Auditor General's Report

Auditor-General's Report

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (15:36): I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended as to enable the report of the Auditor-General for the year ended 30 June 2015 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. A.L. McLACHLAN: My questions are directed to the Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills. I refer the minister to the Department of State Development, Part B, page 502. There is a reference at the bottom of page 502, which states:

The absence of documented approval for the subsidy rates paid to registered training providers increases the risk that inaccurate payments are made to training providers.

Why is this the case and are you aware of any incorrect payments occurring because of this? If so, how many and what is the value?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that we undertake an annual data reconciliation on all the payments we make, thus ensuring the accuracy of our data. The Auditor-General has made an unqualified opinion in relation to these matters, thereby indicating that our data is accurate.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: What measures have been taken to mitigate the risk that has been identified in the approval of the subsidy base rates?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that, generally, we have systems and controls in place. We also have policies and procedures which assist officers to guide the process and ensure consistency, thus mitigating the possibility of inaccuracies.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: I refer to Part B, page 503, the Department of State Development, and changes in training activity data. The Auditor found that DSD did not have a documented policy or procedure about the production and review of the claims payments and reconciliation reports. As a result, there is a risk that invalid payments may not be detected in a timely manner. My questions to the minister are:

1. If invalid payments still occur under DSD, as it was with DFEEST, how often does it happen?

2. Has this been audited by the department; if so, when did the audit occur?

3. Has the department sought to recover funds incorrectly claimed; if so, when did this take place?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The answer is similar to that I gave previously to the Hon. Andrew McLachlan in relation to the auditing. We have an annual data reconciliation on all payments we make, thus ensuring the accuracy of the data. In addition the Auditor-General gave an unqualified opinion, which indicates that the data for this period is correct. I am further advised that as part of the procedures and policies we have in place, where we do find that an invalid payment may have been made we inform the provider and negotiate repayment at that time.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Supplementary: the minister has responded twice by referring to the fact that the Auditor-General has provided an unqualified opinion. Can the minister indicate that when the Auditor-General provides an unqualified opinion that does not necessarily mean there have not been examples of overpayments, underpayments or mispayments? It just basically says, in the end, that there is an unqualified opinion in terms of the overall accounts.

Can I just clarify that, if the minister is going to respond generally to the issue that there is an unqualified audit report—we can acknowledge that—is the minister claiming that, as a result, therefore it means there is no example and the Auditor has not established any example of either overpayments or mispayments in relation to these particular issues?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I thank the honourable member for his question. I refer to the Auditor-General's unqualified opinion simply to indicate that the financials are materially correct and can be relied upon to be accurate and that what we have reported is correct. That is all it means. It does not mean that there are not individual instances of overpayments or underpayments and I have already indicated the process we undertake to rectify that when those are found.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Supplementary: having established that—and that is, indeed, an accurate summation of the information—when questions are asked about the level of incorrect payments, abuse of purchase cards or things like that, we can understand that there will be an overall unqualified report from the Auditor-General. What the opposition is seeking are the details of the mistakes that are made along the way, whilst acknowledging that there might be an overall unqualified report. There are a series of questions in relation to what the Auditor has raised about purchase cards and a variety of other things that will come along. We are seeking the details of those, not just a recitation of the fact that there is an unqualified report.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: You are wasting our time.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. J.S. LEE: Supplementary: on the changes in training activity data, when the Auditor found that the former DFEEST did not have a documented policy or procedure—

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Can you refer to—

The Hon. J.S. LEE: Page 503, on the same page, changes in training activity data.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes, thank you.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: It was stated there that the former DFEEST did not have a documented policy or procedure in place. The third paragraph also stated that DSD did not have a documented policy or procedure in place. Can the minister confirm that this is the case and that there are no documented procedures at all?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I thank the Hon. Jing Lee for her question. I am advised that at the time, the period that the Hon. Jing Lee is referring to, there were work procedures in place. There was documentation in place, but it was not a formal policy and procedure. So it was not of the rigour that is required to the standard of the Auditor-General. I am advised that since then a formal policy procedure has in fact been put in place.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: I refer to part B, page 504, Training Agreements. It was noted that a number of private training providers had not submitted student agreements to DSD. In each instance, DSD had, however, made a payment to the training provider for the training delivered to that student. What audit has been done in these instances? How many cases were reported when invalid payments happened?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The audit has requested that DSD ensure private training providers submit student agreements in compliance with the minister's contractual terms. DSD investigates ways to ensure that all TAFE SA students have also fulfilled those requirements. The failure of a training provider to provide a student agreement for a particular student does not equate to failure of the training provider to deliver training to the student. Compliance monitoring always reviews whether student agreements have been provided as required under the contract.

