Auditor-General's Report

Auditor-General's Report

In committee.

(Continued from 29 October 2024.)

The CHAIR: I declare the examination of the Report of the Auditor-General 2023-24 open. I remind members that the committee is in normal session. Any questions have to be asked by members on their feet and all questions must be directly referenced to the Auditor-General's 2023-24 Report and Agency Statements for the year ending 2023-24, as published on the Auditor-General's website, and the Update to the Annual Report, as tabled in this house on 15 October. I welcome the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure (and a few other things) and the member for Flinders. I call for questions.

Mr TELFER: In Part A: Executive Summary, chapter 5, page 29, the Auditor-General speaks a bit about emerging issues and areas of future interest and major infrastructure projects. One in particular I want to start with a few questions around is the Northern Water project. Can the minister give me an indication of the estimated cost and timeline for completion for Northern Water?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is a question for question time. This is the audit process for the last financial year, and in the last financial year the Office of Northern Water Delivery was not assigned to me or DIT.

Mr TELFER: This is purely around the commentary from the Auditor-General around the emerging issues and areas of future interest.

The CHAIR: That is correct and, as the minister has indicated, the Auditor-General's Report refers to the financial year 2023-24. You are seeking some information for 2024-25. You need to ask the minister—

Mr TELFER: The examination yesterday, as you would remember, got directed to the attention of the minister we are now examining.

The CHAIR: I do not recall that, and I was in the chair, but anyway.

Mr TELFER: Remember when I was questioning the Treasurer and he said this was the responsibility of the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport?

The CHAIR: The Treasurer might have been incorrect; it does not mean I have to stand by what he said. Does the minister wish to answer? You do not want to set a precedent on this.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am in a difficult position because I am required by the parliament to answer questions on the audit. I am not being asked questions on the audit; I am being asked general questions. This is the process. The process is that the project is out for EOI then RFP next year. We will have appropriate costs and estimates back after that is completed.

Of course, the issue here is that this is not a piece of state infrastructure that is of use for a state requirement; this is a piece of infrastructure that is being built for the issue and requirements of the private sector. In terms of the debt and the cost and any agreement or offtake, that would be on a cost-recovery basis, which was the method of the previous government.

What we have undertaken to do with BHP, with the commonwealth government, with the state government and with other partners is to conduct a feed process of $230 million which will establish an EOI RFP tender process which will give us costs of infrastructure. On the basis of those costs there will be an offtake offer. If the offtake offer is accepted and the cost recovers the cost of the capital, then it will be built.

This is not your typical infrastructure program that the government would build for SA Water or for the consumption of SA citizens or any SA government business. This is purely to incentivise the unlocking of our mineral resources in our state's north, and the major proponent who was looking at this—but not the sole proponent—is BHP.

Mr TELFER: Can I get an indication then, minister, on what has been the expenditure so far on the Northern Water project?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I cannot give you that number because it is not part of the audit process, but I can say that the budget for this is $230 million.

Mr TELFER: In the emerging issues—and whether or not this is an emerging issue or an area of future interest—the Auditor-General highlighted that the Northern Water project does not have a fixed estimated cost or timeline at this early stage. To try to get some clarification, I guess, for the people of South Australia around this project, in particular, is the area of focus at the moment from the government, from Northern Water, still committed to Cape Hardy as the preferred location for the project?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No; there are two locations considered in the business case, Mullaquana and Cape Hardy, and both are being examined. Cape Hardy is over 600 kilometres from the final destination of the pipelines and Mullaquana is 200 kilometres closer. Both sites are being looked at, both sites are being examined for the EOI and the RFP. We have made that clear and public.

Mr TELFER: Following on from that then, the multicriteria analysis outcomes in the statement were about aligning with what many community members said, that the multicriteria analysis put that further studies for Northern Water will now focus on the Cape Hardy site option at the time. Why has this changed? Why is it now multilocation work that is being done?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It was always that. I know that the local member would like it very much to be in his electorate, despite the shadow transport minister's opposition to the project. I now notice that the shadow treasurer is arguing very strongly that only Cape Hardy be considered.

Mr Telfer: No, the question is about the process, that is all.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sure; it is pretty obvious. We will choose the best site. Mullaquana was always considered as part of the analysis. Mullaquana, on my understanding, was never excluded, cabinet never made a decision to exclude Mullaquana. Both sites are under consideration—as they should be.

Mr TELFER: Which part of the multicriteria analysis is void or incorrect to now include the emerging issues and the areas of future interest?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Where is that mentioned here?

Mr TELFER: I am talking about the project that has been highlighted by the Auditor-General about an area of future interest or an emerging issue.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I say to the shadow treasurer, this is the Auditor-General's analysis. In question time get up and ask any question you like. I am here to answer your questions about the Auditor-General's Report. You seem quite anxious about there being other sites being considered. Is it because you want this built in your electorate?

Mr Telfer interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Flinders, you have asked the question. The minister will respond.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We now have two positions of the opposition. The shadow transport minister criticises this project full stop, and now the shadow treasurer is saying, 'Why are you considering any site other than the one in my electorate?' The reason we are doing it is because we have always included, throughout the entire process, that there would be two sites considered, Mullaquana and Cape Hardy.

Mr TELFER: I will continue on. Part A of the Auditor-General's Report talks a bit around asset valuation on page 20. The Auditor-General raises concern with infrastructure projects, stating:

building costs have increased significantly in recent years, with inflationary impacts on the costs of raw materials and labour.

Can I get insight, minister, into what is the percentage increase of building costs that the Auditor-General refers to?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You would have to ask the Auditor-General that, because it is his report and if you are asking me to make an assumption about what he is saying here, I think he is talking in generalities about escalation. I think it is pretty common sense that there has been an escalation across the country, across the globe, and it has simply been reflected in his asset valuation.

