Auditor-General's Report

Auditor-General's Report

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (15:29): I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended as to enable the Report of the Auditor-General 2022-23 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's duration.

Motion carried.

In committee.

The CHAIR: I note the absolute majority.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: In the Auditor-General's Report for the year ended 30 June 2023, on page 20 of Part C under Income, it indicates that victims of crime levies increased by $3 million, from $37 million in 2022 to $40 million in 2023, whilst on page 21 under Expenses it indicates that victims of crime payments increased by $33 million, from $17 million in 2022 to $50 million in 2023. Can the minister please advise why there was an increase of $33 million in victims of crime payments?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that the major reason for the very significant increase in expenses in relation to victims of crime payments was in relation to the National Redress Scheme. The sum of $146 million was originally set aside from the Victims of Crime Fund in 2017-18 to meet the anticipated costs of participating in the scheme for South Australia. This money is held by the South Australian Government Financing Authority (SAFA). On top of that, a further $25 million was provided to SAFA in 2022-23, the year in question, to support SA's participation in the scheme, following recent actuarial advice. The $25 million accounts for the very large portion of that increase in that particular year.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Given the payments were $10 million more than the levies in 2023, does the minister expect this increase to continue?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised we are seeing some increase in general payments out of the Victims of Crime Fund, but that increase of $25 million from that year to SAFA for the National Redress Scheme, based on actuarial advice about the claims that are coming in, was a one-off for that year. Of course, if there is further actuarial advice, it will be looked at, but that was advice for what is needed for the scheme. I think it is about 2026 or 2027 that the National Redress Scheme applications go to. If there is further advice that more is needed, that will of course be taken into account. The life of the scheme ends in June 2028.

How actuaries plug the numbers in and get estimates out is something that has always fascinated me, but this is obviously what is estimated the scheme needs up until the end of its life in June 2028, so that is a one-off this year of $25 million. As I said, I understand it is the first additional amount provided since the $146 million for the National Redress Scheme came from the Victims of Crime Fund in 2017-18.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Does the minister think that in years to come their victims of crime payments will need to be increased?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I might just get the member to clarify: is the member asking if we think that the amount of payments in total from the Victims of Crime Fund will increase or that the levies that are applied will need to increase to cover it?

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: The levies.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. My advice is that, like an increase in fees and charges generally, regularly the Victims of Crime levies do go up in accordance with general government fees and charges. I am not in receipt of any advice that suggests it would need to go up in the near future more than that, given that the $25 million, which is half of the money expended that year, is a one-off for the National Redress Scheme.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: In the Auditor-General's Report for the year ended 30 June 2023, under the heading AGD on page 24 of Part C, it states that the Attorney-General has discretion to make an ex gratia payment to a claimant when an offence has not been established. Can the minister advise whether there have been any ex gratia payments made between 2022 and 2023?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. Yes, ex gratia payments from the Victims of Crime Fund have been made. I would need to double-check, but I am guessing that every year attorneys-general have made discretionary payments from the Victims of Crime Fund. I am guessing it would be two or three times a month that a discretionary payment is made. These are often in circumstances where, beyond a victim's control, a prosecution has not occurred. An offender might have died, moved away or, for some other reason, a conviction was not secured.

In my experience, they are often instances of childhood sexual abuse where the discretionary payment is made to the victim. When there has not been a successful prosecution, where, as I have said, the offender cannot be located or has passed away so there is no conviction recorded against the offender, applications are made and a discretionary amount is paid out of the fund. In my experience, it is typically in line with what would have been the payment had a conviction been able to be secured.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Could the minister advise how many ex gratia payments have been made between 2022 and 2023 and what was the value of these payments?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have the exact details here. I am happy to take that on notice and bring back a reply for the honourable member.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Could the minister please also take on notice—and I appreciate that discretion may need to be taken here in whether it is appropriate or not—who has received the ex gratia payments, where appropriate to disclose, and also what percentage of these matters were for unknown offenders and also where no-one was charged and what the nature of the offences committed were?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take that on notice. Certainly, the names of the victims who are applying for and granted ex gratia payments, given, as I have said, in my experience a great deal of these people are victims of childhood sexual abuse, it certainly would not be appropriate to disclose, but I will have a look to see. I am just not sure how much in terms of that sort of record keeping is kept, but to the extent that we are able to extract something reasonably easily I am happy to see if we can.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Could the minister advise how many ex gratia payment applications were received between 2022 and 2023?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If it is possible to extract, I am happy to see if we can do that.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Could the minister please take on notice as well how many of those applications were successful?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If it is possible and appropriate to do so, I am happy to do that.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: In the Auditor-General's Report for the year ended 30 June 2023, Part C, under the heading AGD, page 24, under 'Recoveries from offenders', it highlights that:

