Auditor-General's Report

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (11:05): I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended as to enable the report of the Auditor-General for the year ended 30 June 2009 to be referred to a committee of the whole and for ministers to be examined on matters contained in the report for a period of one hour.

Motion carried.

In committee.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I have with me from the Department of Planning and Local Government Mr Andrew McKeegan, who is Manager, Finances with the department.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: My first question on the Auditor-General's Report, year ended 2009, refers to page 841 and, in particular, the heading 'Payroll'. On that page it states that payroll had not implemented a central register to monitor the effectiveness of the review of bona fide certificates and leave returns by PayPoint managers. Will the minister please explain the Auditor's criticism in further detail, including the problems caused by the lack of a central register and what it means in terms of the recent state budget?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: First, I indicate that the Department of Planning and Local Government was a new department. Planning SA, a unit within the Department of Primary Industries and Resources, was established as a new unit on 1 July 2008. Later that year, from 3 November 2008, following the merger of Planning SA with the Office of the Southern Suburbs, the Office of the Northern Suburbs and the Office for State/Local Government Relations, the new Department of Planning and Local Government was formed. That also was a recommendation from the planning review committee. We had a new department established and it was really a new unit that was developed, particularly following the merger with the Office of Local Government, to strengthen the financial management of the new department.

The Auditor-General refers to his interim audit finding and the Leader of the Opposition has referred to some of those issues, namely, that the department had at that stage not implemented a central register to monitor the effectiveness of the review of bona fide certificates and leave returns by PayPoint managers, and that was commented on by the Auditor in his report. The Department of Planning and Local Government has responded that policies and procedures have been established to ensure that bona fide reports, leave returns and time sheets are effectively and efficiently managed.

The policies and procedures require divisional administrative officers to maintain and record the return of bona fide certificates and leave returns reviewed by PayPoint managers. As I said, I think that one needs to consider the comments of the Auditor-General, first, in the context that this is a new department establishing practices, and also that the department is committed to ensuring that those issues raised by the Auditor-General are addressed; and, of course, there is reference to that within the Auditor-General's Report. The Auditor-General did express satisfaction with the controls exercised by the Department of Planning and Local Government except for those matters raised, and, as I said, they are being addressed by the department.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: My second question also relates to page 841, particularly under the heading 'Revenue'. The Auditor-General's Report on that page states that there were some concerns about the department's revenue, namely, that there were no procedures to ensure the completion of regulatory fees paid by councils. There was no independent review of the calculation of such fees and there had been no independent review of the revenue and receipting being reconciled. The department said that it engaged a firm to undertake an independent review of certain matters in 2008-09. What were the recommendations of that review?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that that review was conducted by Ernst & Young. Approximately 15 recommendations were made by the committee, and they have been passed on to the Audit and Finance Committee of the department for implementation. Any further detail I would have to take on notice, but, clearly, they would be technical recommendations, one would presume, in relation to those financial matters identified by audit.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: As a supplementary question, what was the cost of that review performed by Ernst & Young, and could the minister also advise the length of time it took?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that the actual spending in 2008-09 was $42,230. The total contract price was $48,970. Obviously, some work was done in the current financial year we are in, so there was that carryover of that small amount of work to the start of this financial year. As for timing, we do not have the exact figure. We will have to check it, but it is about four months. If it is anything significantly different than that, I will advise the committee.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: By way of a supplementary question, will the minister provide a copy of the 15 recommendations provided by Ernst & Young? Page 845 of the Auditor-General's Report gives the department's statement of its financial position. Listed at the bottom of the page is 'unrecognised contractual commitments'. In the financial notes this is comprised of $5.52 million in lease commitments, $5.8 million in remuneration commitments and $240,000 in other commitments. Particularly with respect to the first two amounts, where lease contracts and fixed-term employment contracts were in existence before the reporting date, why are they not recognised as liabilities?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I am advised that the only lease for office accommodation which is applicable and of which we are aware is Roma Mitchell House across the road on North Terrace where the Department of Planning and Local Government is located. I presume it simply relates to that matter. We will take it on notice. If there is any lease other than that applicable to the department's main office (which is several floors within Roma Mitchell House), we will bring back that information. I think the other part of the honourable member's question related to salaries.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Where lease contracts and fixed term employee contracts were in existence before the reporting date, why are they not recognised as liabilities? They are listed as 'unrecognised contractual commitments'.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I imagine that is to do with the accounting treatment. I would assume it is standard treatment of all government departments. I would not have thought they would normally be shown as liabilities, given the accounting treatment of liabilities, but rather as expenses in the financial statements. However, clearly, for completeness of information, one assumes that it is put in there so that the total lease commitment is clear. I would not have thought that it was normal treatment to have lease commitments—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: That is why I am asking the question. I do not understand why it is there.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I think the Auditor-General has referred to it. I am not sure what his treatment is with other departments, because nearly every government department, apart from those in their own building, would have lease commitments. If we look at other departments, I am not sure whether the treatment is any different. In fact, I see under PIRSA, there is 'unrecognised contractual commitments'. Perhaps if Mr Brumford could assist, because the same question could be asked for PIRSA, as well.