Future system capability targeting to completion in June 2016 will require training providers to load a student agreement to a student profile and/or subsequent training account, the intention being that failure to provide the participant agreement will not allow the training provider to make a valid claim. In the interim, when student agreements are not provided, the training provider is required to take steps to obtain the student agreement if possible and provide to Skills SA evidence of the student's existence and evidence of the delivery of training to the students. We do not have the numbers; I do not have that level of detail.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: I refer to part B, page 506 on purchase cards. It was found that DSD policies for purchase card use are not followed. There is an increased risk of inappropriate purchase card expenditure. Can the minister indicate how many occurrences of noncompliance have been made to how many different cardholders, what amount of expenses has been recorded, and how many DSD staff hold such purchase cards? What are the consequences for staff when they inappropriately use a purchase card, and how many staff have had recovery of funds sought from them if they misuse the purchase card?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The Auditor-General's report did raise a number of control findings relating to payroll expenditure on purchase cards. These were largely due to the machinery of government changes that were made during that time and represent transitional issues. The issues, I am advised, were extremely minor in nature and do not have an impact on the accuracy of the financial reports. This is supported by the unmodified audit opinion provided over the department's financial statements. All issues that were identified are being addressed and the department will continue to review and harmonise policies and procedures during the course of the year. I do not have the actual numbers; I do not have that level of detail.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I refer to the Department of State Development, part B, page 509. The Auditor notes the grants to TAFE SA of $68 million. What is covered by these grants, and in particular how do these grants relate to subsidised training funding?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the DSD provides several types of grants or subsidies to TAFE SA. There is the vocational education training funding relating primarily to Skills for All subsidies. TAFE SA delivered 12.4 million payment hours in 2013-14, including 0.7 million hours delivered above TAFE's funding cap, and 10.7 million payment hours in 2014-15. There is also the structural adjustment funding that provides TAFE with once-off or time-limited funding to assist with its transition towards a more competitive environment, so it is able to compete in a more open market.

Community services funding is another grant that supports TAFE SA to provide services to the community, including VET in schools, auspicing Aboriginal access centres and support to APY lands. There is also capital funding that provides funding for agreed capital projects, primarily plant and equipment and information system projects, and other funding, which relates to employment programs. There is other funding for some minor programs, and that is it.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the minister for the detail. You mentioned that elements reflected in the table are components of the $68 million mentioned in paragraph 2. Do I take it that all of the structural adjustment funding for 2015 of $44 million, all of the community service obligation funding of $16 million, and the capital funding is all to TAFE correlate?

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

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Can the minister explain what the $2 million of 'other' is at the bottom of the table?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: That is what I referred to as the employment programs and other minor programs, mainly targeted at the unemployed.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the minister for the detail. On behalf of the Hon. Jing Lee, could I also seek an undertaking for the detail in relation to her series of questions in due course?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that that information can be made available.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Thank you, minister. Again on the table on page 509, it shows that VET funding from 2014 to 2015 has decreased in the order of $32 million. Could the minister explain the context for this? Is this less funding for courses or less business attracted by TAFE compared to private RTOs or the like?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that the decrease of $32 million to VET funding was predominantly due to the implementation of budget containment measures, including the reduction in subsidy prices, capping courses and restricting eligibility for new students. That was in line with our policy strategy to better target training to real employment outcomes and to better employment outcomes to improve employability outcomes.

It also put a greater focus on that training that was identified as a priority by industry and looked at what employment requirements were in terms of employment entry qualifications. Rather than subsidising 10 cert. IIs, none of which particularly related to a job outcome, this was relating with focused attention on those training outcomes that are needed by industry for people to actually enter employment and gain employment entry qualifications.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: I refer to DSD, Part B, page 510 and the first dot point under Revenues, which reads 'infrastructure recharges from TAFE SA of $24 million, paid to reflect TAFE SA's use of the Department's assets to deliver training'. My questions to the minister are: what particular assets does this amount relate to in terms of the use of the department's assets; and what does it cost to administer this $24 million?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I thank the member for her question. The government owns, or I own, the infrastructure assets that TAFE occupies. TAFE SA is not the owner of that capital infrastructure: I own it. That $24 million represents the rental charge that the government charges TAFE to use our buildings. I do not know the admin costs; I do not have that detail.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: Supplementary, Chair: is the training infrastructure referred to equipment or buildings? Are private RTOs given the same opportunity to use the department's assets? Is TAFE charged at a market rate for using the department's assets or a special rate that is different from private RTOs?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that, in relation to the assets, it is fundamentally buildings that I own and that we lease to TAFE SA. I am advised that TAFE SA does sublet some of those buildings to other organisations, for instance, councils, and some of those are also private RTOs. I am advised that the rate at which they sublet varies in that some of it is at market rate, some of it is not. I am also advised that those sublets are short-term leases only, except if they are approved by me.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: I refer to page 511, Part B, Skills for All and WorkReady. The last paragraph states:

