HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2021-02-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Auditor-General's Report

Auditor-General's Report

In committee.

(Continued from 2 February 2021.)

The CHAIR: The house is in committee on the Auditor-General's Report, No. 13 of 2020. The minister appearing is the Minister for Innovation and Skills. I invite questions.

Mr BOYER: Minister, if I could begin at page 325, the first page for the Department for Innovation and Skills, under significant events and transactions in particular, regarding the partnership between the state and commonwealth governments that aims to create 20,800 new apprenticeships and traineeships over the four years from 2018 to 2022. Can I ask what the status of that commitment is? How many of those 20,800 have currently been created?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: This actually refers to the funding. We can give you some information on the funding.

Mr BOYER: I am asking about how many have been created.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: This refers to the funding.

Mr BOYER: You cannot seriously be saying that you are not going to answer with how many there are.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: My understanding is that the first tranche of funding from the federal government we have met, but we can confirm those figures.

Mr BOYER: In reference to the same paragraph on the same page, do you know how many of these new apprenticeships and traineeships have been created?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: We met the criteria in the national partnership in order to receive the funding allocation. The numbers were agreed with the federal government in order to do that, and we met that outcome, but we will see if we can bring that back. I have just been advised that I did sign some answers to estimates questions that I think will probably cover that.

Mr BOYER: Your answer to the estimates questions says that it is publicly available. It is like you do not know the answer yourself but you are the minister who signed the agreement, a $192 million agreement.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: This is about the 2019-20 achievements in the Auditor-General's Report.

The CHAIR: Member for Wright, did the minister not indicate to the committee that he would get back to you with those figures? Is my understanding correct, minister?

Mr BOYER: Perhaps I could have some clarification from the minister, Chair, on exactly what he is getting back to the committee on.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: We will get back to you on the national partnership figures.

Mr BOYER: Which national partnership figures do you mean, specifically?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The national partnership that Skilling South Australia has been built upon.

Mr BOYER: What under that are you getting back to the committee about?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I am getting back to you on the reference that the Auditor-General has made to the national partnership.

Mr BOYER: More specifically, how many have been created? Is that what you are going to come back to—

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I am going to come back to you on the numbers that have triggered the payments from the federal government.

Mr BOYER: Thank you, minister, for your clarification that this is about the 2019-20 financial year. I accept that. How many new apprenticeships and traineeships under the national partnership agreement were created in the 2019-20 financial year that this Auditor-General's Report looks at?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I will bring that back to you.

Mr BOYER: Because you do not know the answer to that question?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: No, I would rather provide you with an accurate answer.

The CHAIR: So the minister is getting back to you on that, member for Wright.

Mr BOYER: Thank you, Chair. Minister, on the same page, under other audit findings, the Auditor-General states:

Nominal hours assigned to units of competency were not reviewed for reasonableness in the South Australian vocational education and training sector.

Can you explain to the committee, in a little bit more detail perhaps, which providers this relates to in terms of nominal hours that this assigns to training providers? Which ones, more specifically, were not reviewed for reasonableness?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: This is used Australia-wide. I think the process started in 1990. It was used for 16 years under the previous government, I understand. It is general and it is not specific to providers; it is actually about the delivery hours per qualification.

Mr BOYER: I understand that, and thank you for your answer, minister. Page—

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: If you understand it, why did you ask about individual providers?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Because this says 'Auditor-General's examinations'.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: So? It does not relate to individual providers, but you said you understood it.

The CHAIR: Minister, can I interrupt. I do not want any argy-bargy across the floor.

Mr BOYER: You do not know the number of traineeships and—

The CHAIR: Member for Wright, you are called to order. I do not want any argy-bargy across the floor. It is a very limited amount of time that we have for questions here. There are 24 minutes to go. The member for Wright asks the questions, the minister answers. Member for Wright.

Mr BOYER: Thank you, Chair. Minister, page 325. Are you unwilling to explain to the committee how many of the 20,800 new apprenticeships have been created under the national partnership agreement because you are behind on your target?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: No, I have explained to you that someone will bring that target back to you because I do not have that figure in front of me, but we would not have received the payments that we received if we were behind on the target.

Mr BOYER: You might want to review that answer, I reckon. Minister, on page 325, paragraph 2, significant events and transactions, are you on track to reach the 20,800 new apprenticeships and traineeships over the four years 2018-22 under the Skilling South Australia initiative with the commonwealth government?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The Skilling South Australia initiative started in September 2018 and if you look at some of the history about that, from 2012 to 2018 there was a 66 per cent decline in apprenticeship and traineeship commencements here in South Australia. Obviously, the federal government was keen to see some improvements in that space and we were also very pleased to support that.

The CHAIR: Minister, can I interrupt. I think the member for Wright has a point of order.

Mr BOYER: Just referring to the minister's own clarification that this report is about 2019-20 and not a potted history of the past 10 years.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni interjecting:

Mr BOYER: I am taking the minister's own advice—

The CHAIR: I understand your point of order, but I think—

Mr BOYER: —which has got lots of other people into trouble, historically, but I am going to do it on this occasion.

The CHAIR: Member for Wright, can I speak, please. I understand your point of order. My recollection of the minister's answer was that he began by stating that the program began in 2018, which was a preamble to his answer, so we will let the minister continue with that.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It was signed on 7 September 2018, I think it was, and it was to address the 66 per cent decline that we inherited over a six-year period from 2012 to 2018 of commencements of apprenticeships and traineeships. The election commitment aimed to turn this decline around and increase commencements by 52 per cent over a four-year period. The full achievement of that would deliver just over 60,000 commencements in that four-year period.

