Auditor-General's Report

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (15:30): I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended as to enable the report of the Auditor-General for the year ended 30 June 2011 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. D.W. RIDGWAY: I refer to the Auditor-General's Report 2011, Volume 4, page 1,426, DTED regional development financial assistance grants:

Grant recipients must fulfil certain obligations specified in the grant agreements...Last year's audit noted a large backlog in overdue obligations...At 30 June 2011 there were 44 with 13 being over 60 days late.

Can the minister advise what action the department is taking to ensure that the backlog of obligations is being processed and, indeed, make certain that all obligations are met within time frames as per the funding criteria?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the department recognises the importance of monitoring outstanding obligations and it reports on obligations outstanding for more than 60 days to the department's Budget and Finance Executive Committee on a monthly basis. The date that grant obligations are recognised is the period end date for which the obligation relates, unless specified otherwise in the agreement. For example, a report due for the year ending 30 June 2010 would be due on 30 June 2010 unless specified otherwise. The department will therefore always have outstanding obligations. For this reason, the department reports on and monitors obligations outstanding for more than 60 days.

As at 30 June 2011, the department has reduced the number of obligations outstanding to 44, 13 of which are greater than 60 days, and continues to follow up all outstanding obligations. The 13 obligations greater than 60 days relate to four progress reports. One of the projects has since been terminated, with a repayment invoice being issued.

Seven annual reports relate to a review of performance, which is currently in draft, and negotiations are continuing with the review consultant to finalise. A final report relates to a regional project, which is currently under negotiation with the business unit to finalise, and one acquittal relates to the sponsorship with the university.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: You have given reasons why they are outstanding, but have you taken any action to reduce the number of obligations that are going beyond their time frame and still outstanding?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: We attempt to follow up each and every one of them, and I have given an outline of some of the circumstances surrounding some of them being late and what action has been taken.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: My next question relates to Volume 4, page 1427. The net cost of providing services fell by $9 million in the 2010-11 year due to decreases such as $2 million in grants and subsidies, reflecting lower than anticipated implementation of some grant programs intended to develop businesses in the Riverland and industries in the state. Can the minister provide an update on the allocation of regional development funding, including the Riverland Sustainable Futures Fund, the Regional Development Infrastructure Fund and the Enterprise Zone Fund?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the Regional Development Infrastructure Fund (RDIF), the Riverland Sustainable Futures Fund (RSFF) and the Upper Spencer Gulf and Outback Enterprise Zone Fund programs are structured to assist sustainable economic development in South Australia's regions through leveraging investment in regional projects by providing up to 50 per cent of eligible project costs.

There was a delayed start in the futures fund program as a result of the timing of the state budget (September 2010) and the former DTED restructure (January 2011), arising from savings identified by the Sustainable Budget Commission as well as changes in ministerial responsibilities. There were also issues around finishing the prospectus, as well as the road map, which, as I have said in this place before, provide the framework to help guide and inform people in terms of suitable projects going forward. All those things had to be completed as well.

However, since these delays, a number of projects have been approved: in March $620,000 to AgriExchange; in May, $447,500 to Island Fresh; June, $250,000 to GMA Engineering; September, $245,000 to Biological Services; and October, $499,500 to Red Earth Farms. There is a significant lead time in relation to fund acquittals for projects, as payment to project proponents is made upon completion of elements of the project. In some cases that can take up to several months, and I am advised that proponents cannot always meet their time frames and require additional time as well.