Mr TELFER: So, for clarification, your department did not provide any information data to the Auditor-General for his statement around the increase? This is obviously a statement he would not make flippantly. I am just trying to work out how much building costs have increased for infrastructure projects—a percentage of increase, for clarification.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We supplied the Auditor-General with every piece of information he asked for.

Mr TELFER: Just continuing on from that then, in the statements from the Auditor-General there are two different aspects: costs of raw materials and labour. How much of the increase which the Auditor-General talks about as an area of concern is because of raw materials and how much of it is because of labour? What component breakdown can the people of South Australia expect?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will quote you what he says, 'Building costs have increased significantly in recent years and have had inflationary impacts on the cost of raw materials and labour.'

Mr TELFER: Thank you for the quote, minister. I am trying to get insight. Obviously there is work that the department have needed to do and to inform the Auditor-General's Report. How much, as a percentage, have these building costs gone up? Has the department not done that work when it comes to investigating the additional costs for infrastructure projects?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That was not the request the Auditor-General made of the agency.

Mr TELFER: Has the department done the work to ascertain the percentage increase of infrastructure projects that is to be expected?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We monitor all of our infrastructure programs and we report regularly on any escalation of costs to the cabinet, as we should.

Mr TELFER: With that statement from the Auditor-General in mind, on page 20, does the minister have concerns that the $593 million costs for the hydrogen plant will increase significantly with the concerns the Auditor-General has made about building costs, especially with raw materials and labour?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I love all my children equally, sir, and they are all subject to inflationary pressures, but the good news is, of course, inflation is coming down. I look forward to—

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: That doesn't mean prices are coming down.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sorry?

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: It doesn't mean prices are coming down, that inflation is coming down. It just means they are not going up as fast. That's what that means, Tom. It doesn't mean they are going down.

The CHAIR: Member for Unley, yes, you are correct, but I don't think we need your economic analysis at this point in time, thank you.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Ultimately we are in a procurement process with the Hydrogen Jobs Plan, and it is subject to the same pressures every infrastructure program is subject to. I have said so publicly on radio and in this parliament, the Premier has, and once we have completed the procurement process, we will go through the normal processes to announce costs, to announce completion, to announce the schedule as we promised.

Mr TELFER: Has the department done the work to ascertain, with the concerns of the Auditor-General in mind, how much the potential increase for a project with that sort of magnitude will be, a $593 million hydrogen plant?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We do regular assessments on all of our projects and I report to cabinet on a regular basis.

Mr TELFER: On page 30 of Part A, the Auditor-General raises concerns with infrastructure projects saying:

The State is still responsible for the financial management of these projects and the risks associated with them.

He further states:

There are risks with these projects individually relating to timelines and costs.

He also states:

We will need timely access to information to support our work on each of these projects.

Will the minister provide the Auditor-General with all of the required documentation to undertake a full and proper analysis of the financials of the Whyalla hydrogen plant?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We give the Auditor-General every piece of information the cabinet thinks is necessary for him to conduct an appropriate audit.

Mr TELFER: I will cast the minister's attention to the Office of Hydrogen Power SA financial statements. It is a separate document of the Auditor-General as part of the suite of documentations. On page 16, with the cash and cash equivalents aspect, can the minister—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr TELFER: Sorry, the Office of Hydrogen Power SA financial statements document.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Part C?

Mr TELFER: No, you would well know the suite of documents that are included within the Auditor-General's Report and the subsequent individual—

The CHAIR: These ones are on the website.

Mr TELFER: Yes, those individual different ones on page 16, which I hope your staff have got access to when it comes to my references. Page 16 of that speaks about the cash and cash equivalents. Can the minister please outline the updated expenditure schedule shared with the commonwealth?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You are asking for information that we keep confidential between the commonwealth and the state. That is normal practice between agencies and the state and commonwealth, and we are not prepared to break that now.

Mr TELFER: The Office of Hydrogen Power SA has appropriated $160 million; however, it has retained the $99 million in deposits with the Treasurer. This is on page 16 continuing. Of the $61 million spent, how much was on capital purchases as of 30 June?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: $63.4 million.

Mr TELFER: That was the total amount on capital purchases?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes.

Mr TELFER: Of the $63.4 million on capital purchases, what were those capital purchases for this project in particular?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We do not break down that by individual programs. I am just letting you know that the costs were for early contractor involvement, procuring turbines and of course associated use, and a motor vehicle.

Mr TELFER: So the turbines have been procured through that process, that $63.4 million?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That was part of it, yes.

Mr TELFER: Of the $99 million left, what was the $99 million intended to be spent on that has not been spent as of 30 June?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That money has not been expended so that will be reported in the next Auditor-General's Report in the coming eight to nine months.

Mr TELFER: I am purely asking, of that, obviously when there was the budget there was a budgeted amount that was expected to be expended on something. What was not purchased or what was the $99 million not spent on that you can share with the committee?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I refer to my previous answer.

Mr TELFER: Has an order been made for electrolysers by 30 June as part of that budget allocation?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We are in procurement, so I will not be making any public comments about any orders or otherwise.

Mr TELFER: With the process only at the procurement stage at the moment, as opposed to any purchases being made, are you expecting any other cost or timeline blowouts from what was expected when the allocation in the budget was first made, when it comes to the electrolysers in particular?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I certainly hope not. I am working towards making sure this comes in on budget but, as I said earlier, we are concerned about escalation and we are concerned about time pressures, but we are working towards that.

Mr TELFER: Can the minister furnish me with a little bit of hope that the electrolysers will be in operation by December 2025 as put before?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is certainly our aspiration, but as I said earlier, there is a context here and that context is escalation and international time pressures. The economy is very robust and we are doing everything we possibly can to meet those timelines.