It is simple accounting treatment whereby they recognise that the contract is in existence. So, for interests of accountability, that is acknowledged in the accounts but, in terms of liabilities, it is not recognised as a liability because it has not yet been expensed. Similarly, with employees, you do not have an obligation to pay an employee until they have performed the work. Whereas the Auditor-General, quite rightly, is indicating what the contract is in relation to salaries, it is not a liability in an accounting sense because the performance of work has not yet been expensed.

So, in accounting terms, it is not part of the statement of financial position, but for completeness that information is added. I guess that is good accountability so that anyone who wants to understand the accounts can get that information, but normally you would not put those lease costs as a liability. They only come in as an expense when they fall due.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have a supplementary question. I am sure the minister will not have the details. I refer to the $204,000 which is recognised under 'other commitments'. Could the minister detail what that is and, if not now, at a later date?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Just to clarify that, I assume that is under note 26.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Note 26, 5.522 and then 5.889, and $204,000, 'other commitments'. The bottom of note 26.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It states:

The Department's other commitments include agreements with Fleet SA for long-term hire of light vehicles and other amounts owing under fixed price contracts outstanding at the end of the reporting period.

Obviously vehicles will be one of them. I guess it could be for anything like photocopier services. It is best we take that on notice, but obviously it would be similar in nature. Since we specifically refer to 'light vehicle hire', it would be equipment of that nature, but we will see whether we can get a more detailed breakdown for the honourable member.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: My next question is directed to page 855, under the heading 'Activities of the Department', and, in particular, the four activities listed. Of particular interest is Activity 2, which is the Office for the Southern Suburbs; and Activity 3, Office of the Northern Suburbs. What is the budgeted and actual expenditure for those offices, and who is employed in those offices at this point in time?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Of course, the Office for the Southern Suburbs reports to my colleague, the Minister for the Southern Suburbs (Hon. John Hill).

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Yes, it is under the department. We will seek to get that information. I want to clarify that it is not directly responsible to me. I am informed that the Office for the Southern Suburbs has two staff and the Office of the Northern Suburbs has three staff. On page 848, under heading 2, employee benefit costs are $136,000 for the year ended 30 June 2009. Under heading 3, which is the Office of the Northern Suburbs, the employee benefit costs are $112,000. That has been established only recently, so I presume that is not a full year cost.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: My next question refers to page 862 of the report, the remuneration bands for board and committee members. It appears that seven members of boards and committees earn in excess of $20,000: four people are in the band from $20,000 to $29,999, two people are in the $30,000 to $39,999 band, and there is one in the $40,000 to $49,999 band. Will the minister provide advice on which board positions those are?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Are you are talking about the four people who earn $20,000 or above?