Despite the fact it was an extremely ambitious target, we are confident we are heading in the right direction. We are the only state to record an increase in apprentices and trainees in training for the June 2020 year. Every other state and territory delivered a decline in that period. This of course was after three months of COVID, where we were first hit with close to 2,000 suspensions of apprenticeships and traineeships when the shutdowns first happened in South Australia. We had a double-whammy there. We obviously needed to work with employers to save those apprenticeships.

The last thing we wanted to happen was terminations. Obviously nobody knew what the future looked like when COVID first hit. The predictions for health outcomes here in South Australia were very dire, so it had a massive impact. I think 45,000 South Australians lost their jobs at that time. I am pleased that since then we have had the fastest growth of full-time jobs in the country. We also finished the June financial year, June the previous year, with growth in the apprenticeship and traineeship commencement space and also in apprentices and trainees in training.

In those circumstances, we are still evaluating the impact of COVID on the target. I do not think there is anybody who would have any credibility whatsoever in suggesting that there was no impact on government targets that were set before COVID. There were no business targets, investment targets or any targets in any industry or any sector in government that were not affected by COVID. Obviously some sectors have done better than others, but one of the areas where apprentices and trainees were affected very heavily when COVID hit was the travel industry.

We know that Flight Centre had about 100 trainees who were suspended during that period. We were very pleased that before Christmas (I think it was in September or October) we were able to open the new MAS National Service Centre for Australia in Adelaide. That service centre was staffed with 50 former trainees of Flight Centre who were retrained to service the employment provider and group training organisation MAS National with their apprenticeship and traineeship program. They did that in South Australia because of the investments being made in skills training here.

There are things that have come out of COVID that have certainly made it difficult to estimate where targets could be in the future, but I am very pleased that we went into COVID on target to reach our 20,800 apprentices and trainees.

Mr BOYER: Minister, if I could take you to page 329, under Income, this part of the Auditor-General's report states:

…DIS received $23 million ($39 million) of Commonwealth‐sourced grants and funding. The decrease in this funding in 2019‐20 reflected a reduction in Commonwealth National Partnership revenue for the Skilling Australian Fund of $19 million…

What was the actual reason for the drop? What changed in what either the commonwealth government was offering or South Australia delivered?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The national partnership was quite a complex funding arrangement: some things were paid in advance; others were paid after delivery. The reason the first payment is higher is that it included elements of the national partnership agreement that were paid in advance. I will just see if I can find an example of that.

There was quite a generous sign-on payment provided by the federal government, which we obviously would not get the second year, and that contributed to the increase. Part of the agreement relates to the delivery of commencements and we met that outcome. Particularly, the one I was very pleased to talk about that we met was the higher apprenticeships, because the higher apprenticeships were just from a standing start. We did not really have higher apprenticeships in South Australia until they were designed by this government, and we were able to meet our requirements for delivery of higher apprenticeships in that second year.

I do have a breakdown here for the member. The commonwealth's revenue was $20.1 million in 2019-20. In terms of milestones, there was $8.5 million for delivery of all six of the following milestones: communications and marketing, provider development program, industry sector plan, skills advisory service, student supports, and employer supports and incentives. In terms of performance benchmarks, there was $11.6 million—pre-apprenticeships and apprenticeships in that space. One hundred per cent of targets was met in both those areas.

The pre-apprenticeships are very important, and you will find there is quite a bit written about their importance. We have redesigned the use of pre-apprenticeships. We are actually delivering fewer of them than the previous government, in my understanding, but we are targeting them. We do not actually fund pre-apprenticeships unless there are employers who are prepared to take those who have been successful in that pre-apprenticeship program on to training contracts, whether that be a traineeship or an apprenticeship. One that comes to mind is the Civil Train project with the CCF, which was focused on encouraging women to move into the civil construction sector, where we had a number of women go through a pre-traineeship program.

There are always more people who are funded for the pre-traineeship than funded for the apprenticeships because there is always a dropout rate of probably 20 to 25 per cent of those who have done the pre-apprenticeship. That is good, actually; that is good for the industry because it means they have been able to taste before they have committed to a contract of training. They either decide it is not for them or, alternatively, they were not up to the standard to move on to the next stage. This has given employers a lot more confidence to sign up for a traineeship and apprenticeship and make that commitment for the 12-month period, the two-year period or the four-year period that the apprenticeship is for.

It also means they have the added bonus of that trainee or apprentice starting the job with already some hands-on experience and technical experience, so they are adding value at an earlier stage of their apprenticeship. I think this is an important phase and one of the reasons we have had so much success—why 1,500 employers have signed up for the first time to take on an apprentice or a trainee in the first two years of the Skilling South Australia program.

We have been able to ensure that they get access to people who are keen, they have tasted the area of skill they want to participate in, they have got through the prerequisite process, they start with extra skills, and consequently we are predicting that we will see better completion rates because of it.

Mr BOYER: On the same page, page 329, in relation to the same paragraph there, am I right in assuming that the grant money that flows from the commonwealth under the national partnership is, at least in part, tied to the number of apprenticeship or traineeship places that South Australia creates?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Yes, that is my understanding.

Mr BOYER: Is that, more specifically, completions or commencements? Does the money after a commencement, or does there have to be a completion?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Well, completions can take up to four years. Do not forget that we use this money to support both employers and RTOs to provide additional services on top of those, if they deliver as an RTO, and get funded through the Subsidised Training List. The way that business works, member for Wright, is that people need to get paid as they go along, and so the government is paid as they go along. I do not think that anybody would expect there to be a system where it is funded through bank loans or through not paying wages to deliver services for the government. So that is a standard process. Funding is paid so that the program can be delivered.

Mr BOYER: I refer to the same section again, minister. When looking at the drop in funding from the federal government, under this agreement, between the 2018-19 and 2019-20 financial years, is that drop referred to in the paragraph here in any way due to a decrease across those two financial years of the number of apprenticeship and/or traineeship places?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I am told that $20.1 million was the total amount on offer, and we got every last cent.