The RDA is responsible for assisting the government's implementation of the Riverland Regional Prospectus at the local level and for assisting prospective applicants to develop proposals, and the RDA has been supported with new funding to fulfil that role in addition to the significant funding support it receives from three levels of government. All underspends from the futures fund have been approved as carryovers in the forward estimates, ensuring that the election commitment is maintained over the forward estimates period.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The minister has outlined reasons why the net cost of providing services fell by $9 million. Are we likely to see an improvement or an increase in spending now that we do not have the restructures and all the other issues she has raised?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: As I have indicated, there were a number of factors operating, some of which we have control over and some we do not. Certainly, with the reset of the forward estimates, our plan is to achieve that. As I also indicated, there are elements when a proponent is, for whatever reason (it might rain, it might not rain), not able to fulfil their time frames and that throws their project out. Obviously we cannot control that, and we are not likely to withhold any further funding just because their project is delayed a little. Certainly, though, our aim is to meet those deadlines wherever we possibly can.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I refer again to Volume 4, page 144, and commonwealth funding to the RDAs. Can the minister provide an update on the status of commonwealth funding to RDAs in South Australia and outline what representation she has made to the federal government, especially the federal minister for regional development? That is the last regional development question I have.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I did provide a lot of information yesterday on round 2 but I am happy to provide that again in just a moment.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I only have one question on tourism. Unfortunately, the Hon. Terry Stephens, our shadow minister, is absent this afternoon due to illness, but I do have one question that I would like to ask. It refers to page 1337, point 29, Disclosure of administered items. The report shows that the SA Visitor and Travel Centre did not return a profit when it was under government administration, yet the government has made it clear that it was crucial to tourism operators in securing bookings. Now that the centre is privately run and, therefore, must turn a profit to remain viable, can the government guarantee that all operators are being served fairly and equally?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that, yes, you can be reassured that fair treatment is being assured by SATC. It ensures that fairness by overseeing that conditions are in place between the licensees and operators.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: So are you saying that the centre can turn a profit without the use of preferential agreements and commissions from tour operators?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the short answer is yes. It is a commercial operation but, as I have outlined, the fairness to operators is ensured through agreement between the licensee, which is Holidays of Australia, and operators.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Was the guarantee of fairness a condition of the contract with Holidays of Australia?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Obviously the details about the contract are commercial-in-confidence but I have been advised that there is a provision in the contract that looks to keep commissions at market value.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: That is the end of the tourism question.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The next is PIRSA. In relation to the RDAs, I have been advised that Simon Crean will launch round 2 of RDAF funding, providing a further $200 million to support priority projects in regional Australia. They received constructive feedback from local government not-for-profit RDAs following round 1 of the RDAF, and also the state government provided some feedback as well. They have revised and refined the guidelines to encourage stronger investment-ready applications that have a clear benefit to the region. The key changes to the guidelines include:

a two-stage application and assessment process, including a short-paper expression of interest;

a stronger role for Regional Development Australia committees;

applicants can submit one EOI and application for a single project;

a maximum grant of $15 million;

preference for applicants to demonstrate a partnership funding of one-to-one for grant requests of $5 million and less and at least a 50 per cent partnership funding must be reached; and

not-for-profit organisations must have a minimal annual income of $1.5 million.

