Auditor-General's Report

Auditor-General's Report

In committee.

(Continued from 2 November 2022.)

The CHAIR: I declare the examination of the Report of the Auditor-General 2021-22 open. I remind members that the committee is in normal session. Any questions must be asked by members on their feet and responses provided by relevant ministers on their feet. All questions must be directly—and I repeat directly—referenced to the Auditor-General's 2021-22 Report and agency statements for the year ending 2021-22 as published on the Auditor-General's website. I welcome the Minister for Education and the member for Morialta. Member for Morialta, would you like to get the ball rolling?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I thank the minister for having the foresight and wisdom to invite Mr Coltman to the chamber first. I will take his lead and start with a couple of questions in relation to TAFE SA.

Pages 509 and 510 talk about the whole-of-government agreement in relation to the facilities management framework. I understand that TAFE at the time of the audit was still operating under the interim arrangements put in place last year, and the Auditor-General reports that there is one more remaining matter of concern in relation to the new MoAA and that it continues to work with DIT to resolve it. Can the minister advise if that has been resolved, what the issue was and explain what the challenge here is and is it resolved?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I am told, although I do not have the detail of what the issue was here, that it has been resolved. I am happy to come back to you with what the issue that has been resolved was, if that is okay.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I thank the member for taking that question on notice. I look forward to the response in due course. Still on page 110, and I am fairly sure that this is picking up from some questions I asked in 2017 and that the minister may have asked himself once or twice, are we any closer to resolving this issue around hourly paid instructors continuing to start work without signing a letter of offer? As far as I can tell, TAFE's records have indicated increasing percentages every year, an improvement. Does the minister care to wager on whether it will reach 100 per cent in his term?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I do have some information about hourly paid instructors. The member is right: it has been a topic of questions in this forum and estimates for many years. Mr Coltman has advised me that TAFE SA is now exploring a time and attendance system that will ensure that hourly paid instructors cannot commence work until a signed agreement is in place. It is expected that the system will be fully implemented by the end of the financial year 2023.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Can the minister shed any light on what is described by the Auditor-General as noncomplying managers, that TAFE SA has had to advise that it will have no tolerance for those contracts? How widespread is this problem? Is it a handful of people? Is it somebody? Is it more widespread than that?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I am happy to give some information on that. I have stats in front of me around compliance. Pleasingly, in 2019-20 compliance was at 74; in 2020-21, compliance was 94; and in 2021-22 compliance was at 96 per cent. That is 1,035 out of 1,075 contracts signed before commencing work. Mr Coltman advises me that he believes—and this is not necessarily a completely accurate figure but to the best of his recollection—it is about six instances in the past 12 months.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: It sounds like significant improvement. Congratulations. I will take us to page 515. I want to unpack a little bit of the training hours issues. The Auditor-General identifies a level of flexibility that TAFE has in relation to the MoAA. Do these training hours include training done in correctional facilities, in our prisons?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I am told it does.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Does TAFE continue to offer that program in our prisons?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Yes, they do.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Has TAFE been able to extract any funding from any other source of government to deliver this program in our prisons?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I am told that TAFE continues to use the allocated funding that comes through Skilling SA to provide that training in our correctional facilities.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Is the government committed to continuing this important work?

The CHAIR: The member for Morialta knows where he is going.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I thought you would appreciate this being asked, sir.

The CHAIR: The minister can respond or not.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Yes.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I will move to page 519, which has a fair bit of description about the Bolder Future for TAFE SA plan, which I think was introduced in the first half of 2021, so in the 2020-21 financial year. It describes the seven program areas for significant work and priority for TAFE SA as approved by the board. I note the Auditor-General talks about progress being regularly reported to the TAFE SA Board. I also note the government has announced a review. Let me ask a question in a different way to ensure that the Chair is happy. Can I ask: does this Bolder Future for TAFE SA, as set out on page 519, still comprise the strategic direction for TAFE as of now?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I am advised, member for Morialta, that the government is going to continue to deliver the initiatives and vision set out under A Bolder Future for TAFE while it considers this government's priorities, and in at least some way of course that will be informed by the road map that is being put together by Jeannie Rea.

We are expecting that to be not too far away. Jeannie is going to do a pretty quick piece of work around that, and we will see what is recommended and what comes out of that road map, and that will inform our future direction. However, insofar as what is being delivered now, yes, A Bolder Future for TAFE is still being delivered.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Can I ask either a supplementary or a question of clarification? With respect to the road map work you are talking about, and I think you identified an individual's name, there was a public announcement that there will be a task force or a working party of some description and a number of people apparently involved in that group. Are we talking about the same thing?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Yes, we are.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Do we have a list of the people involved in that working party or task force preparing that road map?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Not in front of me, but I am happy to take that on notice and get that to you.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Have there been any adjustments to the items listed, programs 1 to 7, and the actions to be undertaken in this since the election?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: As a point of clarification, member for Morialta, page 519, the seven programs? We continue to deliver against the objectives of the seven programs listed on page 519.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Within those seven programs, has the government at any point directed TAFE to change any of its measures they are undertaking to deliver against those seven programs?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: The answer is no.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: We might move to the Department for Education. I would not go too far, as there is a chance we may come back. In relation to page 82, the Auditor-General talks about gaps in asset information, and in particular information on the condition of individual school buildings and facilities. Does the Department for Education have any lists of building ages and conditions of those buildings? It obviously does not meet the definition the Auditor-General describes as 'did not maintain information on the condition of individual school buildings and facilities', but I would be surprised if there were not some sort of list. Can the minister advise?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: To clarify, your question is whether or not the department keeps a list of that infrastructure or those buildings that might have been identified on page 82 under 'Gaps in asset information'?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: On page 82, the third dot point is the provocation for my question. I am wondering what sort of register there is identifying the age of all the fleet of buildings within the education department on all the different sites?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: In 2022-23, the new facility management service provider, which of course, as you know, is Ventia, will develop an asset information strategy in collaboration with agencies participating, which will be supported by asset information tailored to reflect the needs and unique requirements of individual departments. For example, for this department this information will include asset condition. It will include a useful lives for buildings, as well as improvements and furnishings.