Mr BOYER: I will rephrase the question. Was it separate from the amount of money or the quantum that was actually funded to the state from the commonwealth in 2018-19 and 2019-20? Was there a difference between the number of places created in those two financial years and, if so, do we know what that was?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: From what I can gather, you are trying to determine what the numbers were for the 2018-19 year and what the numbers were for the 2019-20 year of commencements. Is that correct? Is it the premise of your question?

Mr BOYER: Yes, that is right.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Of course, in the 2018-19 year it was only three quarters in that year because the agreement was signed in September 2018. I think I have covered off on why there are different payments for each of those years, because of some of the up-front payments that were made. As far as exact numbers are concerned, that is something that we will see if we can get back to you on, as to the differences in those two years.

Mr BOYER: Thank you, minister.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I think you will find those in Hansard in answers to government questions, but we will see if we can find them for you.

Mr BOYER: I refer to page 327, Other audit findings. It talks about the Victorian Purchasing Guide, or the VPGs, as it is referred to here, which the Department for Innovation and Skills uses to decide the nominal hours for nationally endorsed training packages. In last year's Auditor-General's Report, my reading is that the Auditor-General made a finding that the VPG needed to be reviewed to ensure the information it provided in terms of what we should be pricing these training packages at was up to date. I see from here that, although it looks like the agency made commitments for a review of that to take place, it has not been done. Can you tell the committee why that has not been done again this year?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: First of all, it needs to be understood that this is used nationally. A review has started. The only difference is that obviously COVID placed some delays but, on top of that, Michaelia Cash, the federal minister, introduced a review process through the introduction of the National Skills Commission.

We then said, 'Well, we're not going to do our own because that's now being done at a national level. We will participate on that.' But the Auditor-General is absolutely right: it does need to be reviewed. I know that there was an updated trainee package that we agreed to at the last meeting of skills ministers that was first proposed in 2012. It has been a very slow and laborious process.

I am very pleased that the federal minister, the Hon. Michaelia Cash, has grabbed the bull by the horns on the accreditation, update and renewal of training packages and qualifications as part of the Prime Minister's passion and interest in apprenticeships and traineeships and lifelong learning. That is moving quite quickly, actually. Many people are surprised at how quickly it is moving, and I credit the federal minister for her work in busting through what has been a bureaucratic malaise historically for decades in the vocational education space.

The CHAIR: The member for Enfield.

Ms MICHAELS: Minister, I refer you to pages 326 and 327 where it talks about the findings of the Auditor-General.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: What is the question?

Ms MICHAELS: It talks about recommendation to improve controls over administrator changes to online banking. I understand that those changes were implemented, but did you instruct the department to go back and consider whether any payments made or any user access was fraudulent or improper with that authority?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I am advised that review was done.

Ms MICHAELS: Was there anything adverse?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: No.

Ms MICHAELS: I refer you to page 331 with reference to the other grants provided by your department. There is reference in the first dot point on that page of $6.6 million under two schemes to help small business affected by bushfires. Are you able to give me the average grant applied for under that $50,000 grant for small business and not-for-profits for the bushfire response?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: You want a list of the grants? Which grant was it? The Small Business Bushfire Recovery Grant, was that the one, for up to $50,000?

Ms MICHAELS: What was the average applied for?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The grants are provided to assist with the clean-up and reinstatement of business assets and re-establishment costs for small businesses. As at 30 June 2020, the department had awarded 106 grants amounting to $3.5 million:

Yorketown, two grants totalling $100,000;

Keilira, two grants totalling $72,500;

Kangaroo Island, 55 grants totalling $1,832,988; and

Cudlee Creek, 47 grants totalling $1,489,896.

The total for those grants is $3,495,384. That is the total, which covers the Auditor-General's period.

Ms MICHAELS: And in that period can you advise how many Small Business Loss of Income Grant applications were made?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The department administers the Small Business Loss of Income Grant, which provides $10,000 to small businesses, including many primary producers in eligible local government areas to help recover financially from the bushfires. As of 30 June, the department awarded 371 grants amounting to $3.7 million, including:

Kangaroo Island, 227 grants, $2.27 million;

Adelaide Hills, 15 grants, $1.150 million;

Kingston DC, four grants, $40,000;

Mid Murray, two grants, $20,000;

Mount Barker, 13 grants, $130,000;

Murray Bridge, two grants, $20,000; and

Yorke Peninsula, eight grants, $80,000.

As previously stated, that totalled $3,710,000.

The CHAIR: Thank you, minister. Thank you, committee. Time has expired. We now move to the examination of the Auditor-General's Report in relation to child protection. There is no need to stand to ask or answer questions. Member for Reynell, could you indicate where your first question will come from, please.

Ms HILDYARD: Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a series of questions that relate to pages 71 and 72 of the report.

The CHAIR: In Part C?

Ms HILDYARD: Yes, the audit findings, the second half of page 71 and then over to page 72, then I can indicate where I also go if that is okay. First of all, on page 71, in relation to the kinship reviews, were all required kinship and specific child only reviews completed before 19 December 2020?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I thank the member for her question. According to the DCP procedure, kinship and specific child only reviews must be conducted at least every two years. This became a requirement with the enactment of the Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017. Therefore, all kinship and specific child only carers who were approved before 22 October 2018 need to be reviewed by 19 December 2020. Of course, the Auditor-General's Report was around July last year, so since this time.

At the time of the audit, the department advised that it was continuing to monitor progress weekly and was on track to complete all the reviews required under the transitional arrangements before the 19 December deadline. All reviews were completed by 23 November 2020, and DCP is currently liaising with the Auditor-General's Department to provide various items of supporting documentation as part of closing off this action. I am happy to report it is all done.