The VOC Act empowers the Attorney‐General to recover the cost of compensation payments from offenders who were convicted of the related offence. Recovery is difficult, as most compensation claims are for unknown offenders.

It indicates that outstanding amounts subject to a judgement that are actively managed increased by $2.4 million to $13.5 million. Could the minister advise what steps he has taken to recover this outstanding debt?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the increase of $2.4 million in the 2022-23 year can be attributed to new debt referrals but also to the migration of old, previously unreported debts subject to historical governance into the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit's debt management system. The steps that are taken are the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit's handling these debts, as they do for a lot of different areas of government.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: What advice has the department given to you as minister to recover this debt?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I indicated, many different areas of government use the specialist services of the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit, which sits within the Department of Treasury and Finance. Rather than myself as Attorney-General or other ministers who are responsible for agencies all recreating debt recovery processes, what is sensibly done is it is referred to the government central recovery unit, the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit, so that individual ministers do not need to consider how you manage those recovery processes, because there is that one specialist service within government that does that.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: What percentage of the outstanding compensation payments from offenders are to individuals known to the department and what percentage of instances where the offender is unknown?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, I am happy to take that on notice. I am not certain that we will have the breakdown, but I can certainly see if we do, and if we are able to extract that I am happy to provide that to the honourable member.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Can the minister advise whether the victims of crime levy would need to be increased due to the increase in outstanding amounts from offenders?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that there is not consideration being given to increasing the victims of crime levy because of unrecovered amounts from offenders.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: In the Auditor-General's Report for the year ended 30 June 2023, under the heading AGD on page 24 of Part C, under 'Recoveries from offenders', it states that 'amounts recovered directly from offenders during the year totalled $1.2 million'—a little bit more. I note that this is around $1.2 million less than the increase of the outstanding amounts that are subject to a judgement that are actively being managed. Could the minister please advise what 'actively managed' means?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that we understand that 'actively managed' means that they have been referred to the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit for action.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Could the minister advise the average length of time that matters have been actively managed?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, I am happy to take that on notice. That is one from my very initial advice. I am less certain than others that we will be easily able to find an answer, but I am happy to take it on notice to see if we can.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: I would hope that the government would have good records about how long they have been chasing debt. In the Auditor-General's Report for the year ended 30 June 2023, under the heading AGD on page 22, Expenses, it states that the grants and subsidies payments were down by $35 million mainly due to a reduction of $44.7 million in grants and subsidies paid to the Legal Services Commission compared with the previous year. Could the minister advise why the $44.7 million in grants and subsidies was cut from the Legal Services Commission?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the main reason for the variation in grants and subsidies between 2021-22 and 2022-23 in relation to payments to the Legal Services Commission is due to the timing of when grants payments are made to the Legal Services Commission. I am advised that the Attorney-General's Department paid the majority of the straight grant—that is, $24 million—to the Legal Services Commission in 2021-22, rather than 2022-23, which accounts for the main difference in those figures. There will be, I am guessing, a corresponding difference in the next year because of the timing of when the grants are paid.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Could the minister please provide a breakdown of the $44.7 million in grants?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. I am assuming the question is effectively a breakdown of the line items that we provide in a grant to the Legal Services Commission. We do not have that with us, but I am happy to provide it for the honourable member.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Does the Legal Services Commission have certainty in funding, given these cuts?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will just reiterate for the honourable member's benefit that they are not cuts. It is the timing of when the grants were paid in different financial years; it is not a cut.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Did the decrease in grants and subsidies force the Legal Services Commission to reduce any services they provide?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I said, I am happy to repeat what I have just said. The characterisation of it being a cut because of the timing of when a grant is paid has not meant that because of that there has been a cut to services. Certainly, I am not aware of a decrease in service for the Legal Services Commission that has been brought about by the timing of when the grant was paid.