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Yes, which board positions are those?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Under my portfolio, the most highly remunerated committee, if I can call it that, is the Development Assessment Commission, which has a key function, and the remuneration of members was adjusted for the first time in many years.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Yes, it was during the course of this year. Obviously, the highest remuneration would be that of the chair of the Development Assessment Commission and its members. I think there are seven.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: The seven positions you are talking about, are they all on the Development Assessment Commission?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: We will seek that information but, certainly, if there are seven members, within my portfolio they would comprise the highest paid committee—and appropriately so. The fact is that, with the nature of the approvals it has to make, it was the government's decision to upgrade the importance and remuneration of that committee, reflecting the very important role it undertakes in terms of approving major projects and other projects referred to it., but we will clarify that. I believe that the full year of remuneration for members of the DAC would be in excess of $20,000, reflecting the nature of that committee. Whether there are any committees in other portfolios that are part of Planning and Local Government I will take on notice.

Certainly, most of the other committees, such as the Building Rules Assessment Committee, the Building Advisory Committee, the Local Heritage Advisory Committee, the Port Waterfront Redevelopment Committee, etc. are remunerated on a sessional basis. It is essentially an attendance fee. I think that the Development Policy Advisory Committee and DAC are certainly the only two in my portfolio that I believe have a standing remuneration. However, we will check that and, as I said, if there are any other committees that come under other ministerial portfolios looked after by DPLG, we will provide that information.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: So, are you saying that you think that all seven positions above $20,000 relate to the Development Assessment Commission?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: In my portfolio, that is the one in which I know an increase was made, where remuneration for the members is above $20,000. I believe that there are seven members, but whether those are the seven that that reflects, it may well be that there are other committees in other portfolios. Certainly, those listed in note 31 on pages 862 and 863 all appear to be within my portfolio, so it might suggest that it is that way.

However, we will check that and, if there is some sort of cross-membership, if somebody is on more than one committee, it is just possible that they have come up into the lower levels. However, by and large, of all the committees and boards within my portfolio, DAC is clearly the most important and the best remunerated for appropriate reasons.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: My next question relates to page 864, statement of comprehensive income. I note that $961,000 of interest income was generated from entities within the South Australian government (page 871). Will the minister provide further details on the source of that income?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Is this note A12?

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Yes, A12, interest from entities within SA government.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Without the note, I know that one of the areas where there would be significant income would be the Planning and Development Fund, which last year had about $15 million, from memory, both paid into and paid out of the fund.

There is obviously a balance in there, and I think it is $10 million or something of that order. The interest revenue attributable to the Planning and Development Fund was $850,000. That is money which obviously contributes to the fund and which in turn can be used to increase the payments to local government and other applicants for work under the Planning and Development Fund, so it is a source of income for it. That is probably the largest fund. In my colleague's portfolio, I am informed that the Local Government Grants Commission is the other item of $77,000. The great bulk of the interest revenue comes from the Planning and Development Fund.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The minister may wish to take this further question on notice. There is a range of funds. For the Planning and Development Fund, the South Australian Local Government Grants Commission Fund and the Local Government Taxation Fund, will the minister provide the balance of how much is paid in and out of each fund and what is the current balance?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I preface my answer by pointing out that funds such as the Planning and Development Fund are hypothecated funds. They are statutory funds, and their funds can be used only for the purposes that are set out in the act that covers their operation.

In relation to the Planning and Development Fund, in the year ended 30 June, $13.312 million was paid out of that fund. For the total income, again, I refer to page 868 of the report. I am advised that, if one looks at the first column, the information in column 1 essentially relates to the Planning and Development Fund, so the total income was $19.572 million, with net revenue of $4.48 million. We do not have the cash balance of the fund; it was somewhere between $5 million and $15 million or something of that order. I will take that part of the question on notice.