The department's Strategic Asset Management Framework will reflect the anticipated availability of enhanced asset information data. I might just add—and this will come as no surprise to the member for Morialta because I think he heard me give about four speeches last week where I said the same thing; in fact, he may have helped me out with a couple of answers in those speeches—that I think 44 years is the average age. Even with all the work that has been done in terms of capital upgrades for a prolonged period of time, that is still the average age of a building.

A lot of the conversations I have had with Professor Westwell and Mr Bernardi have been around making sure that asset management plan is up to date and having a long-term plan for how we maintain existing stock and I guess build new stock as well. This year in terms of the gaps in asset information identified by the Auditor-General, that will be an important part of that long-term vision for us.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I thank the minister for that answer and obviously the work that Ventia will be doing in developing this coming off of a base of zero information being available. The minister identified an average age of 44 years, so I guess what I am seeking to establish is whether there is an existing register, much as it might not meet the standards the Auditor-General would like to see. Is there an existing register and can the minister advise us what it is called?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I will take that on notice, member for Morialta, and come back to you with an answer, if I may.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Just above that, it talks about Education's 20-year infrastructure plan and identifies that a draft plan was presented to the senior executive group in July and was expected to be completed by the end of September. Can I ask if that has taken place?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: The member for Morialta's information is correct. The department's 20-year infrastructure plan was presented to the department's senior executive group on 21 July this year. Feedback, which included updated enrolment projections, is currently being incorporated into that plan. The latest advice I have is that it is anticipated that the 20-year infrastructure plan will be completed by the end of November this year.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Is that plan intended to be analysed and considered by Infrastructure South Australia or only outcomes of the plan that ultimately result in infrastructure projects worth over a certain dollar amount?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I am advised, member for Morialta, that the department will work closely with Infrastructure SA on the implementation of that plan.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Can I turn to pages 84 and 85 and in particular the reference that starts on the bottom of page 84 towards the employee performance development plans being overdue. Certainly I make no criticism of issues that resulted because of COVID. The Auditor-General has recognised that COVID had an impact on that. The Auditor-General reports Education as saying it was developing a performance development framework for teachers in 2022 for implementation in the 2023 school year. Can the minister confirm how that framework will operate?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I can, thank you, member for Morialta. You are correct. The Auditor-General found that 39 per cent of the department's employee PDPs were overdue as of 30 June this year, whilst also acknowledging the department had fewer overdue performance development plans at that date, 30 June. I think the exact total was 11,991, compared with 12,264 on 28 February the year before.

The department has implemented several strategies over previous years that have resulted in an improvement in that overdue PDP figure, including a biannual campaign, where all employees are expected to have a current PDP as at 31 May and 30 November each year. During the six weeks leading up to both those dates, the department implements a communication campaign to promote bringing PDPs up to date. The biannual PDP planning cycle had been effective in reducing overdue PDPs.

As the member for Morialta pointed out, COVID and the Omicron variant impacted the workforce, as you would expect, leading to staff shortages and increased absenteeism across terms 1, 2 and 3 of this year. Fortunately, we are seeing those levels of absenteeism dropping, which is fantastic news. To reduce the pressure on all sites, all non-teaching activities and non-essential communications were placed on hold to allow sites to focus on managing the impacts of the pandemic. I think that was the wise and prudent thing to do.

Normal communications, including these PDP reminders that I mentioned just before, are going to be resumed when it is appropriate. I do not have a date about when that will be, but I would imagine—given the figures that we are seeing coming through on a daily basis in terms of the number of people in the system who have COVID, or might be absent because of it—that should not be too far away.

To further support effectiveness in schools and preschools, the department is developing a performance and development framework for teachers to clearly articulate the connection between developing individual practice, school improvement, and performance and development processes that anticipated this framework would be completed this year ready for implementation next year.

All communications were reintroduced in term 4, week 2. That is an answer to an earlier question about communications being restarted. That just commenced last week, if that is correct. The communication plan reflects the process used in late 2021 before it was put on hold.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The page before that mentions that the classroom and student support workforce plan was in the design phase. This is in relation to the broader workforce planning the education department has been doing in the last couple of years. I note that the department earlier this year already released its Educational Leaders and Teachers Workforce Plan. Can I just clarify: in relation to the classroom and student support workforce plan, are we here just talking about SSOs who operate in classrooms and potentially disability settings or is this a broader group of staff? Are we able to identify how many staff that part of the plan is going to be applying to?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I am advised the bulk will be SSOs, but I am happy to come back to you in terms of other staff who might be included and a more precise figure in terms of how many it might be.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Turning to page 89, the Auditor-General reports that the rate of major capital works will decrease over the next few years, with the most significant upcoming projects being the new Morialta Secondary College and additional accommodation for the Adelaide Botanic High School. Can the minister advise whether the department will be putting forward new schools in Mount Barker or the northern suburbs of Adelaide?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I am happy to advise the member for Morialta that we are in discussions, basically now, on the exact issues you have identified. In fact, the chief executive and I have spoken publicly already since March—and this will come as no surprise to the member—about the areas that have been identified as having really significant enrolment pressure, including Mount Barker and the northern suburbs, so we are looking at that. I hope to have some more to say about that in the not too distant future, but they are under active consideration at the moment is the way that I would put it.