I am guessing, but I am happy to check if I am wrong, that it would probably be the other way around, that the earlier payment allows more investment opportunities and returns for the Legal Services Commission. So because of the timing of when a grant has been made, my guess is that—but if I am wrong I will check and bring back a reply—it has actually enabled the Legal Services Commission to do more than if it was paid at a later date.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: In the Auditor-General's Report for the year ended 30 June 2023, under the heading AGD on page 20 of Part C, under 'Highlights of the financial statements—administered items', 'Recoveries and other income', it went from $56 million in 2022 to $21 million in 2023. Could the minister explain why it has more than halved?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. I am advised that this is mainly due to income associated with machinery of government transfers of the Office of the Registrar-General to the Department for Trade and Investment from where it sat within the Attorney-General's previously.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: In the Auditor-General's Report for the year ended 30 June 2023, under the heading AGD on page 17, Part C under Income, the appropriation in 2022 was $179 million compared with $117 million in 2023, which equals a reduction of around $62 million. Does the government have a reason as to why there was a change in funding?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. As is often the case in these financial reports, much is to do with the machinery of government and where things have sat previously and where they sit now within government. I am advised this variance is mainly due to the impact of machinery of government changes. Around $48 million was included in 2022 for the planning portfolio—I apologise, the variance is mainly due to the net change in appropriation in 2023 associated in totality with machinery of government changes, which I have already talked about in the honourable member's last question.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: In the Auditor-General's Report for the year ended 30 June 2023, under the heading AGD on page 17 of Part C, under Expenses it indicates that funding for supplies and services decreased from $169 million in 2022 to $67 million in 2023. Can the minister advise if there are any services that were either cut or reduced as a result of this decrease?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. Once again, this variance is mainly due to the impact of machinery of government changes. I am advised that the 2022 amount included $97 million in lands titles office fee payments by the Office of the Registrar-General, which is not included in 2023.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: In the Auditor-General's Report for the year ended 30 June 2023, under the heading Attorney-General's Department on page 14 of Part C, under 'Significant events and transactions' it indicates that the Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation division transferred from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet to the AGD. It also indicates that the South Australian Employment Tribunal and SafeWork SA transferred from the Department of Treasury and Finance to the AGD. Due to these transfers, page 17 indicates that net liabilities of $2 million were incurred due to the transfer of employee benefit liabilities. Can the minister advise the reasoning for the transfer?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. This one is quite simple and I do not need advice on it. It is that those areas of government come under my responsibility as the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Attorney-General and also the Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector. Of the two areas of government that the honourable member mentioned, the Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation division used to sit in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

When the former Premier, although he was not the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, had responsibility for Aboriginal Affairs within government, it sat in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. It now sits in the Attorney-General's Department, which is my main department. Similarly, industrial relations, the South Australian Employment Tribunal and SafeWork SA sat within the portfolio of the Department of Treasury and Finance when the former Treasurer, the Hon. Rob Lucas, had responsibility for those areas under industrial relations, just as now, as the Minister for Industrial Relations, those have moved to the Attorney-General's Department, my main department.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: In the Auditor-General's Report for the year ended 30 June 2023, under the heading AGD on page 15 of Part C, under 'Other audit findings' it indicates that outstanding unclaimed residential tenancy bonds continue to rise. Could the minister advise how much the amount outstanding unclaimed for residential tenancy bonds is and what the minister is doing to address this issue?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. Unfortunately, I do not have any information in relation to that. Although that is part of the Attorney-General's Department that is for Minister Andrea Michaels, whose area of responsibility that is for. I do not have any information at all on that.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Regarding Agency Audit Reports, page 328 and again on page 330, is the minister able to outline the reduction in the appropriation of $37 million from the 2021-22 financial year to the 2022-23 financial year?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: In 2022-23, total appropriations received from the SA government by PIRSA controlled was $119.8 million. Of the total appropriations received, $104 million was received from the consolidated account pursuant to the Appropriation Act 2022 and $15.8 million was received from the Governor's appropriation fund.