Mr TELFER: On page 22 it speaks a bit about the expenses of supplies and services. Is the money being paid to BOC, Linde, ATCO and Epic Energy for the early contractor involvement at the Whyalla Hydrogen Plant included in the supplies and services?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Is that included in the supplies and services of $10.8 million? Payments have been made to a number of consultants, projects and work being done towards the hydrogen project. I will come back to you with an answer about how much information I can provide you.

Mr TELFER: On that same page 22, the Office of Hydrogen Power SA spent $4.6 million on contractors. Could the minister please advise who these contractors were?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: They were essential contractors for the assistance of procuring and delivering the project.

Mr TELFER: Can you give me advice as to who those contractors are?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: My understanding is that we have Ocean Infinity, PQ Services and Ernst and Young.

Mr TELFER: Can you advise what services those contractors provided for the Office of Hydrogen Power?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: They are contractors and they are doing work to help deliver the hydrogen Upper Spencer Gulf outcomes for the Hydrogen Jobs Plan and the Port Bonython Hydrogen Hub.

Mr TELFER: So you cannot specify the actual work that they are doing, they are just working on the project?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: They are doing work delivering for the hydrogen hub and the Hydrogen Jobs Plan.

Mr TELFER: Continuing on that same page, there was a $420,000 amount spent on consultants. Could the minister please advise who those consultants were?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: They were provided for probity services by BDO, GPA, Nelson Consulting, Barratt Mollison Consulting, and Tactic for event management in Whyalla.

Mr TELFER: You spoke about the probity services and the event management, can you give me a breakdown of those numbers? Obviously, probity is very different from event management and the consultant work that was done as referenced in that $420,000.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The total spent on those was $420,000.

Mr TELFER: Can you provide a breakdown for me on those numbers? No? Why not?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I do not have them.

Mr TELFER: Can you take it on notice to provide them?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will check.

Mr TELFER: Thank you. Continuing on, the Office of Hydrogen Power SA spent $4.2 million on legal fees. Could the minister please advise who provided these legal services and what the services were?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: External legal advice and Crown Solicitor's Office advice towards the Hydrogen Jobs Plan.

Mr TELFER: Where was the external legal advice procured from?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I do not have that. I will undertake to try and get that for you.

Mr TELFER: You spoke pertaining to the project, what were the actual legal services that were provided, the scope of those works?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I would imagine that it would be contract advice, it would be procurement advice, it would be probity advice, it would be about contracts with contractors, contracts for purchasing land, making sure that the state is in a secure position when we do enter into contracts.

When we are dealing with private contractors and commercial contractors it is good to get external advice especially from people who have more connection with commercial negotiations. The Crown is very good at giving us statutory legal advice but sometimes we need commercial lawyers to give us commercial advice. It is appropriate that we get external advice, and I think that is a good thing, but in terms of the legal advice we were given obviously we claim privilege for all of that and I would not go into details about what it was.

Mr TELFER: Thank you, I was not asking for the actual advice, I was trying to get an idea about who was providing those services and what those services actually were. Continuing on that page, there is $718,000 on travel and related expenses. Could the minister please advise what this travel was for, where it was to, and who attended?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It's all proactively disclosed and appears on OHPSA's website.

Mr TELFER: The entire $718,000 has all been proactively disclosed?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is the advice I have. The advice I have is that travel and related expenditure of $700,000 includes travel, which is detailed on the Office of Hydrogen Power South Australia's website as per appropriate disclosure requirements, and domestic travel costs.

Mr TELFER: Continuing on that page, there is a $449,000 expenditure on marketing. Can the minister please provide a breakdown on those marketing costs?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: They are educational, they are visualisation, they are, of course, to community engagement forums across the state. In Whyalla it is about making sure that the people of Whyalla and the people of South Australia know how we are spending their money and what the government's plans are for decarbonising the Upper Spencer Gulf, especially our Green Iron strategy, which is the centrepiece of the Hydrogen Jobs Plan.

There are vast resources of magnetite on the Eyre Peninsula. That is a little known fact for many people. Magnetite, as opposed to haematite, has a high Fe content and can be a lot more beneficial for the beneficiation into green iron using hydrogen, and stepping down from coke and coal to gas.

We also want to inform South Australians about the benefits of what decarbonisation can do for them in terms of going up the value chain in our mineral sector. Exporting minerals is complex work and difficult work, and can be profitable work, but this government aims to add complexity to our economy by going up the value chain of our minerals.

There were some very good decisions made by a previous Tonkin government that ensured that, when Olympic Dam was given approval to be mined, they also smelted copper, and that pushed us up the complexity level. That was a very good move by then Minister Roger Goldsworthy, and something that I continually applaud him on when I see him. We aim to do the same thing with our other minerals.

Why export iron ore as a raw material when we can beneficiate it here using our sun and wind to manufacture hydrogen, and use that hydrogen or our natural gas in the Cooper Basin to decarbonise ironmaking, and then ultimately steelmaking, and export that commodity to around the world. So I view these educational programs and these marketing programs that the member is asking about as invaluable for community engagement. I think it is very, very important and, quite frankly, I think it is a little bit light.

Mr TELFER: So the $449,000 on marketing is for statewide public consultation, or some of the community meetings that we have seen about the prosperity plan. Is that what the $449,000 is funding?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have attended all of these with the Premier when we have gone to not only regional communities but metropolitan communities because, obviously, they have a big say in this as well. We have conducted them in Whyalla, I think we have conducted them in Port Augusta, I think we have conducted them in Port Pirie, we have conducted them throughout metropolitan Adelaide and they continue to be conducted.