The state government has allocated approximately 90 per cent of new subsidised training places for 2015-16 to TAFE SA.

Can the minister advise the committee the date when the allocation was completed or decided?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Are you asking for the date that the government made a policy decision to allocate the 90 per cent share?

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: Yes. When was the allocation completed or decided?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The allocation has not been completed. When it is completed, it will be allocated over the year. Are you asking the—

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: No. Let's start with the policy decision.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I thank the member for his question. I am advised that I do not have the exact date, but that policy decision was made just prior to the announcement of our WorkReady policy. It was reached at a point in time when we were aware of all of the parameters impacting on this year's training such as the figures for the number of continuing students—we call it the pipeline effect.

When those figures came in, I can recall how surprised I was that our training system was still very much impacted on by the additional funding that we had from students in year 12 or 13 when additional funds were put in to meet our 100,000 additional training positions. Obviously, people moved into that space and the participation rate increased significantly and enrolments increased significantly. Of course, even though the funding had been spent and we were contracting back to pre Skills for All funding allocations nevertheless the whole VET system was still very much full of students who had enrolled with the additional money and, obviously, we were going to honour their continuing training. Once we had all of those pipeline figures and other budget parameters in place, we then realised that we needed to set for this financial year only the new subsidised training funding at 90 per cent for TAFE.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: I would ask the minister to take on notice and subsequently provide an answer to the committee on when that date was, that decision point, and advise the chamber. Minister, I assume that this decision is going to be on an annual basis on the number of subsidised training places, is that correct?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes, I am advised that we will be setting those parameters every 12 months. We set them for a six-month period at a time and then have a second round about halfway through the year, and work is continuing by TASC which I have reported on in this place before—the work undertaken by TASC to continue to refine the subsidised training list in line with industry needs and priorities.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: Given the ongoing six-monthly setting of subsidised training places, what is the expectation of the government that it will ultimately achieve a competitive training market as indicated in that paragraph on page 511?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have reported at length on this in this place, but I am happy to do so again. As indicated previously, I talked about the impact of the additional training funding on enrolments—the pipeline effect, if you like. We had large numbers of students in the system employed when there was additional funds and we are, obviously, going to honour their training contracts to completion.

Given the changes in our budget parameters over the forward estimates, and given that I had said to them that the increased subsidies that we paid out to TAFE for some of their training was at a much more costly rate—in some cases, not all, but in some cases—than other private providers, I indicated to TAFE that that differential was not going to continue after the end of the financial year 2018-19.

I had said to them that they had to get their house in order so that they could operate, in terms of the commercial training component of their activity, on par with private training providers so that that additional subsidy—that differential—would no longer be paid to them after that point in time. They went away and did a plan in terms of how they could achieve that. They brought the implications of that plan to me and indicated to me the level of training that they were going to need to be able to work their way through to create a more sustainable training environment.

They have since released the reforms that they have announced, and I will not go into length here, but I have talked about it at considerable length in this place before. So, fundamentally, they are on notice that it has to be a level playing field in relation to commercial training activities by 2018-19 and, therefore, vie with other training providers in an open market.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: A question regarding the Change@SouthAustralia 90 day projects to improve the number of people with disabilities employed in the public sector. Is it reasonable for the project—

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Hon. Kelly Vincent, can you please refer to what section of the report you are referring to?