Total appropriations received in 2022-23 decreased by $37.2 million in 2022-23 compared with 2021-22. This is mainly due to additional funding received in 2021-22 for once-off or time-limited programs, including fruit fly eradication, with a number of outbreaks in Adelaide during 2021-22; the Local Economic Recovery Program; the statewide storm support upgrade of the South Australian Aquatic Sciences Centre; and bushfire recovery measures. The decrease is partly offset by funding received in 2022-23 for the River Murray Flood package.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Given that I think at last check we had 46 outbreaks of fruit fly in the Riverland, can the minister inform the chamber whether there was funding received for fruit fly via appropriations during the financial year of 2022-23?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes, additional appropriation was received for that purpose.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the minister inform the chamber what the additional appropriations that were received during the financial year for fruit fly were?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that we do not have that information to hand at present.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the minister please take that information on notice?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes, certainly.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Agency Audit Reports, continuing on page 328: can the minister please inform the chamber what makes up Other in that income bracket and why that has reduced from $66 million in 2021-22 to $48 million in the 2022-23 financial year?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think perhaps the honourable member either misunderstood or misspoke. My advice is that the amount increased from 2022-2023 from $21 million to $27 million.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: From 2021-22—

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The honourable member is seeking clarification. Yes, that increase was from the 2021-22 financial year to the 2022-23 financial year.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Agency Audit Reports, page 331: in regard to the commonwealth grant programs whose funding have ended during the financial year, can the minister inform the chamber what program equivalent replaces the Regional Recovery Partnership program?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is there was not a commonwealth program to replace it as such.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Agency Audit Reports, page 331: can the minister inform what program equivalent replaces the On-farm Emergency Water Infrastructure Rebate Scheme?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: New funding was announced of $4.185 million as part of the 2023-24 state budget for the On-farm Emergency Water Infrastructure Rebate Scheme.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Agency Audit Reports, page 331: can the minister inform the chamber what program equivalent replaces the Future Drought Fund?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that certain aspects of the Future Drought Fund are still continuing, with some plans extended to be delivered in 2023-24.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Is the minister able to take on notice what aspects of the Future Drought Fund are continuing?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Agency Audit Reports, page 332: can the minister inform the chamber why the funding for the National Water Grid Fund program decreased from $4.4 million to $3 million in the financial year 2022-23?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that a number of infrastructure projects experienced delays in 2022-23, and milestones were subsequently pushed out into 2023-24. Three Connections pathway projects did not proceed. A number of Connections pathway projects experienced delays due to River Murray flooding, which subsequently pushed out some project milestone dates and completion dates into 2023-24. Three science projects experienced project delays resulting in project milestone dates being pushed out beyond 2022-23. The Federation Funding Agreement has recently been updated to reflect these changes.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the minister please outline what specific Connections pathway programs did not proceed?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I can take that on notice and, if appropriate, bring back an answer.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Agency Audit Reports, page 328: can the minister please inform the chamber how many grants or subsidies, and for what amounts, were paid out of the Thriving Regions Fund for the financial year 2022-23?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Can I just clarify the question? Was the question about how much had been paid out?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: How many, and for what amounts.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am happy to take that on notice and bring back a response.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the minister also outline how many adverse event grants were paid out, and for what amounts, during the same financial year of 2022-23?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: What page number?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Sorry, the same, page 328.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that level of detail is not provided. We can take it on notice and provide an appropriate response.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Agency Audit Reports, page 328, under significant events and transactions: can the minister outline to the chamber why there was such a large increase in land and building re-evaluations, and also is it standard practice to perform re-evaluations every five years? According to the audit, the value increased by $55.7 million to $144.4 million.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the re-evaluation of land and buildings is undertaken on a five-year cycle. On this occasion it was performed by Liquid Pacific as at 31 June 2023, and the re-evaluation was carried out to fair value in accordance with AASB 116, property plant and equipment. The valuer arrived at fair value based on recent market transactions for similar land and buildings in the area, taking into account zoning and restricted use and after allowing for accumulated depreciation.