These are important forums where people come along and see the Premier and myself and the relevant ministers present what the government's aspirations are for green iron and the prosperity plan—which incorporates the Hydrogen Jobs Plan—talk about Northern Water, talk about electrolysers, talk about the generator, talk about direct iron reduction, talk about the copper clay in Roxby Downs and talk about Port Pirie's multimetal smelter because the focus for us on this, of course, is working hard to maintain and grow the three smelters we have in our Upper Spencer Gulf: Whyalla, Port Pirie and, most importantly, Roxby Downs.

The CHAIR: Time has expired for the examination of the Auditor-General's Report. We will go to the Minister for Arts and Minister for Consumer and Business Affairs. I remind members that the committee is in normal session. Any questions have to be asked by members on their feet and all questions must be directly referenced to the Auditor-General's 2023-24 Report and Agency Statements for the year ending 2023-24, as published on the Auditor-General's website, and the Update to the Annual Report, as tabled in this house on 15 October. I welcome the Minister for Small and Family Business, Minister for Consumer and Business Affairs and Minister for Arts. Member for Morialta, the floor is yours.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: If we might start with the audited financial report for the Adelaide Festival Corporation which, of course, comprises part of the document, although it is on the website. On page 7 of that audited financial report, dot point 2.2 identifies that the box office for last year's Adelaide Festival was substantially down from $5.3 million to $4.5 million, a drop of $850,000. Is the minister able to advise why the box office revenue was lower than expected when other comparable arts festivals have reported increases?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Yes, I can. There are a number of festivals around the country that, the member would be aware, are suffering with a cost-of-living crisis. For some of those higher end festivals, we have also seen music festivals cancelled and all sorts of things. I would say it is a combination of that, but also there was a very strong focus on free performances and events. The major events committee contributed $2.3 million in funding for the opera, and this year we had Little Amal come, which was fantastic. She moved around the city, crossing the bridge with the Port Adelaide fans, as I crossed with her. She was around the place, in Rundle Mall, and I went to that as well. That was a very good free program that engaged many thousands of families and young people who probably would not otherwise engage in the Adelaide Festival.

We also had Whale, which was free for people. Whale's first appearance was down at Glenelg. I think there were a lot of shocked people, quite emotional people, when you see the newsfeeds with people they were interviewing, not realising it was a fake whale. There was Whale, Little Amal and there were other free performances. There was a free performance celebrating Adelaide University's 150^th,so it was a combination. Actual attendances at the Adelaide Festival for the year were record-breaking. The most successful in terms of audience numbers was 457,505. In terms of people engaging in the Adelaide Festival, it was very successful, but the combination of cost-of-living pressures and so much free component to it I think obviously impacted ticket sales.

Revenue was slightly higher, thanks to the additional state government funding. In terms of the overall result for the Adelaide Festival, it was probably more impacted by the increasing costs of running a festival rather than the impact on the ticket sales on the revenue side.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Did the Adelaide Festival Board submit a budget for the festival with anticipated box office and other expenses and income? If so, how does that budget compare to the actual financial results?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: The annual report that was presented to me does have budget figures. I do not have the actual budget they submitted last year; I assume the numbers are the same. The 2023-24 budget on income was $21,490,000. The actual total income received was $21,514,000, so it was $24,000 over budget. Again, it was largely contributed to by the additional funding from the state government. The budgeted figure for expenses was $21,490,000. The actual expenses for 2023-24 came in at $22,339,000, so that was $849,000 over budget.

The year prior, 2022-23, actual for expenses was $20,147,000. I think you can see the increases in expenses in putting on such a festival. Staging, artists' fees, particularly the international component, has substantially increased in the last year or so. Bringing in artists from overseas has become a lot more expensive, staging has become a lot more expensive, and we are seeing that impact on their expenses.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: To be clear, the minister just said that in the previous year the expenses were $21.15 million, that there was a budget of $21.5 million this year, and the expenses were $22.3 million, which was $849,000 over budget. Notwithstanding that there were some decisions made, funded by major events, for some expensive shows, we are still talking about $850,000 over budget, by the minister's last answer. My question is: when was the minister advised of the discrepancy between that budget and the expense, the $850,000 cost overrun that she has just described?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: This was signed off—as in, the annual report that was presented to me—by the chief executive, Kath Mainland, on 27 September. I think I received it probably a few days after that. I can get the exact date in terms of when I knew of the quantum of the deficit. Of course, they have a substantial reserve that has covered that; I can find the reserve figure for you. They had cash reserves of $630,000 at 30 June 2023, so that has covered the negative result of $569,000. The difference between the $825,000 and the $569,000 takes into account depreciation—so, I guess, the non-cash aspects of it.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: In relation to this same line, other than at the final annual report stage on 27 September, were there earlier marks through which the minister was kept informed of any variances between the budget and the actual for the 2024 Adelaide Festival planning and execution?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Certainly, once the festival was finished. I think we had discussions and actually probably had a press conference about attendance numbers, and it was obvious then that paid ticket sales were down even though attendances were up, so that was probably the first indication. Then, obviously, with discussions along the way, they certainly informed me that they were expecting some loss, but the quantum of the loss specifically was not known to me and would not have been known to them until they finalised their accounts.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The minister earlier described the $2.3 million allocation from the Major Events Fund, and there is a reference under income on page 6 to that. The minister, I think, described the opera and Little Amal as both being funded from the Major Events Fund, from that $2.3 million. Were any of the other aspects of the Festival also funded specifically by that Major Events Fund, or was it just for those two, the opera and Little Amal?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I am advised that for the 2024 Festival, this year's Festival, that funding was used for Little Amal and the opera, but it also covers, I think, 2025 and 2026 operas as well.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: So the $2.3 million is over the three years and there are still the 2025 and 2026 operas which come out of that. Is it anticipated that, given what has already been spent, what is remaining of that $2.3 million is sufficient to cover those other two events still to come?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Yes, as I understand it, that is sufficient to cover those events. The program for 2025 has been finalised by Brett Sheehy. That is a very good program of very high quality international performances and, certainly, a stronger focus on ticket sales for 2025, which would support the Adelaide Festival in making sure it comes in on budget for 2025.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Can the minister advise how much of that $2.3 million was expended in the first year, the year covered by this year's accounts?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I will have to take that on notice. I do not have that figure with me.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Going to page 7, under 2.3 other income, there is a line that is described as sundry which was $727,000 in 2023 and $1.7 million in 2024, which is an increase of $1 million through this sundry income stream. It is described below that as:

Sundry income includes co-presented fees that are recognised as income once the applicable show has been performed.

