facilities management service providers. The invoices for the work performed are recorded in the Facilities Asset Management Information System (FAMIS), which is managed by the Department for Infrastructure and Transport.

Sites are expected to review and validate invoices in the Facilities Asset Management Information System (FAMIS) within 30 days but, to avoid adverse impact on contractors' cash flows, contractors are paid within 10 days by the facilities management service providers subject to the submission of a valid invoice. The facilities management service providers then seek payment from the agency through FAMIS.

The agency has 30 days to accept and approve or dispute the claim, otherwise it will automatically be paid after 30 days regardless of whether they are reviewed and validated. Sites are able to dispute the charges in FAMIS. When a job is disputed, this stops the invoice from being automatically approved via the auto-approval process. When the dispute is resolved, the job is taken out of dispute by the site and approved for payment.

The Auditor-General has acknowledged that a number of the changes have been implemented by the department, and also the department that is now the Department for Infrastructure and Transport, and that has reduced the number of automatic payments since 2016 to the lowest level in five years. However, $32.5 million was paid automatically in 2020 to ensure that those contractors were not out of pocket for work that had been done.

This issue has been raised by the Auditor-General for a number of years. I have a feeling I may have even asked a question of a similar nature three or four years ago; it is possible. Of course, the numbers were different then because the number of payments without being reviewed and approved this year is the lowest in five years, which is an improvement. The reason there is a problem, the reason the Auditor-General is concerned, is that it increases the risk of paying for works not performed or being overcharged and the lack of delegates' approvals for payments, and you want to reduce that risk obviously.

So the Department for Education and the Department for Infrastructure and Transport have implemented several strategies over the previous years to improve the validation of invoices. There are new procedures outlining site responsibilities for approving invoices. There are FAMIS email reminders to remind sites to approve invoices 15 days before they would automatically be paid. There are monthly reminder emails being sent to the top 10 sites based on the number and value of auto-approvals. There is an email address to the site leader and the education director being sent for sites that receive more than one reminder email per calendar year.

These changes have resulted in a reduction of auto-approval statistics from 80 per cent in 2016 to 27 per cent in 2020. The department continues to monitor auto-approvals and will continue to send reminder emails to sites, particularly the top 10 auto-approvals, by value or number. Our ICT division is developing a process to enable reminder emails to be sent to all sites with auto-approvals in the previous month, regardless of the value or number of claims auto-approved. It is expected that that process will be ready for implementation for the beginning of term 2 this year.

Mr BOYER: If I could take you to page 104 at the top of that page where it states, '32 per cent of employee performance development plans were overdue' and, as per the previous question I asked you, I note that there has been some improvement here but there are still 9,625 performance development plans overdue. My question is twofold. What are the ramifications of this for the employees whose performance development plans remain overdue? What is the agency doing to reduce this number?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I thank the member for the very good question. The Performance and Development Guideline requires all employees with regular work arrangements to maintain a performance and development plan, which I am going to start calling PDP to reduce the risk of my misstating. The policy requires that documented PDP reviews must occur every six months from the date the plan is made and must be recorded in HR's information system. So for new employees or employees new to roles, a written plan must be established within two months of starting.

The importance of the PDPs is that they help employees realise their potential through performance planning, learning and feedback with a focus on their contribution to outcomes and improvements in line with the department's strategic objectives. The department's management information system, the HR system, is used to record those completed PDPs. It provides regular reminders to managers and staff when the PDPs are overdue, and that system also ensures visibility for executives regarding PDP completion within their division.

As a result, many areas of the department have increased the number of employees having their PDP discussions every six months. We are not yet at 100 per cent PDP completion as we would like to be, as has been identified by the Auditor-General, but the improvement in performance has been from 38 per cent down to 32 per cent since last year. The Auditor-General has highlighted opportunities to improve the reliability of the review dates for PDPs recorded with the HRS. We believe that the modest improvement that we have already achieved is as a result of greater awareness through improved reporting to education directors and executive directors on the status of PDP reviews.