For the member's reference, in the case of specialised buildings, for which there is no market evidence, the valuer adopted a depreciated replacement cost, which takes account of the need for the provision of ongoing government services and the specialised nature and restricted use of the building. In accordance with Treasurer's Instructions (accounting policy statements), a valuation appraisal from a qualified valuer is required at least every six years for assets subject to re-evaluation.

PIRSA has appointed a qualified valuer for 2022-23 for the land and building asset valuation following a formal procurement process. The valuer physically inspected land and building assets in various locations across PIRSA sites during 2022-23. The valuation outcome is a total increase, as the honourable member mentioned, and is in the papers of $55.7 million in asset value. The land has increased by $39.3 million and the building's value has increased by $16.4 million. The valuation increase reflects recent years' rapid growth in the property market and increased costs in building materials and labour.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Agency Audit Reports, page 331: under grant subsidies and transfers it refers to PIRSA delivering projects in compliance, research and fishing industry development. Can the minister inform the chamber as to whether there is any independent scrutiny of PIRSA's underlying compliance costs?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I can take that question on notice and bring back a response.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: On that, noting that there is a cost-recovery review relevant to these costs currently underway, can the minister also advise the chamber whether that review considered whether the underlying costs were prudent and efficient, or did it only look at the allocation of those costs? When will that report be made public?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have answered questions in relation to that in the chamber during question time.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I think we will have to agree to disagree on that statement. Agency Audit Reports, page 332: grants and subsidy expenses have extended to storm recovery, including hail, drought recovery and flood recovery. Can the minister inform the chamber whether extreme frost, and therefore frost recovery, is included within the scope of any grant projects offered by PIRSA and, if not, is there any reason why they should not be?

The CHAIR: What were you referring to, the honourable Leader of the Opposition? Was there a page line number?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: The second to last paragraph on page 332, the statewide storm recovery program.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Could the member point out where it refers to frost on that page?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Sorry, Mr Chair, my question to the minister refers to the grant expenses that have extended to storm recovery, which is evident in that second to last paragraph, which were down $7.3 million to $361,000. This program was established in response to hail but has also been used in the past for drought and flood recovery. I am asking the minister: is extreme frost, and therefore frost recovery, included within the scope of this grant program offered by PIRSA and, if not, is there any reason why it should not be?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice, as stated in the report, is that the program was established in response to the hailstorm events in October 2021, with applications closing in March 2022. I think additional questions might be appropriate for a different forum.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Page 332 of the Agency Audit Reports states that the Thriving Regions Fund grant expenses were down $17.3 million to $11.9 million, and the grant funding was paid in arrears as milestones were met. The payments in 2022-23 apparently reflect grants entered into in previous funding rounds. Can the minister provide the opening and closing dates for those previous funding rounds?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Could the honourable member specify which round she is referring to?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I guess that is my question to the minister, because, as I quote from 332, 'The payments in 2022-23 reflect grants entered into in previous funding rounds'. I am asking the minister what essentially were those rounds, and when were the opening and closing dates?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think what the honourable member is referring to is that, consistent with the statement with regard to the amounts being recorded as the milestone payments are made, therefore they will refer to a multitude of previous rounds under previous iterations—the Regional Growth Fund and, potentially, although I do not have advice in front of me on this, the Regional Development Fund—if indeed there were any outstanding payments from that period of time. All of the previous rounds of the predecessor funds, in addition to the Thriving Regions Fund, will have grants made. My advice is that they will appear as those milestone payments are made.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I refer to Agency Audit Reports, page 332. The report states that there were five projects totalling $4.8 million initially approved under the Opening our Great Outdoors grants program. Can the minister inform the committee what were these projects and how much grant funding was initially allocated to each of these, and why is the South Australian government revisiting the program?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The Opening our Great Outdoors round involved a number of projects that were announced by the former Liberal government but had not proceeded to funding at the time of the election. My understanding is that the background to that is that the now Leader of the Opposition, the then Minister for the Environment, fully expended some of his nature-based tourism funds under his portfolio and therefore decided to use the Regional Growth Fund to fund similar activities.