I know it is a favourite of a number of members in this place, because they have raised concerns about this previously, and that is projects located in capital cities must demonstrate how the proposed project will benefit the broader region and other parts of regional South Australia. Also included is the provision of guidance on content and mandatory documents, and there is an extensive process, which I have outlined, and it is in yesterday's Hansard.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: I refer to Part B, page 935, under Audit Findings and Comments, Fisheries licensing revenue 2010-11. Audit dot point 1 identified certain reconciliations were not performed on a timely basis. First, what were the consequences of the untimely reconciliations and when will the new procedure be implemented?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that a number of improvements have been put in place. These include the reconciliation process between the Primary Industries Information Management System (PIMS) to Masterpiece accounts receivable system; secondly, the appropriate delegated authority for adjustments to licence invoices; and, thirdly, the independent review of the reconciliation of cash receipts to the revenue system. I have been advised that all these matters have been fully reconciled to date so that there are no outstanding matters.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: Further to that issue, dot point 2 refers to licence invoices being authorised in excess of delegated authority. Were license holders obliged to pay those invoices despite the fact that they were not properly authorised and have proper authorisations since been given?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that PIRSA certainly has addressed the issues to deal with the authorisation of delegations and strengthening the current control arrangements with updated procedures and has already amended authorised delegation limits to correspond with current business requirements. And, yes, they will still be required to pay those accounts.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: In relation to dot point 3, have the cash receipts for the revenue system that were not properly reviewed since had proper scrutiny? Were any serious anomalies found and, if so, what were they and how were they addressed?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The answer to the first question is yes, and the short answer to the second part is that, no, there were no significant implications.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: If I can clarify that: there were serious anomalies found?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: No, there were no serious implications found.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: Finally on that matter, will the failure to raise giant crab entitlement fees result in a shortfall of budgeting income for 2011-12 and, if so, by how much?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that Fisheries and Aquaculture will investigate raising the outstanding giant crab fee entitlement for the 2010 financial year, in conjunction with the next year's 2012-13 fees, obviously following extensive industry consultation.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: I will now change tack a little bit. I refer to page 960 and intergovernmental grants and external grants spending on the plague and locust control program of about $1.4 million. In doing so, I also refer to former minister O'Brien's speech in the House of Assembly on 15 September 2010 that $12.8 million would be expended in an emergency response to the largest locust plague in 40 years. Was the $1.4 million the only money spent on the locust intervention?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that in fact we ended up spending $11.5 million on the emergency response to locusts here. Of that, $1.4 million was a series of special grants.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: To clarify that, of the $12.8 million that the minister talked about, $11.5 million was spent?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: Moving on to page 958, given the Auditor-General's ruling has changed from last year regarding executives earning more than $100,000 to now executives earning above $127,500—I understand, minister, if you have to take it on notice—how many employees and what is the breakdown of those within the department earning between $100,000 and $127,499?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I will have to take that on notice and provide an answer in the future.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: Referring to page 959, can the minister detail the two consultancies in 2011 over $50,000 that resulted in $470,000 spent, with information such as who ordered the consultancy, what was the purpose of the consultancy and how much was paid in each instance and, subsequently, who completed the consultancy and has the work produced as a result been released?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the main consultancies during 2010-11 were for two organisational reviews. Namely, the whole-of-PIRSA Nous organisational review, which was $0.309 million, and the Rural Solutions South Australian organisational review of $0.161 million.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: At page 965 there is reference to an increase in doubtful debts. Will the minister detail what that relates to?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the types of matters that doubtful debts could include are, where people just refuse to pay or pay very late (the most obvious), where work that has been undertaken by the agency might be in dispute by the other organisation and the dispute needs to be resolved, and also areas where a company has gone into liquidation.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: Would you clarify at what point a debt becomes doubtful? One understands that you do not expect a debt to be doubtful when you first undertake that matter.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that a doubtful debt exists where the contractual elements have been fulfilled and completed, or our agency believes that it has been fulfilled and completed, and moneys have not been forthcoming within the time period agreed to; also, in the case where a company has gone into liquidation and it is highly unlikely that we will receive those full funds, or perhaps receive only partial funds.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: I have a couple more questions and then I will defer to my leader. In Part B, on page 932 under Audit findings and comments and Expenditure, in the last dot point it says 'delegations of authority were not accurately recorded in Basware'. Has there been a review of transactions processed before the department addressed the matter and, if not, would she explain why not? If so, were any transactions found to be questionable or inappropriately authorised?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the audit identified an instance where the delegations of authority were not accurately recorded in Basware, resulting in an asset purchase exceeding the officer's recorded delegation at that time. In this instance the person had changed to a temporary position to assist in the plague locust emergency response program within PIRSA. The Basware system administrator was not notified in order for the system to be updated to reflect the new arrangement prior to the acquisition. However, since then the matter has been fully and completely resolved, I have been advised.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: Finally, I presume (although I have learnt not to presume things) that what the minister has just said means that this has tightened the delegation process—that is probably the best way of putting it.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The short answer is yes.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have two or three questions on forestry. I refer to Part A, paper 5, under the heading Net lending, first paragraph, last sentence. This point refers to 'expertise required to maximise the realised value of these public assets'. The commentary by the shadow minister was that 'this expertise will come at a substantial cost to taxpayers and does not of itself guarantee a positive outcome'. In referring to the sale of the forestry assets, in the event that a sale is not made, that is, that the government does not reach its reserve price, will the cost of the consultants and other experts engaged to advise the government on the sale process be passed back to the forestry industry in keeping with the government's cost recovery policy?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: That is a matter for the Treasurer, given that he is managing all of those processes. I will refer the matter to the Treasurer and he no doubt will answer if he sees fit.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Could the minister take that on notice and could she also provide the chamber with an answer from the Treasurer on the actual cost of those consultants and experts who are advising the government on the sale? Another question on logging: Part B, page 1088, under Audit findings and comments, Communication of audit matters, paragraph 2. What has been done or is being done to ensure the appropriate documentation of the key control processes for the forest logging system and what has been done or is being done to strengthen controls over the forest logging system payments?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Issues raised by the Auditor-General in relation to the forest logging system are related to documentation of policies and procedures. A program to document the key internal control processes associated with the forest logging system is being implemented and is targeted for completion by May 2012, I am so advised. Payment review and approval process, which was the second issue: the relevant senior managers have been briefed on the need to undertake a broader review of the reasonableness of FLS system payments and those authorisations are to be appropriately dated. I have been advised that this has now been fully implemented.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: They are the only two questions I have on forestry. I have a few questions for the Hon. Russell Wortley on state/local government relations. On page 835, under the heading Expenses, it states:

Grants and subsidies expenses have increased by $1.5 million reflecting increased payments to the Local Government Association in respect of the National Partnership Agreement to support local government and regional development.