I think anyone who has spent some time in either of those areas, or is aware of population growth and enrolment pressure there, would understand that the two areas identified by the member there are in need of the attention and focus of the government.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Can I ask whether that also extends to the Adelaide CBD past the third tower at Adelaide Botanic?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I might ask you to clarify, if I can. I assume your question is: with the exception of the 700-place expansion of Adelaide Botanic High School, do we have any other plans for expansion of space within the shared zone? At this stage, we do not, but I would say that is also one we are keeping a very close watch on.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I am sure you are, thank you. Can I turn back to page 71, which provides some of the more general commentary. The Auditor-General refers to a figure of $364 million, and I have seen different reportings of how much has been identified in each year. I wonder if the minister is able to provide—on notice, if he likes—a breakdown of the year-by-year investment over the last few years that correlates to that $364 million. Depending on which financial papers you look at, it presents figures in different ways, so I want to make sure I can compare some apples with apples.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Thank you to the member for Morialta for that question. I have a bit of background information I can provide, and then I think I will need to take on notice a more extensive list of what those projects that make up the $364 million are. I can tell you that the $364 million of construction works that are noted in the significant events and transactions section of the report refers to continuing or new construction works in progress across sites.

There are a number of capital works projects that are still being progressed by the department. This will come as no surprise to the member, but they include sustainable enrolment growth programs associated with round 3 works schools, the Morialta Secondary College major works that are taking place right now, other major and minor works at 36 schools, and demountable and modular building works at six schools. However, I will take your question on notice in terms of trying to provide you with a more extensive list of what else makes up the $364 million, if I may.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Thank you, sir. I have a question in relation to the funding that comes, and is identified on page 71, from the commonwealth: $691 million in income and $1.3 billion in income in relation to administered items. It may well be that the transfer payments of $1.6 billion take care of some of this as well, but I want to clarify exactly how much of this is the transfer of funds under the National School Reform Agreement, known as the Gonski funding.

Presumably, a lot of that $691 million is Gonski funding for public schools and a lot of the $1.3 billion is Gonski funding for non-government schools. Presumably, a fair amount of it is funding under the National Preschool Agreement, which I would assume is mostly accounted for at the top, but potentially it could be under administered items. I assume that some is in relation to chaplaincy. My question is: are there any other categories of funding where we are getting money from the commonwealth in any of these lines, and can the minister identify how much in each of them are the relevant figures?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I have some information for you, member for Morialta, and that is I am advised that on page 18 of the department's financial statements, at 2.2—which is a list of what makes up the $691 million, which is from that top line item from page 71 to which your question referred—there are about 14 or so line items there that come to a total of $691,283,000. They include things like the National School Reform Agreement, as was pointed out, and that is the bulk of that $691 million.

There is also the Preschool Reform Agreement; the National School Chaplaincy Program, which you also identified; the Rural Care Worker Program; Connected Beginnings; the Community Childcare Fund; the Indigenous Advancement Strategy; and detainee minors. The other items included are the Australian Early Development Index; Inspiring Aus Science; JobKeeper; National partnership—advanced technology, although I think in the 2022 year there was nothing under that from what I can see here. The SA Aboriginal Sports Training Academy, or SAASTA, is the last line item there. Collectively, those items come to the $691 million identified under commonwealth income on page 71 of the Auditor-General's Report.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Are you able to take on notice the other lines that are not referred to in that $690 million?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I am happy to do so.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I will ask one last question, if I may. Page 71 talks about the education department continuing to roll out its education management system. Given that I spent four years hoping to blazes that a major IT reform within a department would work, can the minister tell us how that is going and where it is up to?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I think I can say very broadly that it is progressing well, but I think I might take that on notice and get you a more detailed answer about where we are up to in terms of actual rollout and volumes, if that would suffice.

The CHAIR: That concludes that part of the examination. Now I think we have the change of ministers. Minister Bettison, I understand, we have next. Can you invite your advisers over?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Which portfolio would you like to start with?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I think the Tourism Commission perhaps.

The CHAIR: I remind members that the committee is in normal session. Any questions have to be asked by members on their feet, and all responses to questions also have to be answered by ministers on their feet. Questions must be directly referenced to the Auditor-General's Report 2021-22 and Agency Statements for the year ending 2021-22 as published on the Auditor-General's website. Welcome, minister. Welcome, member for Morialta. We can now start.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Can I take us to page 442? Talking about functions, we are attracting, developing, owning and supporting major and strategic tourism events. Indeed, there are some other functions before; ensuring a coordinated approach to promoting South Australia is one of them. Is the major events fund not in this portfolio? Is that the case and, if so, why?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: You are actually referencing 2021-22. There was no reference to the Tourism Commission by the Auditor-General about the major events fund. It is under the responsibility of the Premier.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Yes, and the question was in supplementary to that answer: why?

The CHAIR: The Auditor-General did not ask that question and did not involve himself in that question. Member, next question.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Can I ask for clarification, sir? Am I allowed to ask a supplementary in relation to information provided by a minister in an answer?

The CHAIR: It does not have to be a supplementary. You can ask it as a question, but the question still has to be within the guidelines for the examination of the Auditor-General's Report.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I will take your wisdom, sir. Can I ask then in relation to ensuring a coordinated approach to promoting South Australia, which was identified certainly by the Auditor-General as the functional responsibility of the South Australian Tourism Commission, does that remain one of the functional responsibilities of the South Australian Tourism Commission?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Your specific thing is about coordinating an approach, a coordinated approach?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Yes.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: One of the key things for the SA Tourism Commission, which remains and has remained whether it be 2021 or 2022 or now, is particularly our focus around destination marketing. That has always been a key part that we have done and that remains a key coordinated focus of the SATC, as it did in the year that we refer to with the Auditor-General. That coordinated approach is about how we market ourselves to the world, and that has not changed. In fact, although I do not wish to speak about 2022-23, it was raised with us that it needed more support and that was soon to be there.