That is the main fund: the Planning and Development Fund. The only other funds would be under the portfolio of my colleague the Minister for State/Local Government Relations. There are administered items but not really funds, so I believe the Planning and Development Fund is the only fund under the urban development and planning portfolio.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have a further question regarding the note on the bottom of page 869. It refers to note A3, which is employee benefit expenses. It states that one executive received remuneration in the bandwidth of $130,000 to $139,000, with total remuneration of $131,890 in 2009. Other employees received remuneration greater than $100,000 in 2009. Which position are we talking about? It appears under the administrative statement of comprehensive income, note A3. I would like some clarification as to which position that is.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that that A3 refers to administered items, so it is likely to be someone in the portfolio of my colleague the Minister for State/Local Government Relations. My advice is that it would be the director who looked after the Outback Areas Trust.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I refer again to page 865, which lists in the statement of administered financial position $1.2 million of receivables. Financial note A16 notes that items of receivables are usually settled within 30 days. Does the department have an established process for pursuing unsettled receivables? What is the balance of bad debts at the end of the last financial year, and what is the current estimate of receivables which will not be recovered?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: As a new department, the Department of Planning and Local Government is developing a number of internal controls to reflect the new nature of the organisation, and one of those policies it is developing is to monitor receivables. I will take the question on notice in relation to any further information that we need to provide in relation to that.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: For the minister's and his advisers' benefit, that concludes the DPLG. I have a couple of questions on minerals and PIRSA before we move to the other portfolio.

I refer to page 937 of Volume III of the report. In relation to PIRSA's tenement management system, last year's audit review reviewed aspects of the system, and early this year audit followed up on actions being taken to address matters raised in the initial audit. In August, audit undertook a further review, and some areas have been identified as having further action still remaining. The department has responded that it will finalise this by April 2010. What action will the department be taking between now and April in relation to the formal endorsement of the tenement management system documentation?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Can I first introduce my adviser, Tony Brumfield, who is the Director, Finance and Business Services, PIRSA. My advice is that four matters are still being progressed following the audit review from the early 2009 follow-up review. The four matters still being progressed are:

1. Implementation of a quarterly review of user access permissions and a termination process.

2. Improvements to business continuity documentation and the undertaking of a business impact analysis.

3. Progressive upgrading of tenement management system (TMS) user documentation procedural position manuals.

4. Finalisation and approval of draft information security policies.

The August 2009 review confirmed that satisfactory resolution of all matters being addressed by PIRSA had generally occurred, although there are some opportunities for further improvement over controls identified in some other areas, which are also being acted upon.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Page 994 of the financial statement for this audit year states that $152.413 million was collected in royalties. The minister said, in answer to the 2007 questions, that the Olympic Dam expansion task force was busy discussing and negotiating on the revised act and that the department and BHP were working through a process to review the current process of royalty calculation. What progress has been made on the review of royalty calculations, and when will parliament be provided with a draft of the revised act? The act probably does not have much to do with the Auditor-General's Report, but I thought I would slip that in.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The honourable member obviously means the indenture. Obviously, BHP is now working through the detailed response to its environmental impact statement, so one would expect its board will not be in a position to finalise that for some time. I would think it will take at least until half way through next year, but that is obviously a stab in the dark at this stage. Clearly, it will depend on the response to that document.

There are two issues, really, in relation to royalties with the Olympic Dam mine. One is the royalties paid under the existing indenture. The other, of course, is negotiation of what might be an appropriate royalty rate into the future, which is part of the indenture negotiations. While the two issues are related, they are obviously separate. While the Olympic Dam task force is conducting, on behalf of the government, negotiations in relation to all the future issues related to the expansion of the Olympic Dam mine, there are also the issues of auditing and ensuring that the royalties that are due under the current arrangements are properly paid.

As part of the audit program, a review of revenue collected by both the mining and petroleum geothermal groups for the 2008-09 financial year was undertaken. No material findings were identified for either the minerals or the petroleum geothermal groups. Audits relating to previous financial years had identified material matters relating to royalty payments, and a review of the actions to address these matters was included in the audit scope—and I think the honourable member referred to the 2007-08 audits. In reviewing those actions, it was noted that the department had received audit reports related to the BHP Billiton and OneSteel manufacturing 2007-08 mining returns and that audit reports related to the 2008-09 mining returns had been requested.