Ms HILDYARD: In relation to the same part of the report, is the ongoing staffing crisis and the department's $10 million underspend on staffing within the department, which was identified in the budget, contributing to its inability to properly carry out the review function required under the act?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: As I just said, we actually have completed the review function. That was completed on 23 November 2020.

Ms HILDYARD: So why were only 137 of 475 of the required kinship carer reviews undertaken as of 31 July 2020?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It was really about prioritising. Obviously, there was COVID last year, so staffing was allocated to different areas of the business. It was really a matter of getting it done in time, and it was completed in time as required by the legislation.

Ms HILDYARD: Does the fact that 338 reviews were not completed by 31 July as required create risk for children?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: As I have already read into Hansard, this was a new requirement as per the Children and Young People (Safety) Act, so it was only new. We had two years to enact this and that was achieved, so there was no problem.

Ms HILDYARD: In your view, did the delay on 338 of those reviews create any risk for children that 338 kinship carer reviews were not undertaken by the required date?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I guess the question would be for the 16 years that Labor were in government when this was not completed, what was the risk? This is a new initiative and it has been achieved. Certainly, if we were referring back to the Report on Government Services, the former Labor government did not even report on the case reviews because the number was so low it was not even reportable. We have put a lot of effort into case reviews, including the kinship and specific child only reviews. There was a deadline of two years; that has been achieved. It has been reported back to the Auditor-General. This is complete.

Ms HILDYARD: Can you guarantee, minister, that there was no risk to any children as a result of 338 required kinship carer reviews not being undertaken in the required time frame? Can you guarantee there was no risk created whatsoever?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I have answered that question multiple times now.

Ms HILDYARD: Moving on to foster carer reviews, can you please explain why only 19 foster carer reviews were completed on time, with 357 in progress, 285 completed after the due date, and 153 being overdue?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: DCP procedures require foster carer reviews to be done annually. As at 5 June 2020, our Connected Client Case Management System reports, or C3MS as it is known, showed that 357 reviews were in progress, 19 reviews were completed on time, 285 reviews were completed after the due date and 153 reviews were overdue. DCP informed the Auditor-General that the report was not accurate as it includes carers who are no longer active or have transferred to long-term guardianship, known previously as OPG. There is also sometimes a lag between when the review is performed and when it is entered into the C3MS system.

An internal mechanism for regular data extraction to facilitate reporting was fully implemented by October 2020. This extract is produced weekly and DCP is now working through accounting rules and definitions to refine and support the development of ongoing reporting capability planned during the 2021 year. The interim reporting tool enables operational staff and DCP executives to have the necessary oversight of carer review requirements and this will only be enhanced when the future reporting system is implemented. DCP will continue to keep the Auditor-General's Department informed as steps are taken to improve the department's reporting capabilities in this area, but the completion date of 30 October 2020 was achieved.

Ms HILDYARD: So do you believe that 285 reviews being completed after the due date and 153 being overdue and 357 being in progress—I think we agree on the figures—is acceptable?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: All our foster carers are actually supported by NGOs such as Anglicare, Centacare, Lutheran Care. Whilst we do the case management, there is oversight, so there is a lot of interaction to make sure everything is working well. Again, last year was the COVID year. Things did change and priorities changed at that time. The ability to meet people in person also changed, so the way that things were done had to adapt and change due to COVID. However, they were all completed by 30 October 2020.

Ms HILDYARD: Do you think those delays are acceptable?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Under the circumstances, with COVID and having to adapt to the environment we were living in last year, yes.

Ms HILDYARD: So that I am really clear, only 19 foster care reviews being completed, with 357 in progress, 285 completed after the due date and 153 overdue, is acceptable to you?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I have already said that that data is not correct. I have already read that out.

Ms HILDYARD: It is the data in the report.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The data, as I said, includes carers who are no longer active or who have transferred to OPG, which means they are not required to have a case review on an annual basis. Also, there was the lag time due to the data entry being put into the C3MS, and there was also the COVID experience we all went through and had to adapt to. It is a lot harder to do case reviews, particularly in person, when we could not meet in person. A lot of the carers were part of the vulnerable age groups, so they were not able to meet in person. As we know, we were all doing everything online, so things change. Last year was an extreme year.

Ms HILDYARD: Have you advised the Auditor-General that you believe the data in their report is inaccurate?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Yes.

The CHAIR: Just to interrupt, member for Reynell, it says that in the next paragraph, does it not? 'DCP informed us that this report is not accurate.'

Ms HILDYARD: Yes, I am asking if there had been a conversation with the Auditor-General about the inaccuracy of the figures.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The department notified the Auditor-General that the figures they were working from were inaccurate.

Ms HILDYARD: Can you please explain why there is a time lag from when the reviews are completed until when they are entered into the C3MS?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The case review is done in person manually and then it needs to be data-entered back into the C3MS, so that would be done when they are in the office, not seeing other clients or doing other case plans when they have time to do their paperwork.

Ms HILDYARD: What risks to vulnerable children's safety do you think those delays pose?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: For putting something into a computer system?

Ms HILDYARD: Yes, I presume that data in the system is what you use to develop strategies, interventions and all sorts of other things.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: My understanding would be that it is actually doing the case plan that is the important thing and sitting there with the foster carer and the child or the specific child carer or kinship carer to work out a plan for the child, and it is all written down. At what point it gets typed into a computer would not affect the outcomes for the child. That really is an administrative process, and that is really for the benefit of the following year or throughout the year to refer back to.

Ms HILDYARD: So you can guarantee that there has been no risk to any child due to a delay from when the review was developed to having it entered into the system?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: We remain focused on doing things in a timely manner. It was an unusual year due to COVID, as I have said. We continue to reform and improve our systems, and they were all completed by 30 October.