Is there any detail on how that $1.5 million was disbursed (or spread) across South Australia, and were any conditions placed on the disbursement to ensure that regions received a fair proportion?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: This money is provided by the federal government to the LGA and the department of local government. The whole idea is to use this money for infrastructure. We could probably provide you with a breakdown and much greater detail, if that is okay. I will make sure you get that as soon as possible.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Flowing on from that, on the same page—that was under the heading Expenses—under the heading Income, it states:

Advances and grants have increased by $1.6 million principally due to increased revenues from the Commonwealth for the National Partnership Agreement to support local government and regional development.

There is a gap of $100,000. Under the heading Expenses it is $1.5 million, reflecting commonwealth payments, and then under Income it is $1.6 million. It seems strange that there is a $100,000 difference.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: My advice is that there are other issues that come into the payments. What we will seek to do is highlight those figures and get them to you as soon as possible.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Just a couple more questions. I refer to page 850, Employee Benefit Expenses. Were any TVSPs allocated to the staff from the Office of State/Local Government Relations and, if so, how many and from which office?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: There was one position and that was for a principal policy officer.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I refer to the table at the bottom of page 850, Remuneration of Employees. Are any staff from the Office for State/Local Government Relations or the Boundary Adjustment Facilitation Panel represented in this table and, if so, how many?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Yes, there is one and it is the director.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have a final question on local government at page 867, Grants and Subsidies. What is the reason for the reduction to the Outback Communities Authority from $779,000 in 2010 to $567,000 in 2011?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: One of the problems we have here is that we have far too much information. We are trying to go through it all. We want to be thorough, so we are going to get that answer for you very shortly.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: If the minister has far too much information, I am happy for him to take this question on notice. Either the head of SafeWork SA or the head of the department would have received management letters during the 12 month financial period from Auditor-General staff which outline the concerns of audit staff about the operations of, I guess, Premier and Cabinet, in particular relating to SafeWork SA. There is a brief reference in the Auditor-General's Report to one of those. Can the minister take on notice what concerns audit staff expressed to the minister's agency and what were the responses from the minister's agency to those concerns?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: SafeWork SA receives revenue from fees associated with licences required under the legislation it administers. Regulations made under the Occupational Health and Safety Welfare Act 1986, the Explosives Act 1936 and the Dangerous Substances Act 1979 allow for licence fees to be levied to duty holders to allow for administration of the licence and verification of compliance with licence conditions.

The Auditor-General has raised the lack of management control over debtor recovery with regard to regulatory revenue. Management control over debtor recovery and improving SafeWork SA's collection processes over outstanding debts is an important consideration for the agency. Notwithstanding the financial implications associated with the outstanding debt, improved debtor recovery and collection processes will improve legislative compliance, helping South Australia meet its Strategic Plan targets, in particular Target 21: Greater Safety at Work—Achieve a 40 per cent reduction by 2012 and a further 50 per cent reduction by 2020.

SafeWork SA has implemented improved business processes to more effectively monitor and manage its debtor recovery and improve its collection processes over outstanding debts. Key processes include:

the revision of standard operating procedures to more clearly define administrative processes for recovery of outstanding debts;

further training for licensing staff;

monthly reporting on outstanding debts;

escalated audit activity by an inspectorate to ensure compliance with licensing requirements; and

an annual review of standard operating procedures for financial transactions of each licence type.

As a result of the Auditor-General's findings, SafeWork SA has undertaken a review of the administrative processes to further improve and enhance its management control procedures for debtor recovery and the collection process over outstanding debts.

Notwithstanding the measures outlined above, as from 1 January 2012 new systems and processes, including smart form technology and notification systems, will be implemented as a result of the introduction of nationally harmonised occupational health and safety laws. It is expected that these new systems and processes will further improve collection processes for outstanding debts.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I understand that, but were there any other issues that audit staff raised in relation to the agency? If there were, is the minister prepared to take on notice what they were and what response the agency made?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I will take that on notice.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: That concludes the questions for the Hon. Mr Wortley. I would like to complete the hour with some questions for the Hon. Mr Hunter. I think we will start with families and communities.