The independent audit report for BHP Billiton's Olympic Dam found that no exceptions were identified in the royalty return calculations. The royalty calculations were completed in accordance with the Roxby Downs Indenture Act 1982 and the Mining Act 1971. The independent audit for OneSteel, Whyalla, which is also covered by an indenture, did not identify any significant findings in the royalty calculations. PIRSA has requested that OneSteel pay an additional royalty of $217,540 and to implement the improvement opportunities identified in the audit.

In summary, the government still ensures that the royalties due are paid under those two indenture acts, as well as generally by other operations under the Mining Act and, similarly, the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Act. In relation to the future of Olympic Dam, the negotiations on the appropriate level of royalties will be discussed, along with all of the other matters that need to be discussed with BHP in relation to a future indenture. Obviously, the government will be looking at the bottom line for the operation. Clearly, it is not just a question of the royalty returned to the state but also a question of how much employment is generated in the state—it is a matter of all of the other costs and benefits that will come out of that project. It is all part of that one big equation that will be negotiated by the government and, hopefully, that will be made clear some time in 2010.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have asked two small questions on minerals. I am mindful that other members have questions they would like to ask. However, I have one question I want to put on notice in relation to small business. I refer to page 1,436 of the Auditor-General' Report. In relation to the Department of Trade and Economic Development, it lists the activities of the department, and activity seven relates to small business growth. How many employees are dedicated to that activity and what was the expenditure in 2008-09? According to the 2008 small business statement, only 2 per cent of Business SA's 2008 survey had engaged with their local BECs, and many of that group were dissatisfied with the communications.

Given that 95 per cent of the approximately 145,000 South Australian businesses are classified as small businesses, how is this activity effectively and efficiently marketing small business support services? Finally, how is the government assisting small and medium enterprises in having a fair go in bidding for state government contracts, particularly for major developments?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I will take that on notice.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I refer to the Agency Audit Reports Volume I, page 127, which relates to activities of the Attorney-General's Department, activity 11 being Consumer and Business Affairs. I understand that the federal parliament has now passed Australian consumer laws which will take over some of the responsibilities that have been the responsibility of state jurisdictions. Is there any requirement for the South Australian parliament to repeal its laws in relation to any of the mortgage broking or consumer credit laws, for instance?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: States and territories have agreed to refer our credit powers to the commonwealth. I am not able to outline exactly what that entails in terms of our current legislation, but obviously we have state legislation in place and I suspect that that would have to be repealed once we refer powers to the commonwealth. However, I will check that and bring back a response.

This is an attempt to coordinate powers around the nation. Each jurisdiction currently has its own credit legislation and there are some differences across jurisdictions. As part of the COAG agenda we are seeking to bring in a nationally consistent approach to credit legislation. As I said, I am aware that we are referring our powers to the commonwealth and I imagine that in light of that we would have to repeal our state legislation.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: On the same reference, I also refer to what is probably best described as a communiqué issued by the Hon. Chris Bowen. He referred to the matter I just raised, but he also referred to home builders warranty insurance, a topic on which I have received correspondence from particular builders in Victoria and New South Wales. The communiqué refers to reforms based on a more harmonised approach to consumer protection. Can the minister outline whether home builders warranty insurance has been an issue for OCBA here and, if so, whether there are any plans to introduce changes to it?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Again, an approach to nationally harmonising consumer legislation is also part of the COAG agenda, and states are seeking to ensure that we have consistent legislation throughout the nation, making it a far simpler and more consistent approach. I am not sure of the status of home builders warranty insurance under these reforms, but I am happy to take that question on notice and bring back a response.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: My questions are referred, and will be directed through the minister to the Minister for Families and Communities. I refer to Volume IV, page 1176, and the rental operations of the South Australian Housing Trust. The Auditor-General's Report states that the South Australian Housing Trust had a vacancy rate of 2 per cent in 2008-09. In relation to that reference, what is the average length of time that a property is vacant? Of the properties currently vacant, what is the longest period that a Housing Trust property has been vacant? What are the average waiting times for clients in each of the Housing Trust's priority categories?