Potential factors contributing to those continuing overdue PDPs include issues relating to the recording in the system. COVID meant that from term 2 email reminders for PDPs were turned off and site-based employees were not required to document six-monthly performance reviews given the dynamic situation in education sites for a period, so emphasis was placed on continuing informal performance discussions on a regular basis. Both email reminders and documented reviews will recommence during term 1 this year.

We will continue to have online training modules via plink, face-to-face training available through the leadership development unit, PDP reporting on a quarterly basis provided to leaders to monitor and advise of overdue PDPs and the organisational development unit is doing follow-ups and there is an update to the HRS module that is being used that should improve things as well.

Mr BOYER: At the bottom of page 107 it talks about the decrease of $12.8 million in the SASIF balances. Does the minister have any information that he can share with the committee around how that $12.8 million, generally speaking, was actually spent by sites to prepare the plan?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Could the member for Wright ask the question again? I understand the reference, but what was the information you are seeking?

Mr BOYER: At the bottom of page 107, the final sentence under the Schools Investment Fund cash balances states it has decreased by $12.8 million in part because the department issued a site instruction to help sites to prepare a plan for using their balances. I am wondering, assuming that the plan itself is obviously not necessarily a cost item, how it resulted in a $12.8 million reduction in SASIF.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Ultimately, the SASIF accounts and their expenditure is a site-based decision in 500 schools and many of our 400 preschools are standalone, so there are many hundreds of SASIF accounts out there and so cumulatively there being $12.8 million less, there will be a number of reasons why those individual sites have spent less. The instruction that the member is referring to and identified by the Auditor-General is guidance that has been provided by Mr Bernardi's unit to all schools to help them manage their SASIF accounts effectively.

I am sure that the member would remember when he was working in education that you would visit some schools that would have substantial SASIF accounts and potentially they were saving more than they needed. There would be the opportunity for them to spend some and some sites were running very thin. I think it is fair to summarise that the department's view to give some extra guidance to schools to give them extra comfort and confidence in their budgeting was seen as having value and I think I have had positive feedback about it.

Mr BOYER: At page 108, below the graph, the paragraph that begins with 'Projections provided to us' talks about a projected spend on sustainable enrolment growth of $131 million but only $64 million of that was actually spent in 2020. Can the minister explain to the committee why there was such a substantial underspend on that item?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I am advised that the initial budget allocation of $131 million expected to be spent in that year was based on the very preliminary expectations of cash flows. Of course, as the projects were developed the expected timings of when money was going to be spent similarly matured along with the project so we have a higher rate of confidence. I will just check one thing.

We are now catching up. I can advise that, in 2019-20 (some of this is directly relevant, some may be useful) the investing program spend was $165 million. The total 2020-21 investing program budget is $786 million. As at 31 December 2020, the budgeted spend was $227 million; the actual spend was $242 million. So, we have gone from having that lag to catching up, effectively.

Mr BOYER: Thank you, minister. If you are okay to do so, we could move to TAFE.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: As the member indicated earlier, we had Chris Bernardi and Julieann Riedstra from the Department for Education. David Coltman, the Chief Executive of TAFE SA may well provide me with some assistance throughout this section.

Mr BOYER: Thank you, minister, and thank you for your attendance, Mr Coltman. If I could take you to page 540, under the headings Statement of Comprehensive Income and Funding for the Department for Innovation and Skills', I note that TAFE's main income source is noted here as being funding from the Department for Innovation and Skills (DIS), and that the total funding was $246 million. Under 'funding for specific course delivery outlined in the memorandum of administrative agreement', between 2020 and 2019 I see a drop of $18 million, from $146 million to $128 million. Can the minister elaborate on that quite significant drop?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: There are several factors going on here. Some of the factors, as I understand it, are a $40 million reduction in funding with respect to lower campus lease costs following the transfer of the infrastructure assets to TAFE SA. There was a $10 million increase to offset the anticipated deterioration of revenue due to the impact of COVID-19. That was from DTF via DIS. There was a $10 million increase as a result of other variances, including indexation, and a $1.5 million decrease in excess staff funding. I am not sure if that hits that $18 million mark the member was identifying, but if it does not we will check and let the member know.