Upon coming to government, we considered there were a number of priorities for thriving regions that were more appropriate than the tourism program that the former Minister for the Environment had attempted to fund through this particular grant fund.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: So is the minister suggesting to the chamber that the Opening our Great Outdoors program is dead?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: We have not funded any further projects under the Opening our Great Outdoors Fund.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Is the budget still available or has it been moved somewhere else?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Remember that Opening our Great Outdoors was coming from what was then known as the Regional Growth Fund, therefore moneys that have not been expended in the Regional Growth Fund have become available for the budget of the Thriving Regions Fund, a fund that this government is keen to use to enable better services in regional communities to look at projects that support infrastructure, both social and potentially physical, and meet the various needs of the regions, rather than utilising that fund to support a program that had funded under the environment the pet projects of the now Leader of the Opposition in another place to be able to use that instead and claim it was the most appropriate use for regional funds.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Referring to Agency Audit Report, page 332: are the insurance proceeds of $5.7 million for Struan House going to be used to re-establish those research facilities?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Will the government be committing any further funds to the site over and above the insurance proceeds?

The Hon. C.M. Scriven interjecting:

The CHAIR: Do you have another question?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: The minister does not want to answer any—

The Hon. C.M. Scriven interjecting:

The CHAIR: Minister, do not interject.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: —questions today. It is like question time. I refer to Agency Audit Report, page 333. The second dot point states that the Livestock Underpass Grant Scheme will be open until 30 June 2024 until allocated funding of $1.5 million is exhausted. Given that, as at 30 June 2023, six applications were approved, totalling $572,000 or about a third of the total allocated funding, it would appear that at this trajectory the funding will not be fully exhausted by the closing date. What efforts, if any, are being made to promote this scheme by the minister?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I would have to check further details, but my understanding is that the program is advertised on the PIRSA website and that various livestock associations are well aware of it and have been promoting it through their own communications.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: What are the plans for any remaining funds that are left on the closure of this scheme?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think that is a question that is speculative in nature. Once we approach and reach the end of the scheme, then we will know whether there are funds unexpended.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I refer you to Agency Audit Reports, page 334, under 'Supplies and services', the second dot point: why was there a 72 per cent increase, which is almost a million dollars ($939,000), in travel costs for the financial year 2022-23, mainly for airfares and accommodation across PIRSA's activity for that financial year?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that there was an increase compared with 2021-22 due to limited travel as a result of COVID-19 limitations during that previous year.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Within the new costs, were any of the flights taken business class?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that all travel would have been taken in accordance with the relevant Treasurer's Instruction or Premier's circular, as applicable.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Is this likely to be the new normal baseline?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Travel will be taken only for appropriate needs, whether they are going to be of benefit to the state, so I do not think it necessarily should be interpreted as a baseline or otherwise.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: My final question, and I refer you to the Agency Audit Reports, page 328: why has there been a reduction of FTE from 782 in 2021-22 to 751 in 2022-23?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the decrease in FTE savings in 2022-23 was from previous state budgets achieved through a review and realignment of the department's structure and functions as part of PIRSA's strategic planning process. There was a decrease in FTE in 2022-23 for a number of commonwealth and state-funded programs, with FTEs in the 2021-22 year, including the bushfire recovery activities, local economic recovery and a number of others, including the private native forestry and Indigenous forestry. Further, there was the transfer of the pastoral unit to the Department for Environment and Water.

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