Ms HILDYARD: So you cannot guarantee that there were not any risks to children's safety as a result of those time lags?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: There are no guarantees in life.

Ms HILDYARD: Can you please provide us with the current carer review data, starting with how many are currently in progress?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Today, we are really answering the Auditor-General's Report, which is to 30 June last year, and I have already answered those questions.

Ms HILDYARD: It is really important to understand progress to make a comparison.

The CHAIR: Member for Reynell, I understand that, but the minister is quite right in her statement: the examination today is for the financial year 2019-20.

Ms HILDYARD: Is there a delay for carers to be allocated a worker to start that planning review process?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: All our foster carers have an NGO agency that looks after them, and then they have a worker in our department who would also look after them.

Ms HILDYARD: What is the time frame between a carer becoming a carer or starting a new placement with a child and being allocated a worker to start that process?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I imagine that it is for the NGOs to allocate the support worker for the foster carers. I would imagine that they would have a staff member allocated as soon as they have a child allocated.

Ms HILDYARD: Is there any reporting to you by NGOs, or is there a reporting requirement from NGOs to you and your department about that length of time I just spoke about?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Perhaps you are questioning now the reporting on foster carer review KPIs?

Ms HILDYARD: Yes.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: On page 72, it states:

Contracted service providers have a list of key performance indicators…that set the minimum service level expected by DCP. One of these KPIs measures the percentage of foster carer reviews completed and submitted as required during the reporting period (quarterly).

Ms Hildyard interjecting:

The CHAIR: Well, she is reading from the report.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: DCP maintains—and this is not in that report—the highest standards of contract management and has, in fact, improved a number of contract-related systems over the past two years as part of its ongoing contract reform agenda, including through the introduction of a number of online reporting tools and contracted service providers. As part of the department's ongoing contract management processes, members of the carer assessment and review unit attend quarterly contract management meetings with service providers to discuss any identified performance issues, as required.

An interim data extract is produced weekly in the Out of Home Care Directorate to allow monitoring and review. DCP is working through accounting rules and definitions to refine and support development of ongoing KPI reporting capabilities planned during 2020 and 2021. The completion date is expected to be 30 June 2021, and we are currently on track.

Ms HILDYARD: For the period of this report, what was the average delay?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I do not have the data available.

Ms HILDYARD: Just to be clear, you contract out the foster care reviews to the relevant non-government organisation, and in the Auditor-General's Report you say that there are KPIs that have been developed, but you have no knowledge whatsoever of whether or not NGOs are meeting those KPIs.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: One of the KPIs is that the NGO regularly visits the foster carers so that they can support the annual review. Our staff also attend with the foster care agency staff and the carer to do the review.

Ms HILDYARD: In the period, what proportion of KPIs by all NGOs were met?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: We are developing new KPIs and reports for that, and that is on track to be completed by 30 June 2021. It is part of our tracked reform. We have changed the way this system was done. That is why we have been able to have a lot more family-based carers. We are not doing the block funding as previously; it has been expanded and it has been improved. There are quarterly meetings to determine the KPIs and that is on track for 30 June 2021 for completion.

Ms HILDYARD: Can I just ask, is that the report that you outlined in the Auditor-General's Report would be in place by October 2020? Are you saying it is going to be overdue by nine months, as well as informing the house that you have no knowledge of whether NGOs are meeting their KPIs in relation to foster care reviews?

The CHAIR: So you are asking if it is the same report?

Ms HILDYARD: Yes.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The foster carer reviews have all been completed as at 30 October 2020 and they include the NGOs and our staff to complete those. The next area that you are asking about is the foster carer KPIs for service contracts. My department and the NGOs are now having quarterly meetings to discuss what those KPIs are. It might be new carers being recruited, it might be how many of their carers have a placement, how many carers are at full capacity. There could be all kinds of different KPIs that are being considered but it is not the case reviews because they were all completed on 30 October.

Ms HILDYARD: Just to be really clear, what you are saying is that you cannot provide information to the house about whether NGOs are adhering to their KPIs in terms of those foster care reviews?

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: It is a pretty simple question.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It is a different KPI.

Ms HILDYARD: For either, then, for either of the seven KPIs. For both of them—

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will take that on notice and see if there is anything more I can get for you.

Ms HILDYARD: In relation to my question before, when I was seeking current carer review data, I understand your point that this is about the previous year. Can you please advise whether there are more or fewer in progress, more or fewer that have been completed on time, or more or fewer that are overdue? Can you provide that comparison? Also, how will you monitor that data going forward?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Obviously that is monitored and progressed through the department, and the next time that we would be answering that would be probably July next year when we do the Auditor-General's review then.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: So you have nothing for the audit review process?

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens!

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: For the process—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The CHAIR: No, member for West Torrens, you are interjecting.

Ms HILDYARD: How do you currently monitor that data? Is it on a daily basis that you have that data? A weekly basis? A monthly basis? How do you monitor that data?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It is an operational matter. I do not monitor that. The time that we monitor it in parliament is after the Auditor-General's review and that is once a year. It is the same process as it was last year—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The CHAIR: Minister, I am going to interrupt here. Member for—

Ms HILDYARD: Are you saying that you currently—

The CHAIR: Member for Reynell—

Ms HILDYARD: —do not have that data?

The CHAIR: Member for Reynell, you are called to order. I am wanting to speak here. In the previous session, I indicated to the members present I did not want any argy-bargy across the floor. We only have 30 minutes; we are all trying to make the most of that. Member for West Torrens, you did not have the call then, you were interjecting.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Thank you, sir.

The CHAIR: You were.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Yes.

The CHAIR: That will cease.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Yes.

The CHAIR: Thank you. Member for Reynell, your call.