I have some questions provided by the shadow minister in another place. The first refers to page 429 in Volume 2, and identifies that the department has told the Auditor-General that there is a projected shortfall in funding for the new youth training centre at Cavan which may require a change to the project scope or funding arrangements. What is the reason for the projected shortfall?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The reason the scope of works is out is basically because it is a projection at this stage. We are constantly reviewing the scope to bring it back within budget. It is possible, of course, to reduce that if we amend the scope of works.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Has the sale of more land than originally budgeted at Strathmont been looked at as a way of funding this particular shortfall?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Our preference is to bring the budget back into scope, if we can.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The minister says the preference is to bring the project back into scope, so no other options have been considered; it is just to bring it back into scope. If it is out of scope now I assume you have to find somewhere that will do the work at a cheaper price or change the scope of the project.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: As I said, our preference is to bring the scope of works within budget but there is the contingency of land at Strathmont and there is also the contingency of a parcel of land at Cavan, if needed.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Have any of those contingency options been taken to cabinet at this stage?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Obviously, we do not want to comment on cabinet discussions but our preference, as I said earlier, is to bring it back into scope. However, if we do need to look at those contingencies we will obviously take it to cabinet.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am still a bit confused about how you bring it back into scope. Is that to find additional revenue or additional money to come in on budget? Which part of the scoping are you changing—the size of the project or the size of the budget?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I am advised that the budget will stay the same and we will try to bring the project in on budget. That might mean looking at quotes, for example, and pushing them a little harder but there is always the potential of reviewing the scope of works and perhaps going for a different style of fencing or a different quality of fittings.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The next question relates to page 454. There is $194,000 of unspent funding associated with the Magill Training Centre sustainment. What funding was required to repair the damage caused during the riot at Magill in July and did this come from the sustainment program or general maintenance?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: We do not have those figures at this stage so we will have to take it on notice and bring it back to you. In terms of the underspending, it shows that we have not spent that money in the year and we have sought carryover.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: So you are carrying over the $194,000 of unspent funds?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Correct.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: What is the expected date for the shutting down of the Magill centre?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Obviously, the dateline will be pushed back by issues such as the timing of the new build and the time taken to decommission the old site. There will also be time to transition staff and clients. The planned time was July/August of next year but I think I should say that, at this point in time, we are planning for the latter half of the calendar year 2012.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: July/August is clearly in the second half of next year. My reading between the lines, it will be November/December next year. So, in the fourth quarter?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I understand the leader's question. In relation to the issue of decommissioning, there will always be lag in the timing of the transition to the new building. As I said, the projected timing is July/August of next year. Decommissioning will happen some months after that.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Auditor has made a number of comments over a number of years in a row concerning problems with grant payments made by the Department for Families and Communities. Page 419 of Volume 2 identifies instances where payments do not match agreements or were made without the required authority. Who were these payments made to and what amounts were they for?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I am advised that processes and policies are in place to ensure grant payments are made within the required authority and as per the agreement. The risk of error is minimised by having independent officers checking agreements. The Funding Grants Management System holds a record of the total budget awarded to each organisation. The department performs a reconciliation to ensure that the budget existing on 30 June for a particular organisation rolls forward at the same value to commence the new funding year.

In relation to the second part of the question, the department has advised that finance officers sign invoices for payment to indicate services invoiced are in accordance with the contract. It is considered that no further authority is required to make a payment. Audit did not agree with that view as the payment process is a manual process of reviewing invoices to contracts, which requires an informed assessment. The officers should have payment or disbursement delegation, as required by Treasurer's Instruction 8.15. DFC advised its intention to review this approach and, if necessary, provide finance officers with sufficient authority to authorise that payment, and we have now done this.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Page 419 also identifies instances where service agreements were signed significantly after the services commenced. What were these service agreements for?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I am advised that many of the grant agreements funded by the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion are for not-for-profit organisations with limited cash flow. Grant agreements may be the subject of a dispute over pricing and such issues as indexation. The department has procedures in place that allow for payments to be made prior to finalisation of grant agreements if emergencies arise and to ensure that services continue to be delivered to vulnerable clients. Sometimes, the department is in negotiation with NGOs that need to be completed, and we do not want to stop the services they supply to their clients just because of those negotiations. These are usually NGOs the department has a longstanding partnership with, where we have a deal of trust, and they are not considered to be risky procedures at all.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I think this is my final question. The bottom of page 449 refers to consultancy payments. Who were the three payments greater than $50,000 made to and for what services were those payments made?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that consulting payments went to Armstrong Muller Consulting, Hokjok and Woodhead International.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: How much were each of those consultants given, given they were over $50,000? Can the minister give us some details?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Given there is confidentiality around commercial issues in naming individual companies, what I might do instead is provide you with the total expenditure for those three companies, which was $238,741.

The CHAIR: I conclude the examination of the Auditor-General's Report.