In May 2021, the domestic advertising campaign A Little More was launched in South Australia and key interstate markets. Of course, that was such a difficult time for us because we were facing border closures, the international market had ceased at that point, so we really needed to focus on South Australians enjoying their own backyard. That was a very coordinated approach, even if I spoke from opposition. I think we saw South Australians enjoying their backyard for the first time, realising how much we had to offer and then, when those interstate opportunities came, that marketing campaign went out there as well. So it was a very coordinated approach and we will continue to lead that.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Given that coordinated approach across the whole of government, has the SA Tourism Commission, or indeed the minister, provided any briefing to the member for Mawson in his work promoting South Australia to the world on behalf of the government in the 2021-22 financial year or any other?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The Auditor-General made no reference to this in focusing on 2021-22.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The Auditor-General did, I submit, minister, make reference to the responsibility of the Tourism Commission in the minister's portfolio about having a coordinated approach to promoting South Australia. I am seeking to establish if that has taken place.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Yes.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: On what dates was that briefing provided to the member for Mawson?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: My answer is yes to a coordinated approach, but there is no reference here to 2021-22 and no reference to the member for Mawson here. The coordinated approach as Destination Development continues and will continue as it did in 2021-22.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The coordinated approach in 2021-22, did that reference major events?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: When I think about a coordinated approach, I think specifically around marketing and how we market our state to South Australians, interstate and, of course, internationally, and that is what was done and what continues to be done. The Auditor-General made no reflection on this except to say that was the role of SATC, and that continues to be the role of SATC.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Can I turn the minister's attention to the next line, which is on the first line of page 442, where the Auditor-General identifies part of the Tourism Commission's role as being 'attracting, developing, owning and supporting major and strategic tourism events'. Is that no longer the role of the Tourism Commission?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The Tourism Commission still plays an incredibly strong role in this area. In fact, we are very excited about the Santos Tour Down Under coming back in its traditional format. Of course, we recognise in the year that we are talking about, 2021-22, there was a lot of leadership that was required to do what I called the Festival of Cycling, if I recall accurately.

When we look at some of those areas we took leadership in, Tasting Australia is one of the key things that was produced in South Australia that we own. That was an exceptional year. When I look at April 2022, the very high-end opportunities that came out—such as Tasting Australia Eyre, which was supported by RAA Travel; if I recall accurately—they were sold out. That went off to six or so different destinations, and 150 local businesses were utilised, and there was the Town Square Kitchen as well.

Just next week, we have the Christmas Pageant. For two years, it was a ticketed event at the Adelaide Oval to deal with COVID. These are the events we continue, and that is not to underestimate all the other events we sponsor, whether it be WOMAD or the Adelaide International. The role of SATC in managing events is still incredibly strong, and that is a key part of what we have done in 2021-22. I see that we will continue to do that in the future. SATC is still the lead here. We have incredible talent and incredible depth for managing those events. South Australians love these events and will continue to do so.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Is the minister able to provide a list of the events that are referenced in this dot point, the events that are described by the minister as 'owned by the state government', but I stand to be mistaken, certainly the ones that are identified as major and strategic tourism events by the Auditor-General?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I did detail the significant ones, but I am happy to take that on notice to provide that detail.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Can the minister identify if any of those events are no longer to be considered under the domain of the SA Tourism Commission or indeed the tourism portfolio going forward?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I think those questions would have been best asked of the Premier, and he was on yesterday.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Can I ask about the next dot point, developing tourism resources to maintain and preserve South Australia's environmental and cultural heritage. Is the minister able to reflect a bit on what that cultural heritage is in relation to the tourism offering that we are able to provide to the world?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Just last week, I held an amazing dinner with leaders from our Aboriginal community. When we think about our Indigenous cultural heritage, that continues. As far as what happened in 2021-22, I could not talk about it at this point. Obviously, the member for Dunstan, the former Premier, was the Minister for Tourism.

We recently held a national Tourism Ministers' Meeting here. I was happy to co-host it with the federal Minister for Trade and Tourism. If there is one thing that I see as our absolutely unique selling point in Australia is having the longest living culture on earth. I am very interested in how we can support our Indigenous tourism operators. Recently, there was an event at the Circle at Lot Fourteen. They have been supporting Aboriginal businesses to establish and develop. I am very keen to keep talking with them and seeing how they can work in supporting the tourism industry.

The Tourism Industry Council of SA has indicated interest in providing support for an Indigenous tourism operators' alliance. We have been quite influenced by what has happened in Western Australia. We are seen to be the leaders in this field. We are really keen to walk alongside people as they establish their businesses. When we talk about culture, what I hear from people is authenticity and Aboriginal people telling their own stories that are incredibly important to them. How do we make sure that we are supporting Indigenous corporations?

We are currently working on an Aboriginal tourism strategy. It has been in development for some time. Personally, I am interested in very practical support for people as they build their businesses. The Living Kaurna Cultural Centre people came to see us. We know that when people come off cruise ships they are very interested in what they can see here, so that cultural heritage continues. Apart from the development strategy that started last financial year, that is the key part here.

One of the other key things is that, as part of the Public Service, the South Australian Tourism Commission is committed to the goals of the South Australian public sector to increase employment of Aboriginal people across the sector. As at 30 June 2022, one full-time equivalent person is identified as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. That is obviously something I am keen to increase as we continue to talk to people. There is a reconciliation plan the SATC looks at. This is something incredibly important to us and very unique to Australia, but it needs support, and we will be looking to do that.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Can I take us to the next page. It states that income sponsorship and participation income declined by $1.6 million, 30 per cent. Is the minister able to identify whether we expect this income will recover in the future or in the current financial year?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I am advised that COVID had a massive impact on those events. Recovery is going well and we expect it will bounce back to what it has traditionally been. Let me take this opportunity to recognise that we are still building back post-COVID for tourism. Things are looking really good. We are at 6.2 billion; we had reached a high of 8.1. Just this week, we welcomed in the cruise ships—104 visits are due this year—but we still have some way to go.