I do not know if the minister has a direct translation into common language of what that means, but can the minister explain: what is that sundry line of $1.7 million and why has it increased by $1 million from the previous year? Where have we got that $1 million from?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I do not have that information at the moment. I will take it on notice.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: On the same page, line 2.4 talks about sponsorship. It identifies that in 2023 there was $1.229 million that came in in sponsorship. This year there was $1.137 million in sponsorship, a drop of about $100,000 from last year's festival. Is the minister able to advise why that drop in sponsorship has happened?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I cannot identify the difference in the cash sponsorship, but it might be, for example, corporates and others who are feeling the pinch have provided more in-kind sponsorship, and we can see that the in-kind sponsorship has substantially increased. Overall, in terms of sponsorships, the organisation was about $200,000 better off. I suspect that is probably pressures on corporates and others in terms of providing cash sponsorships and therefore potentially a shift towards more in-kind sponsorship.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: On page 8, the next dot point is the Foundation Adelaide Festival Distribution, which provided $1.7 million last year but only $1.2 million this year, a $500,000 drop in income. Can the minister provide any information for that drop in income?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: We might be able to find out specifics for you, but again my presumption is around cost-of-living pressures, people tightening their belts slightly. But the foundation does an incredible job for Adelaide Festival, and they do have very generous philanthropists who support the Adelaide Festival, both local and interstate philanthropists. I am very grateful for that support, and the Festival is certainly very grateful for that support, but we can take that on notice.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Can the minister advise if she has access to the original budget for each of these line items described in the notes under 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5? What was the initial budget, and when was she advised that the Festival would not be meeting its budget targets in each of these areas?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I thank the member for that question. All I have in front of me, which was in their annual report that they provided to me, is the budgeted total and total expenses. Further on, in the profit and loss and balance sheet there are only 2022-23 actuals and 2023-24 actuals, so I do not have budgets, but I can take that on notice and find out what those budgeted figures were and if there was a reason for any of the variances that I can provide to you.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: That is greatly appreciated; thank you. On page 9 at note 3.3 of the report there is a reference to employee remuneration. The number of employees whose remuneration received or receivable fell within bands of over $160,000 has increased from two to three. The total remuneration for those employees has increased from $525,000 last year to nearly $850,000 this year, a fairly substantial increase. Can the minister explain: who are the three employees, or at least what are their jobs and the roles that have had such an increase? Is there an explanation for the substantial increase from two at $525,000 up to three at $850,000 in this environment?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I am advised I am not sure I can actually answer that question because we do not identify beyond chief executive level salary and who that is attached to. I am not sure I am even able to take that on notice to provide that information for you. That is the advice I have received.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Can the minister explain why the executive remuneration staff band for the Adelaide Festival during a cost-of-living crisis has increased from $500,000 to $850,000, including a 50 per cent increase in the number of staff?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Sorry, can the member just repeat that? I am not clear on where those figures come from.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: At the bottom of page 9 of the report it is identified that there is an increase in total remuneration for employees at higher staff bands from $525,000 to $850,000, which is a $325,000 increase—a fairly dramatic increase—and the number of employees that the Adelaide Festival has taken on in these bands has increased from two to three. Is the minister able to explain why?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: We can provide a high-level breakdown, I am advised. What I think is one of the issues there is potentially previously having one of the senior leadership potentially be on a contract rather than be an employee. There was a period of time when Rachel Healy and Neil left and there was an acting position before Ruth. I suspect that was a contract position, not an employee position, and that is possibly what the difference is, but I will probably be able to provide at least high-level information on that.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Can I confirm that the minister will at least try to provide some level of information and has taken that question on notice?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Yes, on notice.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Thank you very much. In relation to this, I cannot recall whether the new artistic director, Brett Sheehy, commenced the role during the period covered in this report or whether it was later. Maybe the minister can help us out. If the minister is able to advise whether the new artistic director is covered in this period of time, that would be helpful.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I am advised that Brett Sheehy's commencement was in the 2024-25 financial year. I can get an exact start date for you if you would like.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I go to the Museum Board audited financial report.

The CHAIR: And the reference is?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: It is the audited financial report for the Museum Board. We have just been doing the Adelaide Festival audited financial—

The CHAIR: I understand that. There is a separate report, is there, for this audit?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: It forms part of the document. It is directly linkable online for those following. Let's start at page 7, perhaps. This is the general income line. It appears, from page 7, that this disaggregates the income for the Museum Board as opposed to the foundation, and highlights that there is a drop in income for the Museum Board from 2023 of $17.667 million to 2024 where it is $15.655 million. There is a $1 million drop in grant income for example, and some drops in donations and intragovernment transfers. Is the minister able to provide any advice to the house as to the nature of this $2.1 million drop in income for the board?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: The major variance in the grant, based on their financial report, is what is referred to as a commonwealth source grant, which was $277,000 in 2024 but $1.128 million in 2023. I can also inform you that the commonwealth government provided funding for the purposes of the Science Engagement Program, inspiring South Australia's National Science Week, BushBlitz, the National Parks Indigenous Repatriation Program through the Department of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, and taxonomy and systematic grants through the Australian Biological Resources Study. There was a change in one or more of those, and I can get the details for you of what that drop was. That was the major drop, actually, a commonwealth grant decrease.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: That was a drop of about $900,000 that the minister has just described, but the overall drop in income for the board is $2.1 million. I am keen if she has insight as to why some of the other drops have happened.