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I was about to do that. This is page 32 of the Executive Summary, Part A, Change@SouthAustralia 90 day projects.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: That is DSD, sorry, minister Close.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Perhaps you can refer the question.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: No, minister Close is—

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Yes, but you represent her.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Okay, I am happy to refer it to her.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: How is it reasonable for the projects to be labelled as '…assessed as a success in line with project aims' in light of the fact that the 90 day projects resulted in only eight additional positions in the public sector for people with disability; and was a target set for the number of employment positions this project should open up?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I will refer that to minister Close.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I have one more. Just to clarify, before I ask, this is about the courts renewal procurement. Are you happy to take that one, Gail?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes I will refer it.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: This is from Part A of the Executive Summary, page 27. What is the final cost of the discontinued procurement process for the new courts precinct; and what plans does the government now have to replace the existing courts infrastructure?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I will refer that to the Attorney-General in another place.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: I refer to Part B, Environment Water and Natural Resources, page 134, Purchase cards. Firstly can the minister provide any detail on the number or nature of transactions made on purchase cards which were found to have not complied with the department's purchase card policy? He may wish to also apply himself to the value of the transactions made for entertainment expenses for which a lack of supporting documentation was observed, and the actual notes for these transactions.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that there were nine transactions on purchase cards that were not in accordance with the instructions that relate to that. Of those, five were technical in nature. My advice is that the sort of problem with those was, for example, that they had an attached invoice or they had not applied for an increase in their credit limit. Three instances were determined to not be misuse and, by my calculation, that leaves one. I am advised that with the further one, which takes us up to nine, the Auditor-General, on further examination, agreed that it was not an example of misuse.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: Just as a supplementary, I am not sure that there was a value; did you give us an overall value of those transactions?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I do not seem to have that information at hand, so I will take that on notice for the honourable member.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: Also in Part B, page 134, Revenue—Tenancies and Billing System, can the minister confirm the number of properties owned and leased out by DEWNR and can he provide a list of these properties? That may need to be done on notice. This may also need to be on notice: what is the total value of the lease income earned from those properties?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I thank the honourable member for his questions. That is a difficult question for us. I might invite the honourable member to come back with a bit more detail in terms of what he is actually seeking. We have, of course, in DEWNR, crown ownership, pastoral leases, crown land, allotted and unallotted. Is the honourable member thinking just of buildings that are leased out to organisations?

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: It is certainly not the intention to go into pastoral leases, and I apologise for the lack of clarification. Certainly it is about properties and buildings, rather than anything that is on leasehold or crown land.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: On that clarification, I am happy to seek a response for the honourable member and bring it back.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: In Part B, page 137, under the natural resources management regional integration section, in relation to the machinery of government changes described and the transition of administrative arrangements, will the minister confirm whether the NRM boards are being charged a fee for corporate services by DEWNR and, if so, the value of these fees and the means by which they are calculated?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that we are still finalising the corporate services delivery model and we are still finalising the costs that will be apportioned to each board. However, to give the honourable member and the chamber some understanding of the services that are provided and that will be charged to the board, they comprise normal business services such as IT, finance, human resources and fleet.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: I thank the minister for that. In relation to Part B, page 141, Natural Resources Management Boards and the Natural Resources Management Fund, can the minister outline the budgeted value of water levies to be collected in 2015-16?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Again, I need to seek some clarification from the honourable member. Is he asking what is the amount to be recovered by the department from the NRM boards in terms of water planning and management or is he after the total cost of the water levies apportioned across all NRM boards?

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: Those to be collected from the NRM boards that are covered by that element of it.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I am advised that the department currently collects water levies on behalf of six of the eight NRM management boards. The two exclusions are the AW and KI boards; they have no prescribed water resources. Under the Natural Resources Management Act 2004 the payment of water levies to the NRM boards must be processed by the NRM fund. The payments are made via the NRM fund only when the NRM water levy invoices have been paid and the cash received by DEWNR.