Ms HILDYARD: Thank you. Minister, are you telling the house that you currently do not have any knowledge of that data?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I have regular meetings with my CE with a list of KPIs and issues that we go through. I do get regular updates; however, it is an operational matter. My CE and her staff would be keeping on top of all the different case reviews and all the requirements under the act and that is part of their role.

Ms HILDYARD: The Auditor-General's Report shows there were 123 children in commercial care as of 30 June 2020, an increase of 20 on the previous year. On a number of occasions, both you and the department have said commercial care has been completely phased out. Can you please explain exactly what the alternative arrangements are, how many agency staff are now working in residential care and how many kids are in care operated by non-government organisations?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Which part of the report? If you could just refer—

Ms HILDYARD: Page 72.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: That talks about 'Commercial care placements not always promptly approved'.

Ms HILDYARD: It goes on to page 73.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: That is talking about the contracts. I can certainly answer that. It states:

Before children are placed in commercial care or their placement is extended, approval should be obtained, which includes calculating the projected cumulated costs of the placement.

The Out of Home Care Directorate has implemented an automated electronic workflow relating to the management of the commercial care placements, which strengthen the department's existing process. Transition to the commercial care automated workflow was completed in September 2020. Their SharePoint site is live and was in use for all commercial care placement requests and approvals from the time of its implementation, including the tracking of approved budgets and cumulative costs.

The department transitioned from commercial care contractual arrangements on 9 October 2020; however, the automated workflow will continue to be used for the short-term emergency and respite placements with Minda Incorporated to 31 December 2020. The Manager, Financial Systems and Compliance has reminded the owner and approver of the relevant placement memorandum of their responsibility to appropriately consider costs prior to the child being placed in care.

Ms HILDYARD: You mentioned Minda Incorporated. Could you please clarify what role they are playing in terms of operating residential care for children?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: That the commercial care contracts with Minda would extend to 31 December 2020, which has already expired. The commercial care contractual arrangements from 9 October have ended.

Ms HILDYARD: Are there any children currently in commercial care? When I say commercial care, I include non-government organisational care.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I can take that on notice, but certainly the great majority have moved over to Placement and Support Packages (PaSPs), which are individual packages, and are moved into residential care. We are doing more tailor-made packages in stable homes and more home-like situations for the young people.

Ms HILDYARD: Despite your public assurances that there are no commercial care arrangements, are there possibly still children in commercial care or non-government care?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: No, I am advised there are none.

Ms HILDYARD: Which answer is correct: this one or the one previously?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I said I was going to check. To my knowledge, they all ended. I have just had it verified that all commercial contracts are now expired. Potentially, it was just the one we were talking about that expired on 31 December, so in the time period that we are meant to be discussing that would have still existed. We are now in February 2021 and they are no longer in use.

Ms HILDYARD: No non-government organisations are caring for children in a residential setting?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Residential care includes non-government providers and DCP providers.

Ms HILDYARD: So they are not all in publicly run state care facilities?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: They never were, even under the former government. What we have changed is that we do not have children in hotels, motels, caravan parks, as was the case under the former Labor government. However, we still were using commercial care agencies in a house that is temporary. We have now made those permanent. We have placement and support packages that are designed around the child. There is a three-monthly review, with the emphasis to get children either reunified, as per the Newpin money that we have just announced, the Social Impact Bonds.

There is a greater emphasis on intensive family support services to prevent children coming into care to work with the families if we had to remove the children to build strength so that we can return the children, and to increase our family-based carers so we can reduce our reliance on residential care. We have now no reliance on commercial care, but we still do have children in residential care, both non-government and government run.

The CHAIR: And of course, member for Reynell, we can see that as at 30 June 2020 there were 123 children in commercial care.

Ms HILDYARD: Yes.

The CHAIR: So that has been identified. The time has expired. I would like to thank the committee and the advisers, of course. We move now to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If I can refer the minister to Part A of the Executive Summary on page 39, 3.4.6, 'New and fast-tracked new infrastructure projects'. The Auditor-General has a preamble where he says on 29 March 2020 the government announced a $120 million road infrastructure and road safety package and a range of projects, and then in late June 2020 the total value these projects was updated to $145 million. He lists a series of elements in the package. The advice on the fourth to last paragraph is that only $7 million of the $145 million total had been spent. Could you explain why?

The CHAIR: The member for West Torrens, while the minister is getting advice, could you give me that reference—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Reference again? Yes, sir, I will. It is page 39 of Report 13 of 2020, the annual report for the year ending 30 June 2020, Part A, Executive Summary. It is titled 'New and fast-tracked new infrastructure projects'.

The CHAIR: Yes, thank you, I just—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There is a total of $145 million; only $7 million spent in the audit period—fast-tracked infrastructure. While I am waiting, I will calculate the percentage spent.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am informed that when this report was written, which was obviously quite a number of months ago, those works were in the planning stage. As you know, when we came into government I think the term that has been used is that the cupboard was bare as far as planning is concerned, so we have been getting on with that work and then getting on with delivering these projects. I know it has been a focus of mine since coming into this role.

I am led to believe that the bulk of the north-south freight route is well and truly underway and moneys have been invested very heavily in that. This is a very important project. The regional roadworks packages have been rolling out, and if you have been across South Australia you would have seen a number of roadworks packages, and we have actually even escalated that and stepped it up even more. Again, a big chunk, if not all of the Adventure Way and Innamincka Airport access road projects have been done. These are just some of those that are outlined in that report there.