One of the key things is that, as much as I have gone out there very positively, we saw some build-up last financial year, some positives from a low of 4.4 billion, but there is some way to go. A lot of people have exited the industry and we have to encourage them back. As we go out with events and sponsorships, which you will see reflected here, I think we will see people come back to the industry.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Can I take us back to page 441, and in particular the second dot point, which refers to the significant events and transactions that the Tourism Commission managed, the seventh and eighth instalments of the $10 million Great State Voucher program. This scheme will not be renewed in 2022-23 according to the Auditor-General. I have a couple of questions on this one, so I will ask them one at a time. Is the minister able to outline the total value that the Great State Voucher scheme injected into the South Australian economy and flowed into the pockets of tourism operators and businesses?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: There were eight rounds of the Great State Voucher. As I recall, sitting on your side of the house, we were a very big supporter of this. In fact, it was an incredibly important scheme. I was really pleased to advocate to include not just accommodation but also experiences. I continue to meet people as I go out and about as Minister for Tourism who say that having the experiences as part of the Great State Voucher was incredibly important and saved their business.

We saw that the consumer spend for the Great State Vouchers was $148.6 million. That is over the eight rounds. That was over more than one financial year. I would have to come back with the specifics for 2021-22. It was really important. However, I did find rounds 7 and 8 quite interesting and what that looked like. Obviously, that was right at the end, just before the election. While obviously that was then seen with some positivity around accommodation and bookings, it was a little bit different in the way it was funded, which is really interesting as minister now.

We saw that there was a deficit then of a net result, and that deficit was $10.5 million. That was with respect to rounds 7 and 8 of those Great State Vouchers. That is a budgeted deficit that was approved by the Department of Treasury and Finance. If I recall, it was not allocated at all: it was from existing cash reserves. It was quite interesting that that decision was made. It was not an appropriation: it was from existing cash reserves, which has led to this net result with a deficit to us.

There is no doubt at all that those Great State Vouchers were really important. You can look at the money, but what was important—and I have heard this again and again—was that it reminded South Australians that tourism and hospitality were doing it tougher and continue to do it tough. That recognition and having those vouchers reminded people that they needed their support, particularly when JobKeeper ended. That was devastating for tourism and hospitality. Many businesses in South Australia did well out of COVID, but there is a group that really did it hard and that was tourism and hospitality, and they continued to do it hard for quite some time.

Those Great State Vouchers helped, and the return on investment was 5.9:1, so they worked quite well. It was really important to me that they reminded South Australians that tourism and hospitality still needed their support.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I thank the member for the answer and confirmation of the significant positive benefit of the program. I am interested in the comments you made about the budgeted deficit that Treasury approved in relation to the provision of rounds seven and eight. Is the minister expressing a concern about the government decision to provide rounds seven and eight, or can I confirm that the minister is supportive of the program as it was rolled out across the years that it was in existence?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I am just simply making note of it.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The minister became minister obviously in March this year, so for several months of the financial year under the report she was the minister. Did the minister have feedback from tourism operators since she has been the minister prior to 30 June this year about the program and how it went?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Yes, I have already elaborated.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Can the minister advise the house why she cut the program then?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: On coming to government we were very clear that the Great State Vouchers were there to stimulate the economy. It was incredibly important at a time when tourism and hospitality were doing it tough. What we needed to do was pivot, something tourism businesses had to do a lot of.

We need to direct that support towards marketing. We made it very clear in the election policy that that is where the direction was going to go. I think what we have seen is that we have done well. The TF data said the CBD was the most active of all states in July of this year so I stand by that decision. That decision was important to make, but I recognise that the Great State Vouchers played a significant role. I recognise that, but now we are focusing on marketing.

We know that it is going to be competitive and if there is anything that I have found from my Tourism Ministers' Meeting is that all of us cannot wait to have more visitors come into our states. We need to make sure that we have that focus now on selling South Australia to the other states, to the world. We are getting back to what was normal and that is going to take focus and we are prepared and focused on that.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I thank the minister. As a supplementary to that last question, prior to the return to what is normal, have tourism operators—potentially in the financial year that the Auditor-General's Report is limited to—raised with the minister any desire to shut down the Great State Voucher program?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I had many, many conversations with people prior to becoming the minister and since becoming the minister and many of them are very keen for us to go back out and support and to market who we are. They recognise the role that they played. I do not recall any particular conversations that I have had where people have asked for the vouchers to go back. The only people I have seen who asked were the opposition. We then came out with great results in the CBD and the highest hotel occupancy we have had for some time, whether it be regional or CBD.

They played their role and I recognise that, but now we are onto a new thing. It was very much a short-term stimulus to support an unprecedented event—a global pandemic—and that was very clear. I guess what I hear more and more from tourism operators is they are ready. They are excited and they really enjoyed having South Australians come and enjoy the regions.

They have seen the interstate guests come where we had great events like the rugby, where we had 8,000 people from interstate. We have the cricket on at the moment, and 40 per cent of the tickets are from interstate and overseas. They just want to get back to business as it is. They recognised that the vouchers played a role but, really, they want to make sure that we are getting out there and selling South Australia.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The next line talks about the $20 million Tourism Industry Development Fund. Can the minister outline the total visitor expenditure that has been generated by this fund?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The Tourism Industry Development Fund was fully allocated in early 2022, with 114 projects receiving funding across all 11 tourism regions. It did take some time, longer than people expected, for those tourism projects to run out. We know construction costs have gone up. We know that sometimes it has been hard to get people in to finish those construction projects.