For the 2014-15 financial year the total amount of water levies collected and paid out to the NRM boards, excluding penalties, was $12.947 million. I can give the honourable member a breakdown of that, as well: for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board it was $1,567,365; for Eyre Peninsula it was $435,418; for Northern and Yorke it was $86,126; for SA Arid Lands it was $898,006; for SA Murray Darling Basin it was $6,996,627; and for the South-East it was $2,963,150. Hopefully, that all adds up to $12.947 million.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: A couple of very quick questions before I handball over to my colleague, the Hon. Mr Stephens, to take over. On page 139 of Part B, under expenses there is a reference to 172 staff accepting targeted voluntary separation package payments in the prior year, of which a material number were management positions. Can the minister inform the house how many of those were management positions? In other words, what is the material number?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I am advised that this is also a complicated question which I will take on notice, but to give the chamber a little flavour of the issue, it is not necessarily that the highest paid of the TVSPs will be management positions. Of course, if someone is working in a lower position but for 20 years, their payout could be substantially more than a manager who was working for, say, two or three years and took a TVSP. However, we will undertake to try our best to get that information for the honourable member.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: In reference to the Appendix to the Annual Report, Volume 5, page 217, grants and subsidies, in the 2014-2015 budget, the government's Our Jobs plan had a budget of $6.1 million in 2013-14 and $15.9 million in 2014-15 to revitalise and rebuild the state economy following the decision by GM Holden to close their vehicle manufacturing operations. Can the minister advise how much of the $22 million allocated to revitalise and rebuild the state economy was spent in the first two years of this plan?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question and advise that we will take it on notice and get back to you. We do not have the exact details.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: Just following on from that, if you have not spent the allocated amount, will you please explain why the department failed to spend the allocated amount given the jobs crisis we have at the moment? My next question refers to the Appendix to the Annual Report, Volume 5, page 217, grants and subsidies. Was the budget of $1.3 million for the Automotive Supplier Diversification Program and $1.2 million for the Retooling for Diversification Program exhausted in 2014-15 as per the original allocation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, in the supplier diversification program the total funds were not expended in that year. We have made changes to a number of the programs that assist the automotive industry. Originally, most of the programs had a requirement of a 40 per cent exposure to the automotive industry. We have lowered that recently to 20 per cent to allow more companies to be included and apply for many of the automotive programs.

In addition, we are finding that there are a lot of companies that our automotive team visit that are just now starting to consider their future. We are seeing a lot more turn their mind to making a transition and we are seeing a lot more applications, but in that particular program they were not expended. I can get the exact details, as with the last question, of the exact amount that was underspent and bring that back.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: Just following on from that, can you provide the house with a guarantee that all of the $60 million funding for the government's jobs plan will be spent as promised?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can assure the honourable member that we will spend money we have in the best possible way that we can to ensure that jobs, in particular manufacturing jobs, in South Australia have the best possible chance.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I refer to the Appendix to the Annual Report, Volume 5, page 238, TVSPs and Early Terminations. Why did the two most senior public officials in the Department of State Development for automotive transformation, Mr Len Piro, who was the chief executive of the Automotive Transformation Task Force, and Phil Tyler, the director of automotive transformation, resign on the same day?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There were changes within the department, changes to better align the task force with the challenges ahead. I am advised that the two individuals you mentioned had decided that that time would be a time for them to seek different opportunities or retire.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: Are you concerned that the two very senior officials for automotive transformation, with vast responsibilities and experience, resigned, or were offered in fact TVSPs, in the midst of a major restructure in this particular sector?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I would be concerned if we were not doing everything we can to meet the challenges that we face. I am very grateful for the advice that the chair, Greg Combet, is providing and how we are travelling with meeting the very significant challenges and also some of the opportunities as we transition out of the manufacturing that we have done for over half a century, with the closure of Holden towards the end of 2017. I am pleased that the department is adapting, that programs are adapting to meet the challenges that we face.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: Can you let us know if both of those gentlemen received termination payments?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am not the lead minister for DSD and do not have responsibility for employment matters, but I can seek some information and bring that back.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I appreciate that. I would like to know if they received TVSPs and the actual dollar amount. How has the government replaced the duties of Mr Piro and Mr Tyler since their resignations in September?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: What page are you referring to?

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: Volume 5, page 238, TVSPs and Early Terminations.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I don't understand your question.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: My question is: has the government replaced the duties of Mr Piro and Mr Tyler since their resignations in September? Again, I refer to—

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: They are out of order. These questions do not pertain to the Auditor's report; they are out of order.

The CHAIR: You don't think they relate to the Auditor's report?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: No.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: In my view, Chair, they do.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: They are not referred to in the report, sir. They are—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: TVSPs are.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes, but his question was not whether he got a TVSP or not. That was not the question. The Hon. Terry Stephens' question goes way beyond that and it is outside of the report.

The CHAIR: Do you want to move on to another question, the Hon. Mr Stephens?

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: According to the feedback received by the PSA, DSD members have expressed concern about the future and about overwork due to TVSPs—

The CHAIR: What reference?

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: So do you want me to go back to: Vol. 5, page 238, TVSPs and Early Terminations. They have expressed concern about the future and about overwork due to TVSPs being approved and that morale is generally low. Is this the feedback the minister is receiving, and what is the minister doing to address these particular concerns?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, I am not sure of the relevance to the Auditor-General's Report, but I am happy to entertain the questions. I indicate again that I am not the lead minister for DSD, but I can see whether there is an answer to those questions and, if there is, bring back a reply.

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