This was written in the early phases of getting this work out. Since then, there has been a separate one, another stimulus one, that we have been delivering on as well. So, yes, for quite a number of those projects, at the point in time when this was written, I am led to believe, that may have been the point. Since then, we have escalated those and more, as you are aware, more recently in the budget. We have another $268 million towards stimulus projects, including road safety projects, and a number of these are already underway as well. It is generating jobs and building the infrastructure that our state needs.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am glad you get to talk about the process outside the audit period, which invites me to ask then: of the $145 million, given this was tabled on 13 October, how much of that new and fast-tracked infrastructure program has been delivered as a dollar value?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I would have to take the question on notice. I do not have that detail in front of me.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Could I also ask: has the refitting of the Heysen Tunnels system and safety upgrade been completed?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: This is one of the ones that came to me when I came into this role. What I was informed about the Heysen Tunnels is that the standards for tunnels across Australia were increased or improved, if you like, back in 2011. That was a considerable amount of time ago, so we have had to have a look at the Heysen Tunnels and assess that against these new standards. Unfortunately, that work was not done before we came into government, so we have had to go back and do all that work. I cannot tell you why that was left undone, even though the standards were raised quite a time ago.

We have been doing a study and that analysis work. This is a safety project that we do not want to short-change in any way, shape or form. We need to have a look at this and work out the works we do. We are doing a lot of work on that South Eastern Freeway. We just finished, as I said, the Managed Motorways; they are just being completed now. That has been a huge success. Also, we have announced more resealing of the South Eastern Freeway. I am informed that—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The CHAIR: There is a point of order, minister.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I just asked if it is finished.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am saying, as part of the South Eastern Freeway project—

The CHAIR: Minister, before you go on, the member for West Torrens is well aware that ministers are able to answer questions in whichever way they see fit.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, no, not in debate, sir, they cannot. He is debating the answer.

The CHAIR: I do not know that he was, but, anyway, minister, wrap it up.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you, Chair. We were talking about the Heysen Tunnels, which are of course a key part of the South Eastern Freeway, and the delivery of this project, and we have just done the Managed Motorways and we are doing more resurfacing. Again, it is about staging these projects to get them right. We want to get them out the door as quickly as we can. We want to do the work to plan and get the studies and analysis right so we are delivering the right works for this piece of infrastructure, which is ageing and was meant to have these standards implemented, arguably, back in 2011, so I am told. We are getting on with that work and we will do it as quickly as possible, making sure we put the right safety systems in place.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I refer the minister to Part B: Controls Opinion, page 25, dot point 4.2.3, management of actual, perceived or potential conflicts of interest when procuring requires improvement. The Auditor-General said:

Consistent with our findings in previous years we identified instances across many procurements where conflict of interest forms could not be provided for everyone involved in the procurement.

Can the minister outline which procurements the Auditor-General was talking about for the audit period?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am informed that is a whole-of-government assessment by the Auditor-General, so you would have to actually ask the Auditor-General to drill down on which department he is referring to there, because it is a cross-government assessment, I am informed.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You are not aware of any instances where the Auditor-General raised instances across procurements the department was involved in where conflicts of interest had not been declared appropriately during the audit period?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I refer to the Auditor-General's Report, Report 13 of 2020, page 369, just a little above midway down. Under 'Small procurements less than $4.4 million', it states:

We reviewed a sample of five operating expenditure procurements of less than $4.4 million. We found that conflict of interest forms for two members on a tender selection panel were missing, potentially compromising the integrity of the tender evaluation process.

DPTI advised that it has reviewed and reissued the relevant procedure to specify documentation storage requirements.

That is what I am led to believe is the only—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What was that procurement?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Small procurements under $4.4 million.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Was it part of the—

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No, all I can tell you from the Auditor-General's Report is small procurements under $4.4 million. I am happy to have a look and find out and get back to you.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Just for clarity for the committee, with reference to that comment in Part B on page 25 I talked about, the only instance where there were issues raised for this across-government critique involved the one you just gave to the committee? There is no other?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: In relation to my department, that is what I have been informed, yes.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Were those small procurements in any way involved with the privatisation or outsourcing—

The Hon. C.L. Wingard interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sorry? Yes, were those small procurements you quoted on page 369 in any way involved with the procurement or outsourcing of our tram and train services?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: What I am informed is that there were two forms, and I do not have any information in front of me. I have no reason to think yes or no, because I do not have that information, so I am more than happy to take that on notice. If I have got some more information, I will get back to you. I have been informed again, just to clarify the words of the Auditor-General:

We received a sample of five operating expenditure procurements of less than $4.4 million…

That indicates to me, or the advice I am given, is that it is very unlikely to be involved with those two procurements, the tram or the train outsourcing you have outlined. However, again, I am very happy to take that on notice and seek further clarification, but that is the advice I am given.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If we can move on and refer you again to Part B: Controls Opinion, page 25, and dot point 4.2.4, and I quote:

Procurement planning and evaluation processes, documentation and approvals need to be better managed to ensure good procurement outcomes.

The Auditor-General states that they found many instances where acquisition plans were not sufficiently comprehensive to support the decision made, for example:

there was not enough detail to support the whole-of-life cost of procurement

Minister, was that in reference to the outsourcing of trains and trams by the department?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Just point me to where this is written again on page 26. How far down? Whereabouts?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Dot point 4.2: Procurement planning and evaluation processes. The direct quote is:

Procurement planning and evaluation processes, documentation and approvals need to be better managed to ensure good procurement outcomes

There is an extract that I have in my notes here from the table.