The project was of the value of $82.7 million and, of the last financial year, 62 of those 114 projects were completed or near completion. Those projects roll out and we will be talking about the fund this time next year. Once again, we are looking at a stimulus that was provided due to the global pandemic of COVID. I think that we have seen that continue to roll out and that will be of benefit for the future.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I think the minister identified that there were 114 projects. How many of those projects have now been completed?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Are you talking about 2021-22? I answered that question.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: That was in the comments before? So is that 62 overall, or 62 that were completed in that financial year noting that the funding was all provided before the end of June?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Sixty-two out of the 114 projects were completed or near completion on 30 June 2022. If I remember correctly, 61 of those 62 projects were funded in 2021-22 and one was funded in 2020-21. We would expect the completion of those this financial year.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I am going to ask one or two more questions in this area, and then we might find a little bit of time for our friends from DPC. Page 442 states that the findings of the audit were communicated in a management letter to the chief executive. Can the minister confirm whether we are talking about the old chief executive, the interim chief executive or the new chief executive; to whom was that letter sent?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I am really glad you mentioned our incoming chief executive. What an exciting announcement just recently. Emma Terry will be joining us in the second week of January, coming as the executive director of marketing from Tourism Tasmania. I am very excited about that appointment, but I cannot say that without recognising what a wonderful acting CEO Stephanie Rozokos has been. I really appreciate her advice and the steady roll of the ship as we await our new CEO. As I understand it, on 30 June 2022, Rodney Harrex was the CEO.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Can the minister identify why Mr Harrex ceased to be the CEO?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I do not see any reference to that.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Given the time, we will move to multicultural affairs. I am sure we could have spent five minutes talking about that, but let's not. I think page 339 is probably the best reference. Can I confirm with the minister, as the advisers are changing over, the multicultural grants in this area. Is this the line through which funding to community language schools is being delivered?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: As this relates to 2021-22, at the moment I can go through our current grant program for 2021-22, which is Advance Together. It is supporting multicultural organisations to improve their governance and strengthen their capacity—

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Sorry, the question is in relation to community language schools. If this is not the budget line, then I might suggest a different budget line, maybe page 71. Is the minister able to identify if she is responsible for the delivery of the community language schools funding that in 2021-22 appears to have come from the Department for Education?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: In 2021-22, that is correct. Perhaps I could clarify that that funding will continue to come from the education department, the additional funding as announced in the election policy, and in fact the key part of the multicultural policy that we put out. It is so disappointing to see that the opposition did not put out a multicultural policy at all. Actually, it was raised with me, and continues to be raised with me quite often, that one-quarter—

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order: relevance to the question, sir.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Odenwalder): Minister, there is a point of order. Relevance?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Relevance to the question, sir.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Odenwalder): I think the minister is providing some context. This is a relaxed atmosphere. She can answer in any way she sees fit within the bounds of the Auditor-General's Report.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: As announced, one-quarter, $4 million over four years of the additional funding for multicultural affairs, will be directed to the community language schools. However, the education department will remain the key funder of this sector, and that relationship will continue.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: To confirm, is that $4 million the responsibility of the Minister for Education?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: No.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Is that $4 million part of DPC or Education?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: DPC.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: And then provided to Education in the form of grants, or through Education from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, to the community language schools association, to the school? Can the minister explain?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Looking through a multicultural lens at community language schools, a challenge we had which was raised with me—and I would suggest perhaps raised with you, member for Morialta—was in relation to venue and locations; cost, access and funding; teachers; maintaining quality standards; student behavioural issues; accessibility to training; supporting who are mostly volunteers in these community language schools; increased costs due to COVID; sourcing materials, including books and IT and furniture; and, of course, the registration process. We have 98 community language schools here in South Australia, teaching 48 languages. Community Language Schools South Australia registers the schools and also provides training for people to go there.

There are also concerns around the registration process, which is quite complex and time intensive. There is also a drop-off in engagement of older students. These were issues that were raised. I recognise that the education department has done some great work, and under your leadership I understand the role with community language schools was something that was focused on, about how they could contribute. I also understand the way that they are funded and distributed has changed in recent years. We build on that and we look at what we can do.

I just announced recently the year 1 priorities. The first activity for community language schools in South Australia will be to develop and deliver a governance and compliance training package. The training package will include assistance for schools to develop a plan for their ongoing governance and ensure compliance with the legislative requirements for running community language schools in this state. I just announced that recently.

The second priority will be to increase staffing at Community Language Schools South Australia, to provide intensive case management and curriculum development for new and existing community language schools for an initial 12 months. The third element will be activity for Community Language Schools South Australia to deliver some of its face-to-face school personnel training workshops, teacher workshops and child safety workshops in the north of Adelaide. All training is currently provided at Hindmarsh and Goodwood. Relocating the training to the north of Adelaide will make it more accessible to a large proportion of the community language staff. That is just the start.

Obviously, I identified quite clearly that there are many different areas that could be improved. Having a multicultural lens on this is looking at how we can support people. We are talking about people who volunteer their time, often 40 weeks a year giving that commitment. We think being bilingual is important—

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner: It's a start.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: It's a start—that would be supported. I am really looking forward to announcing further support, and that will be rolling out shortly.

The CHAIR: Time for the examination of this section has now expired. We now move to the next minister and the next member of the opposition. I declare the examination of the Report of the Auditor-General 2021-22 open. I remind members that the committee is in normal session. Any questions have to be asked by members on their feet. Equally, ministers giving a response need to be on their feet as well. All questions must be directly referenced to the Auditor-General's Report 2021-22 and Agency Statements for the year ending 2021-22 as published on the Auditor-General's website. Minister and members of the opposition, we are ready to go.

Mr TELFER: Minister, thank you for your time. I refer to Report 8, Part C: Agency Audit Reports, page 17. There is a reference within that document to the transfer of the Office of Local Government from the Attorney-General's Department to the Department for Infrastructure and Transport. Can you let me know what has been the cost of that process?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Are you talking about the transfer from AGD to the Department for Infrastructure? That happened on 1 July this year. I am advised that that will be covered in the budget for next financial year, not up until 30 June of this particular year. It will be in next year's budget.

Mr TELFER: In Report 8, Part A: Executive Summary, pages 21 to 24 provide a commentary from the Auditor-General around, firstly, the processes for performance and local government audits, as well as some commentary around the necessary obligations on the Auditor-General, including budget obligations:

We have averaged five performance and local government audits over the past seven years…I believe we should be producing 11 performance audit reports annually across both public and local government sectors. This will bring us in line proportionately to what other audit offices are committing to…across other Australian jurisdictions.

The commentary states:

In the 2022-23 State Budget my Department is required to achieve efficiency dividend savings as follows:

2022-23 Budget—$300,000

2023-24 Budget—$317,000

2024-25 Budget—$338,000

2025-26 Budget—$537,000.