Specifically, on page 10 one of the drops that is described is a drop in sponsorship from $240,000 in 2023 to $125,000 in 2024, and a drop in membership from $142,000 in 2023 to $61,000 in 2024. Is the minister able to provide any insight on either of those drops, or other reasons why the Museum Board's income has dropped so dramatically?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Again, I suspect that a large part of that is a cost-of-living issue; fewer people being able to afford to buy membership, and potentially corporates also feeling the pressure of the increasing costs of doing business. I suspect that is probably a substantial reflection of that.

I do understand that there was also about a $384,000 reduction in donations of heritage assets, which I understand is obviously not a cash impact. It is reflected in financial statements but it is actually reflecting a donation in heritage assets that has gone down by $384,000 as well.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I refer to page 9, the grant income disaggregation, the state government underlying grant. Is the minister able to advise of that recurrent operating grant that is $10.795 million this year, $10.784 million last year. Is that what would be described as the state government's base grant to the Museum, or is that an aggregate of a number of state government grants to the Museum.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: The $10.795 million was the operating grant for the Museum for the year 2023-24. Does that answer your question?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I understand the government has announced what I think was described as a $4 million package of funding to the Museum to support its next stages, but specifically to this budget paper, does that $4.1 million announcement include any money that was already expended to support the Museum in the 2023-24 financial year, but has been included in that government announcement, that collection of contributions that added up to $4.1 million?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: No, the $4.1 million that has been referred to is all this financial year and future. None of that relates to the 2023-24 financial year.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: In relation to the expenses on page 7, it is a total of $18.441 million broken down into various aspects. Was any of that expense utilised to support the Premier's review into the Museum, which concluded a couple of months ago?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: No, the Premier's review panel costs were absorbed by DPC. It does not relate to the expenses shown in the Museum's annual report.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I just briefly want to touch on the Art Gallery Board and similarly the statement, the audited financial report. Page 7 refers to recurrent operating grants of $8.5 million in 2024, which is down from $9.4 million in 2023 and, for what it is worth, it was $11.6 million in 2022 and $12.5 million in 2021. I also note a drop in state government grants listed at the top there from $1.1. million last year to $400,000 this year. Can the minister advise, with those significant reductions, in the order of well over $1 million across the recurrent operating grants and the state government grants from last year to this year, what impact has this reduction in funding had on the Art Gallery and its operations?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I can advise that those reductions started from the 2018-19 state budget. If I bring that forward—

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The 2017-18 Mid Year Budget Review.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I don’t have those details. I have a 2018-19 budget, which it brings it forward into the 2023-24 year, of a reduction of $496,000. We then have in the 2019-20 state budget a further reduction, which in the 2023-24 financial year, I am advised, equates to $446,000. Then in the 2022-23 state budget there were savings that in the 2023-24 year are equivalent to $238,000 and, of course, no further savings from the 2023-24 or the 2024-25 budget.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Odenwalder): I declare the examination of the Minister for Arts, in accordance with Auditor-General's Report, complete and I call on the Minister for Education to appear. I declare the examination of the Report of the Auditor-General 2023-24 open. I remind members that the committee is in normal session. Any questions have to be asked by members on their feet and all questions must be directly referenced to the Auditor-General's Report 2024-24 and the Agency Statements for the year ending 2023-24, as published on the Auditor-General's website, and the Update to the Annual Report, as tabled in this house on 15 October. I welcome the minister and the member for Morialta, who I assume is leading the questions, and I call for questions.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Can I acknowledge the wonderful people in the gallery. I encourage them to enjoy this session. I am going to start at the back of the big, thick book on page 433. The last aspect talks about the Roadmap for the Future of TAFE SA. It states:

TAFE SA started delivering the actions in 2023-24, and has reflected them in its strategic plan.

Is the minister able to identify what work was done in that time on legislation to change the way that TAFE SA operates? And if he is able to provide information to the house on when we are going to see that legislation and consider it that would be greatly appreciated.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I am happy to give you an update on the Roadmap for the Future, which was a piece of work, as you said, undertaken by Jeannie Rea. A significant amount of work has been done already to progress what were 96 recommended actions that came from the road map. We have been considering all of those.

I can give you an update on those recommendations that are currently being actioned and, as you foreshadowed in your question, they include consulting or changing the TAFE SA Act. TAFE SA and Skills SA are working collaboratively to consult across government and progress a proposal to me ultimately for consideration by cabinet, so I do not foresee that that will be a long way away. I am hoping we have that quite soon for consideration and then, depending on what happens through that process, I hope to have something in this place around changing the TAFE SA Act and hopefully bringing to life some of the recommendations that Ms Rea made in her roadmap report.

TAFE is in the final stages of the Innovate Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP) with Reconciliation Australia. There is shared use of TAFE SA campuses to benefit local communities, which was a recommendation I was pleased to receive. TAFE SA continues to engage with the Mount Barker District Council to negotiate the terms of a service level agreement over the management of the campus grounds.

Engagement continues with the city of Noarlunga to negotiate the terms of leases for office space and the community library. A regional university study hub at Victor Harbor is being developed—I am told it has now been launched, which is good—with Regional Development Australia (RDA) for the Adelaide Hills, Fleurieu and Kangaroo Island. Yes, the hub was due to open and did open on 19 September this year.

There are student engagement hubs, the physical ones. The lead professional services contractors engaged by Ventia have completed Berri, Tonsley and Victor Harbor in July of this year, with Port Pirie due for completion in September this year. I am not sure if that has been done or not—not to our knowledge. Whyalla is due for completion this month. A student engagement hub at Mount Gambier is currently in the planning phase with internal design requests being considered. No due date has currently been set for the completion of a student engagement hub at Mount Gambier.