Mr BOYER: On the same table, under capital funding, I see an increase in capital funding of $5 million in 2019 to $15 million. Is that the $10 million that you referred to in your previous answer that makes up the difference between $5 million and $15 million?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Yes, I suspect the member is right there.

Mr BOYER: I take you to page 543, under expenses and optimisation plan, towards the bottom, in particular TVSPs. I understand that on the following page, 544, it talks about 444 TVSPs paid over this period, including 112 in 2019-20. I will ask a question that I know was a perennial favourite of the Hon. Rob Lucas in the other place, he having asked it for many years: do you have details on the average age and oldest age given for TVSPs under the 444?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I will take that on notice and see what we can find.

Mr BOYER: Rob would be disappointed if I did not ask that, I know. Page 544, towards the bottom, states that the number of TVSPs was 444 and 112 in 2019-20. I do not think I can make out from the graph above, though, the precise number for the other years across that period. If you are able to take that on notice possibly and get me that information.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I will do even better than that. I will get you the TVSPs and staff reductions for each of the last 10 years up until the last year in that graph.

Mr BOYER: That is very generous, minister, thank you. On the same page 544, under 'Employee benefits', it talks about HPIs (hourly paid instructors) and it elaborates on the decrease of $10 million in benefits to—

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Can you repeat the last bit?

Mr BOYER: On page 544, towards the top under 'Employee benefits', the second sentence states that they decreased by $10 million in 2019-20 and that this was mainly due to a decrease in salaries and wages of $6 million, most of which was a decrease in payments made to hourly paid instructors. Can the minister explain what it was that drove the decrease in demand for the number of hourly paid instructors? Was it fewer courses being offered by TAFE or was it something else?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: TAFE SA increased its scrutiny in 2019-20 of the use of hourly paid instructors by implementing the workload management tool. The tool assesses the current workload demands of lecturers to determine capacity to undertake additional delivery before hourly paid instructors are engaged. The use of hourly paid instructors was also reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic when TAFE SA transitioned to blended delivery models during term 2.

Mr BOYER: In the first part of your answer, I think the words were—and I am paraphrasing here—to the effect that a higher level of scrutiny was cast upon the demand for hourly paid instructors. Is the suggestion there that previously they were being paid for hours of instruction that were not in some way needed?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Again, I will be corrected if I am paraphrasing incorrectly the advice that I have received over the last year or two, but one of the complexities was of course that you have TAFE permanent staff who are able to deliver a certain amount of training and the TAFE SA organisation worked very hard to have a better record of how many hours they are delivering to ensure they do not go over what they are supposed to. It also identified that there are some who have been able to deliver more hours than they were and so, rather than necessarily having to bring in an extra hourly paid instructor, if there was a permanent staff member able to undertake the task that then enabled them to use the permanent staff member.

Mr BOYER: If I could take you back briefly to page 543 and the graph about TAFE's total student numbers that shows a decline across four years. I accept that this is a question that you may not be able to answer off the top of your head but, hopefully, Mr Coltman can. Is that decline expected to continue into the next calendar or financial year?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: With 30 seconds left, I will take that on notice so we can have another one.

Mr BOYER: If I can go back to the previous page, minister, page 542. It states that student and other fees and charges made up a total of 23 per cent of TAFE SA's total income. Am I right to assume that, given other changes in TAFE around the number of courses that it will offer compared to what it offered in the past, income from student and other fees and charges are expected to drop again?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I am advised that that depends on a couple of things, including commonwealth funding. The commonwealth government's Adult Migrant English Program and Skills for Education and Employment Program were $1.2 million lower than the previous year. That reduction is partially due to fewer migrants and clients undertaking the training during the 2020 COVID-19 period. Obviously, given the international border restrictions, there is a significant potential ongoing reduce in demand. There may well be other factors as well but that is the most significant one that jumps out of the advice that is provided to me.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.