Does the minister believe the capacity of the Auditor-General's capability to perform appropriate local government audit work is diminished by these cuts?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I have been advised that the funding for the Auditor-General's Department is funded through the Treasury department, so that should be a question for the Treasurer.

Mr TELFER: Could I just reiterate. My question was: do you as the local government minister believe that the important work that is done to audit local government entities through the work of the Auditor-General is undermined by the reduction, rather than an explanation about the reduction?

The CHAIR: The minister is only required to respond up to 30 June 2022, but you can go further if you wish.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am advised that this relates to the next financial year and it will be relating back through to the budget coming forward for the next financial year. I do not think this is relevant to this particular period of time for the Auditor-General's Report. I do not want to be saying what my thoughts are. My information is that I should only be answering the stuff that is in the Auditor-General's Report itself, not what I think.

Mr TELFER: Indeed, I respect that. I have quoted directly from the report. I was asking for your perspective on that as the local government minister, not as the Treasurer specifically but as the local government minister.

The CHAIR: The minister has actually given his response. Do you have a new question, member for Flinders?

Mr TELFER: Yes, absolutely I do. I will refer you to Part C: Agency Audit Reports, page 539.

In 2021‐22 grant deeds for 54 projects were executed—

through the Local Government Infrastructure Partnership Program—

though one grant deed was terminated by the council as it ceased the project due to construction and cost issues. Grant deeds for the remaining three projects were yet to be finalised as at 30 June 2022.

The question is: which deed was terminated, and by which council?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am advised—and I will read it out—that while the Auditor-General's Report notes that the Office of Local Government participated in the assessment of the projects submitted by councils for funding under the program, the delivery of the program was undertaken by the Department of Treasury and Finance, as then the Treasurer was responsible for that program, not the Office of Local Government.

Mr TELFER: So to clarify, you do not have the information on which deed was terminated, and by which council?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: No, I do not have that. That is a question you should be asking through the Department of Treasury and Finance, when the Treasurer has his opportunity under the Auditor-General.

Mr TELFER: Do you have any information on the three projects that remain outstanding as at 30 June?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am advised that that is all managed by the Department of Treasury and Finance, and that is a question that needs to be asked to the Department of Treasury and Finance, to the Treasurer. They managed the whole lot and they would have all that information you require.

Mr TELFER: To clarify, the Local Government Infrastructure Partnership Program has no involvement from the Office of Local Government and the Minister for Local Government?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am advised that the Office of Local Government was only involved with the evaluation of the projects. The management and all the projects were done and managed by the Department of Treasury and Finance.

Mr TELFER: To carry on a little bit from that, when there was a deed terminated by a council within the 2021-22 financial year, was that funding that was left remaining after the termination of the deed reallocated to any other project, and was the office involved in that reallocation?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I just want to repeat that I am advised that we were only there for the evaluation of the project. We were not involved with the management. All of that should be a question to the Treasurer, because it was handled fully from then on, after the evaluation, by the Department of Treasury and Finance.

Mr TELFER: I respect that, but the question was: was there any further evaluation that needed to be made on any project due to the termination of the project and thus funds becoming available?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am advised that the Office of Local Government was only involved in the initial evaluation, and from then on it was all wholly managed by the Department of Treasury and Finance. Again, I just say to the member: that is something he should be asking the Treasurer when he comes in for the Auditor-General's Report.

Mr TELFER: What is the role of the local government minister in regard to the Local Government Finance Authority referred to in the agency financial statements included in the annual report?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: The Local Government Finance Authority is operated in accordance with the Local Government Finance Authority Act 1983. This act is committed to the Treasurer, the Hon. Stephen Mullighan, and if any questions are asked regarding the Local Government Finance Authority report it is therefore recommended that we go back to the Treasurer because it is all managed under the Department of Treasury and Finance.

Mr PEDERICK: I reference page 302 of Part C of the Agency Audit Reports, which mentions there being a backlog of road maintenance work required. It states that—

The CHAIR: Are we on the Minister for Regional Roads now?

Mr PEDERICK: Yes. It states that 1,520 kilometres of regional sealed roads were in backlog in 2020, with this forecast to grow to 2,330 kilometres of backlog by 2025 if only minimum safety work was performed. What constitutes minimum safety work?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am advised that the project you are talking about is called the 'point and patch'. The department looks at it and makes certain the road is safe, looking at any potholes there. Some shoulder sealing is done, and also we make certain that we fix it up as soon as we can, the potholes in particular. It is called the 'point and patch', and they just have to ensure that the road is safe, and they will then come back and do other work later on.

Mr PEDERICK: On the same page, it states that the rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost over four years of holding the backlog to 2020 levels was estimated at $520 million, while the ROM cost over four years of eliminating the backlog was estimated at $1.5 billion. What type of work would be required to eliminate the backlog of regional sealed roads?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am advised that with regard to this backlog that includes culverts, they are aware that there is lots of maintenance to be done, etc., but this is an issue that really should be directed to the Minister for Infrastructure, who is Minister Koutsantonis. I would suggest that you put that to him when he comes to the Auditor-General's Report committee. The department is well aware there is a lot of backlog there, but, as I say, they are looking at culverts and so forth.

Mr PEDERICK: So you are telling me, minister, the Minister for Regional Roads is not responsible for the backlog of work on regional sealed roads; is that what you are telling me, sir?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: As the Minister for Regional Roads, I work closely with the Minister for Infrastructure. We have a lot of work to complete as we liaise with each other, but we feed all of the information we find and prioritise it and look at the funding on a priority basis, dependent on the budget we have for all the regional roads out there. It really is in cooperation and discussion between the Minister for Regional Roads and the Minister for Infrastructure.

Mr PEDERICK: So you are telling me, minister, that you are not responsible for any of these regional road programs?

The CHAIR: Can you just repeat your original question which led to the subsequent two questions for me, please?

Mr PEDERICK: My original question was: what type of work would be required to eliminate the backlog of regional sealed roads?