My next questions refer to Volume II, page 459, and the reference to unexpended funding commitments. Is the reference to case management systems a reference to the C3MS system? If so, how much has the department spent on C3MS to date and how much more is expected to be expended? To how many sites has C3MS been rolled out, and how many of these sites currently have work bans in place in relation to the use of C3MS?

When is the roll out of C3MS expected to be completed? In light of the concerns raised by the Public Service Association and its worksite representatives, what level of additional costs will be incurred to address the issues raised by the PSA in regard to the C3MS system, and what is the government's view as to the long-term suitability of C3MS for both initial receipt and actioning of issues and for ongoing case management?

I refer to Volume IV, page 1176, and to the rental operations of the South Australian Housing Trust. The Auditor-General's Report states that the level of housing stock, excluding unlettable properties, was 45,103, a 2 per cent decrease from the previous financial year. In that regard I ask: in total, how many properties did the Housing Trust sell in 2008-09, where were those properties located and how many of those properties were sold or transferred to Housing SA clients? Lastly, how many unlettable properties does the Housing Trust currently hold?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I thank the honourable member for his questions and will refer them to the relevant ministers in another place and bring back a response.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I refer to Volume I, part B, agency audit reports and activities of the Attorney-General's Department, activity 13, Office for Women on page 127, and refer to some of the minister's comments in the estimates committee this year, wherein she stated that the Premier's Council for Women is focusing on two areas: first, women's economic status; and, secondly, women's health, safety and well-being. She mentioned that Professor Barbara Pocock is conducting a research project on women's economic status in South Australia. Will the minister advise on the progress of that report, whether it has been published and whether she has an indication of the findings?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I thank the honourable member for her question. Professor Barbara Pocock's report, Working Women in South Australia: Progress, Prospects and Challenges, has been released. I assume that is the report to which the honourable member refers. Professor Pocock is the director of the Centre for Work + Life at the University of South Australia and has done extensive study and is renowned for her knowledge on this topic. The report builds on other research done about the participation of women in the paid workforce in South Australia, and I am advised that for the past three years women have participated in VET courses at a higher rate than men, which is interesting. I understand that women also complete more university education than do men, so one could say that we are better qualified than men.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The honourable member is right: there is still a significant income differential. The Premier's Council for Women is to be commended for commissioning this important research. The research, as well as work done previously by the Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology, will provide a foundation for the development of the women's employment strategy.

I met recently with minister O'Brien to discuss the development of that strategy. It is anticipated that there needs to be significant cross agency involvement in that, considering the areas it covers. Obviously we would want that to focus on achievable outcomes relating to work/life balance, women's participation in non-traditional industries, flexible work arrangements and reskilling and upskilling of women seeking to participate in the paid workforce. That report has been released and will inform our policy development and program strategies in future.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Will the minister advise, following this line of questioning, whether that report is feeding into any training of women in the public sector, with a view to advancing them into more senior management positions?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It needs to be a multi-agency approach because of the scope of policy these issues cut across. It is not just training and education but also areas to do with industrial relations, such as workplace conditions and improving workplace flexibility. It cuts across a number of agencies, and obviously they all need to be involved in the way we input into and develop our future programs for women, including training and education.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: On the same volume reference, the second area the Premier's Council for Women focuses on is women's health, safety and well-being. The minister mentioned in estimates that the Premier's Council for Women meets with minister Hill to address emerging women's health issues. Will the minister provide more details on what emerging health issues have been identified by the Premier's Council for Women?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: My understanding of the work that has been done in relation to the Premier's Council for Women is that it does meet reasonably regularly with the health agency and that it has a position on and provides input into the Women's Health Action Plan Steering Committee. The council feeds in that way and continues to advocate that health policy. Implementation strategies should continue to be viewed through a gendered lens in order to best address women's health needs.

The council closely monitors the development of that Women's' Health Action Plan through that position in particular. The other thing in which the Premier's council is actively involved is promoting gender disaggregation of the South Australian Strategic Plan target data and implementing strategies to ensure its disaggregated status so that we are better able to see the way in which our policy impacts on women in particular.

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes the examination of the Auditor-General’s Report.