The government delivered on its commitment to increase regional delivery by establishing the Regional Skills Development Fund in January of this year. In support of the delivery, there are an additional 41 courses in regional SA as of 23 May. Without that funding, it is estimated by TAFE that only 18 regional courses would have been offered over this time, so a pretty significant increase of 23 additional courses being offered at TAFE campuses in regional SA thanks to that RSDF funding that flowed from the budget in 2023, I think it was.

TAFE SA has consulted with TAFE SA's Regional Skills Advisory Committees to inform regional course delivery. TAFE SA is also continuing to grow opportunities for regional engagement in 2024-25. I will not go on. There are more updates that, if you would like, I am happy to provide you.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Specifically just on the legislation that the minister mentioned was going to be considered by cabinet, is it anticipated that it will be going to cabinet for approval to go more broadly for consultation or has the minister's consultation, presumably directed consultation, already happened and the assumption is then it will go from cabinet straight to the parliament?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Yes, I just had a chat with the chief executive about that. My anticipation as minister is that once it gets to cabinet and depending on what happens through that process, there will be further consultation and public consultation after that as well.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: My last question on this matter: when is TAFE or the minister anticipating that public consultation will take place and therefore its introduction into parliament?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I think the fastest that we would have it out for public consultation would be this year. It may more likely be the start of next year, but not far away.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The same page, above the road map, refers to the bolder future but it also refers to the fee-free courses which commenced in January 2023. There has been some media speculation around completion rates on those courses. There was a newspaper article I am aware of which I think referred to the national program and I believe that there was a TAFE SA representative on the local radio who provided a different figure.

Presuming that the completion rate depends on which courses are included and whether they are due to have completed, is the minister able to provide whatever the most up-to-date information is on what are the completion rates for those courses for which we can identify a completion rate under the fee-free TAFE program?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I am aware of the article, which I have read, and you are right that a representative from TAFE appeared on, I think, David Bevan's program, and answered some questions around that article. I am not entirely clear how the data that appeared in that national article was found or released because it is very different from the data that we obviously keep locally in TAFE. I am happy to take you through what I am advised by TAFE.

In terms of the fee-free TAFE cohort, the completion rate that we have currently is about 45 per cent and that is above, I think, the completion rate in TAFE outside of fee-free TAFE, which is 40 per cent. The current withdrawal rate for the fee-free TAFE cohort in South Australia is 12.5 per cent compared to 22.5 per cent for non-FFT, fee-free TAFE, subsidised students over the same period, so it is higher for both in fee-free TAFE, which I am of course very pleased about.

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner interjecting:

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Yes, the FFTs, that is right. Of course, that 40 per cent figure for completions of TAFE students outside the fee-free TAFE cohort has come up—and I do not have it in front of me, unless the chief executive does. It has come up in the last few years I think from as low as 32 per cent upwards to now 40 per cent, which is really pleasing to see, because I have made many, many public comments about the need for us to improve the completion rate and I was glad to see in the most recent NCVER data we had showed a 2.9 per cent increase for South Australia, which is good. We are seeing that in TAFE, outside fee-free TAFE as well.

Given the levels of disadvantage amongst students who go to TAFE generally, which is quite high from the data that I have seen, it would suggest that the levels of disadvantage based on where students in South Australia are accessing it, where they live, when they go to access fee-free TAFE are also very high. The fact that so far we are getting 45 per cent, which is above TAFE's 40 per cent and a dropout of just 12.5 per cent below the 22.5 per cent, I think is a very promising sign.

Obviously, it is relatively early days because it takes time for the throughput for those who commenced to get through and complete, so I am not going to hop on a helicopter and land on an aircraft carrier with 'mission accomplished' hats just yet. There is a lot more to go but at least at this stage—I know that does not work—there are promising signs.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Can the minister provide the aggregate data, the numbers that sit behind that 45 per cent figure that he has just cited and perhaps whatever the other numbers are in relation to those for whom we do not yet have completion rates? I am happy for it to be taken on notice if he wishes.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I am happy to take that on notice and come back with as much of that detail as we can put together for you.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Thank you. I will move to a different page and we will keep moving. On page 426, at the beginning of the TAFE run, it is identified by the Auditor-General that land and buildings were revalued upwards by $316 million—which must have been a very exciting development for whoever pays council rates in the TAFE SA organisation—and that this was TAFE SA's first revaluation of land and buildings since 2019. I assume you do pay council rates. We will have to find that out.

I am wondering if it is possible to disaggregate where those increases were found. In relation to the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of property that TAFE SA owns, is it possible to disaggregate how much each of those various campuses that TAFE SA owns has been valued at?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: We will come back to you with as much detail as we can—happy to do that. The advice that I have on that though is that, as you pointed out, the valuation which was the first since 2019 resulted in an increase in land and building values by $316 million, which is obviously a lot. I think it was over 24 separate properties. This would probably not come as a surprise to the member for Morialta, but the advice I have is that it was market conditions which largely contributed to the large cost in the valuation. Nonetheless, we will try to disaggregate that as best we can across the 24 separate properties that were part of that valuation and provide that data to you if we can.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: In the line after it says, 'Funding from the Department for Education increased to $243 million.' Would I be right to assume that that is from Skills SA, which would now be under DSD, but under the financial year in question was the Department for Education?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I am told that is correct.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Thank you; that makes sense. On page 429, the Auditor makes note that there were 54 hourly paid instructors who started work without having a signed contract, compared to 26 over 10 months in the 2022-23 year—so a significant increase then. The Auditor has recommended that TAFE SA, amongst other things, implement controls to prevent HPIs starting work before a valid contract is in place with a particular focus on business units with higher noncompliance rates. There are two questions, I guess: which are the business units that have higher noncompliance rates, and is the minister going to be able to bring down this number that is so significantly increased over the previous year?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I thank the member for Morialta for the question and, yes, you are right. There has been a longstanding issue around the commencement of hourly paid instructors without contracts. After a number of years of improvements in terms of the percentage of HPIs commencing with a contract in place, we saw a deterioration in that compliance, which is an issue that I have discussed at great length with the team from TAFE. Part of it, of course, is due to the fact that TAFE is growing for the first time in quite a long time in terms of enrolments. That means more staff are needed and some growing pains come along with that. Nonetheless, I am not making an excuse for us not being compliant.