The CHAIR: Is the minister able to describe the nature of the work? You are only required to report up to 30 June 2022, but what is the nature of the work required?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: The backlog of road maintenance has been building up over many years, as you would be aware, including when the opposition was in government. What we are trying to do is work our way through the prioritisation of that, looking for funding, etc. We can take that on notice and get more information back to you, as much as we can.

Mr PEDERICK: At the bottom of page 302, it says:

DIT also manages approximately 10,000 km of unsealed roads, of which 500 km was estimated to be in backlog with an estimated ROM cost of $50 million.

My question, minister, is: is there any other work besides grading that would be required to eliminate the backlog of road maintenance on the 500 kilometres of unsealed road?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: For some of those roads out there, as you would be aware, the backlog has accumulated over many years. The condition of the road depends on each individual road. Some of it might be just new gravel required on it and may have to be graded down, but this backlog would also include culverts and other things. That is a very technical question, but we can try to get more information and get that back to you. That is a technical question, and I will have to liaise with the Minister for Infrastructure on that one.

Mr PEDERICK: In reference to page 53 of Part A: Executive Summary, figure 9.2 shows the original budget and actual budget of numerous major project spends for 2021-22. Noting that the reason given for the lack of spending on the Strzelecki Track was rain events, can the minister advise the status of the project?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: As you would appreciate, there has been lots of rain up in the northern areas—lots and lots of rain up there. Basically there is a lot more work to be done on that. That is being analysed at the moment. We will get more information and get that back to you. Certainly it is a technical area and it is being impacted by lots of rain up in the outback areas, as you can understand, in the last 12 months.

Mr PEDERICK: On the same Auditor-General line, given only $15 million of the $45 million budget was spent on the Victor Harbor Road duplication project, can the minister tell us the current progress of this project?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Clarification to the member: are you talking about the duplication part of the road itself?

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, it is the project shown in the diagram of all the costings of the other roads. There is only $15 million of the $45 million spent on the Victor Harbor Road duplication project, so I am just wondering about the current status.

The CHAIR: The report says $17 million. Are we talking about the same project?

Mr Telfer: Let's say the shortfall.

Mr PEDERICK: The shortfall, there is a major shortfall.

The CHAIR: So you are asking what is the status of the project as of 30 June 2022.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes.

The CHAIR: That is fine. I am just clarifying.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I have been advised that the contract was awarded and the works were started on April 2022. While it is a bit behind schedule, we are advised that the work should be completed by June 2024.

Mr TELFER: In Part C, page 292, there is a statement from the Auditor-General, reading:

Our review of the Highways Fund noted that a schedule setting out the program of works for 2021‐22 was not submitted and authorised by the Minister before the start of the financial year as required by the Highways Act 1926.

Is the minister referred to in this part of the document you, or is it the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am advised that is the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister Koutsantonis. I am not directly involved with that one.

The CHAIR: Highways Fund, page 292. The question is regarding, 'Our review of the Highways Fund noted that a schedule setting out the program of works for 2021-22'; is that correct?

Mr TELFER: Correct.

The CHAIR: Well, I would have thought that would be the previous government, if you are dealing with that year. It should be referred to the previous minister then.

Mr TELFER: The paragraph then goes on:

DIT's response confirmed that the program of works was submitted and approved late and that it was working to retrieve a copy of the approval.

Can I get an explanation as to why?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I have been advised and I will read it out:

Our review of the Highways Fund noted that a schedule setting out the program of works for 2021-22 was not submitted and authorised by the Minister before the start of the financial year…

So that would refer back to the previous Minister for Infrastructure and Transport at that stage.

Mr TELFER: You are obviously the minister now, but I was asking the department for an explanation as to why there was that delay at the time.

The CHAIR: The minister's response for the department is from the time he is minister. He is not responsible for the actions, inactions or otherwise of previous ministers. It is clear from the documentation that this schedule was actually to be submitted by the previous minister and the previous government. Sadly, you cannot ask him because he is not in parliament anymore.

Mr Telfer interjecting:

The CHAIR: Let me finish. This is a question to the minister, not a question to the department. If you wish to clarify what happened between March and June in that regard, I am happy for you to ask that question.

Mr PEDERICK: We are going to try Veterans just for the last couple of minutes. I refer to Veterans SA, Defence SA, 1.2: Objectives and programs, section 3.2: Advisory Board, Council members and employees, Veterans Advisory Council. Has the minister referred any matters for investigation to the Veterans Advisory Council?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I inherited the Veterans Advisory Council as the Minister for Veterans Affairs coming forward from the member for Dunstan who was the previous Minister for Veterans Affairs. The only thing I have asked from them is that we have changed the expressions of interest for the membership of the VAC but I have asked for no other direct information from the VAC. I think that is what you are trying to understand.

Mr PEDERICK: You have not proceeded with any investigations?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: No, I have not at this stage.

Mr PEDERICK: In regard to administered item 9.1: ANZAC Day Commemoration Fund, it appears that $82,000 of the $100,000 was used of the ANZAC Day Commemoration Fund. Can the minister explain why $18,000 of the funds appear to be unspent?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: We have the list here, and I am just going to explain. Of all the commemoration funds, $100,000 was allocated to the RSL, and $81,788 was expended and the other $18,000, whatever it was, I am not too sure whether that is still with Veterans SA at this stage. We will get that information for you to clarify that, but certainly the $81,788 was used, and the other 18,200 and something dollars was unallocated.

Mr PEDERICK: So you will let me know for clarity whether that has been rolled over for the next year or not?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: We will take that on notice.

The CHAIR: I will allow you one more question if you like.

Mr PEDERICK: On Defence SA ,1.2, objectives and programs, which veterans groups and how many of them do Veterans SA work with minister?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: There are lots of groups that Veterans SA are working with. I am happy to take that on notice and get that back to the member, but certainly the RSL and the organisations, as we all understand, do a really good job out there. I will certainly get all that information, as much as I can, and get it back to you.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.