The chief executive informs me that a new process has been put in place post the data published in the Auditor-General's Report. Of the contracts that have been processed since that, we are at 100 per cent. So we are confident that the new process that has been put in place should rectify the noncompliance issue and so far, since that process has been put in place, we are seeing promising signs.

In terms of the second part of your question around finding out specifically which business units of TAFE are the least compliant, we will see what we can do and come back to you with that data if we can. But I feel more confident now that we have something in place, which I hope will put to bed those compliance issues that we have seen.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I move to education. I will ask a relatively general question. Page 71 talks about the National School Reform Agreement. I note that the Auditor-General highlights that there was a 12-month extension of the National School Reform Agreement that we signed in 2019 to allow time for a comprehensive review. Can the minister provide us with an update on those negotiations with the commonwealth?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Yes, thank you, member for Morialta. I remain very confident that South Australia will be successful in signing an agreement with this federal government. I remain confident that we will do that before whenever the federal election is, which is obviously something we need to do because it has been made fairly clear by the alternative federal government that, should they form government, the discussions around extra money towards 100 per cent are not a thing they are interested in having.

I do not have any more updates for the member for Morialta in terms of exactly how close we are because, of course, as I am sure you know as a former cabinet minister, the Premier, the Prime Minister and other premiers and chief ministers are negotiating a whole range of national agreements, and the National School Reform Agreement is one of those. The best update I think I can give you is that, regardless of what the funding is to get to that 5 per cent we need to get public schools to up to 100 per cent, I am confident that will get to the 100 per cent and that South Australia is committed to signing an agreement with the federal government. But negotiations are still ongoing. I have no further update for the member for Morialta beyond that.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: All of the figures on page 70 would be relevant for this, but I refer to the period 2023-24 and the identification of how much funding the public school system should have spent on it, according to the Gonski agreement, commonwealth allocation and state allocation combined. My understanding is that we have to acquit that expenditure to a body to ensure that we have spent the right amount of money within a very narrow band. Can the minister confirm whether that acquittal has taken place for the immediate past financial year? Were we within that band or under it or over it?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: As the member for Morialta is probably aware, it is calculated by school year and not financial year. Mr Bernardi advises me that we are currently acquitting 2023. We are not late in any way in our acquittal. That work has been done. Current projections show that we are within the band.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: On page 70 it talks about the 18 staff transferring to the Office for Early Childhood Development. Is the minister able to identify whether any of that cost is aquittable towards our Gonski spend, or does that fall entirely outside the National School Reform Agreement?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: As per the longstanding Gonski arrangements around the spending of money needing to be in primary and secondary schools and not in early year settings, I am advised that the value of the transition of the 18 staff cannot be counted towards Gonski expenditure either.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Two dot points higher, it refers to $83 million in back pay which was provided, I assume, once the EB agreement was signed. That included a back pay component. Can the minister confirm if that $83 million was acquitted, at least the component up to 31 December, in the 2023 Gonski spend; or, because it is paid in the 2024 calendar year, is that all in the coming year's Gonski acquittal?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I am advised that the EB component that relates to schools can be acquitted as part of the Gonski acquittal process, but those EB costs that went towards early years staff cannot.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I have two questions that arise directly from that answer. Is the minister able to disaggregate how much of the $83 million would apply to school staff and, therefore, be Gonski-able, for want of a better word?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: We will try to do that if we can. I asked Mr Bernardi and he said we will go back and have a look at whether we can disaggregate that figure.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Noting that the vast majority of the staff in the education department are school staff, one imagines that it would be a significant proportion of that $83 million. Can the minister confirm, then: does that component, that $83 million or a bit less, being paid in the 2024 calendar year—noting that it is in the financial year 2023-24, so eligible for questioning now—count towards our 2024 Gonski acquittal and therefore reduce the requirement on the education department to otherwise provide new funding for public schooling in this calendar year?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I am informed there are timing differences in the acquittal, but we will go away and take it on notice and come back to you with a more detailed answer.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: On page 70, it highlights the assets—and, indeed, that includes the substantial number of public school and preschool sites—being 894. Over the last couple of years, the minister has been good enough to provide updates in relation to the proposals to expand that number at Mount Barker and the northern suburbs of Adelaide. Is the minister able to identify what projects are within an Infrastructure SA pipeline at the moment?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Member for Morialta, I am advised, aside from the projects that you listed, which have already been through the Infrastructure SA process, we do not have any further projects at this stage that are going through the Infrastructure SA process.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Can the minister advise, in relation to the 20-year infrastructure plan, which is referenced on other pages but all captured under this point, I would argue, is there a list of school projects and upgrades that are awaiting consideration by cabinet as part of a budget process, or is there a different approach that is being taken?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I do not at this stage have advice from the department regarding future infrastructure budget bids. In terms of other lists, we have the asset condition list, of course, but that would not have all 894 of those sites on them for projects of different size and quantity. But in terms of a list for a budget submission or cabinet consideration, Mr Temperly has advised me that I do not currently have any advice from the department on that.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Odenwalder): I declare the examination of the Minister for Education, in accordance with the Auditor-General's Report, complete.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.