The CHAIR: Minister, that is at the very bottom of page 25 which goes on to page 26.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We are in Part B: Controls Opinion. Was the Auditor-General there talking about the rail transformation program and the outsourcing of trains and trams?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The short answer is no because the Auditor-General is currently doing his evaluation of the train contract.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: But he has tabled his tram report. Did it reference that?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: There are two parts to this. One part is that the Auditor-General has done a report on the bus and light rail contract. That is all outlined there, I am told. I will not read that to you; you have access to all that. All those responses and recommendations have been outlined in that report in more detail, which I think would potentially answer your question there.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Is the minister or his advisers aware of what procurement the Auditor-General is referring to? Is it within DPTI or DIT?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: As I outlined before, that is a whole-of-government assessment from the Auditor-General, so you would have to ask if there are any specific relationships to that—other than to say, as I said in my previous answer, there actually is an Auditor-General's Report on the light bus and tram contract, so the detail has all been made public.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Without having to labour the point, minister, in that same reference the Auditor-General says that for one large procurement there was inadequate justification for not having a probity plan. Is that in reference to anything within your department? On page 26, it says:

We focused our attention on agency documentation of procurement planning. We found many instances where acquisition plans were not sufficiently comprehensive to support the decision is made. For example we identified instances where—

There is then a series of dot points, and the third dot point states:

for one large procurement, there was inadequate justification for not having a probity plan

Does that involve your department?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The short answer is no. Again, I refer to the report that I talked about before, which was the bus and light rail Auditor-General's Report. If you go there to probity management arrangements, it actually says there for you to read in dot point 10.1.2 that a probity plan was developed for the procurement. So that, from what I am informed, has not been raised with the Department of Infrastructure and Transport.

Without going into the full length in detail, as I outlined, that is covered off in the Auditor-General's Report, Report 10 of 2020. I am told that was handed down in August. Again, I refer to that point, 10.1.2: 'A probity plan was developed for the procurement,' and that is under probity management arrangements.

The CHAIR: But we are not actually looking at that report.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, the minister is quoting it, not me.

The CHAIR: I know. I am explaining the general comment.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, thank you very much for opening that line of questioning for me, Mr Chairman. So we are clear that does not involve DIT, that statement. You have not been made aware of that statement, so it is not you. It is someone else. I refer the minister to Part C: Agency Audit Reports, page 373, where the Auditor-General indicates a separate report provided to the parliament in relation to the privatisation of the train network, which you mentioned earlier. The Auditor-General states, and I quote:

The procurement processes for the train services was underway at the time of preparing this Report [for the audit period]. I will prepare a separate report to Parliament on this contract in line with the Passenger Transport Act 1994 after it has been awarded.

That is the reference I give you, Mr Chairman. Can the minister advise the committee if all relevant documentation relating to the train privatisation, including cabinet submissions, have been provided to the Auditor-General?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Just to clarify, are you asking for the report that he is doing currently?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, what he mentions on page 373.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am informed that we have provided all the information that the Auditor-General has requested.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Did he request cabinet submissions?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am informed that, if he did, he would have requested those from the Cabinet Office.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Did the minister or the department refuse or not provide any documentation by claiming any privileges or legal professional privilege or any other privilege?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I did not.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Did the department refuse to hand over any documentation claiming commercial-in-confidence, any other privilege that they may have asserted over any document?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am informed no, and the Auditor-General will hand down a very fulsome report shortly I am led to believe.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Valentine's Day.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Sorry?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: On Valentine's Day.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: There we go. Something for us to read on Valentine's Day. I look forward to that. So, yes, I am led to believe everything will be in that report when the Auditor-General hands it down, but that would be a matter for the Auditor-General.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am not asking about his report. I am asking if there has been any privilege claimed over any documents, commercial-in-confidence, financial contractual obligations with Keolis Downer? Has anything been withheld from the Auditor-General from the department?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: And again, I am informed not to my knowledge and all of that will be disclosed in the Auditor-General's Report when the Auditor-General does his report in due course.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Can the minister assure the committee, regarding that separate inquiry the Auditor-General references, that all staff are free to discuss with the Auditor-General all aspects of the negotiations for the contract and the tender process with the Auditor-General and his staff without there being any retribution whatsoever on them or their careers?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am informed that the Auditor-General has powers under the public finances act to summons and examine public servants and that is done confidentially, yes. I am informed that is a matter of discretion for the department. That is the act that the Auditor-General operates under, the public finances act, and the powers are outlined in that and that has confidentiality.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Did your chief executive tell any employees within the Department for Infrastructure and Transport that anyone who provides information to the Auditor-General will not have protections under the Public Interest Disclosure Act?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Again, not to my knowledge. That is quite an outrageous statement to make under the cover of parliamentary privilege. If you have some evidence, you could put that forward.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have received an email from a whistleblower. That is why I have not asserted it. That is why I am asking it. I would point out to the committee that the other information the whistleblower has given me has been accurate, but I accept your denial. I refer the minister to Part C, Agency Audits, page 374. There is a chart that relates to the 2019-20 operating expenses by activity and you can see there that the line for roads and marine is $591 million, fixed assets is $26.7 billion and SAPTA is $583 million. Can the minister provide to the committee a breakdown of that $583 million in operating expenses by mode—bus, train and tram—and any other expenses?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I do not have any further information here with me right at the minute, so I would have to take that on notice.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I refer the minister to Part A, the Executive Summary, if we can go back to that. Sorry for making you jump around. It is page 39, dot point 3.4.6. It is back to where we started. In regard to the regional road networks program for the audit period, I understand that the road maintenance contracts have now been outsourced. Has any of that work been conducted by DIT employees, or DPTI employees at the time, for the audit period or has it all been given to an outsourced operation?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am seeking clarity.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The Auditor-General talks about a package of works on the regional road network. I assume that is things like re-sealing, line marking and all those sorts of things.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: So you are asking: did any of that work go out before the contract changed over?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am informed that the modern road maintenance contract, which is what you are alluding to, started on 1 November 2020. Prior to that, the previous arrangements were—I think this is a longstanding arrangement and I would imagine it went back to the previous government as well—that DPTI would do some of the work and contractors would do some of the work. Did some of that work go to contractors? The short answer is yes, but around that point is that before the new modern road maintenance contract was put in place, contractors were used then as well and DPTI did some of the work so it would have been done through that combination before 1 November and then the new modern road maintenance contract would have been in place post 1 November.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If I can refer you to Part C: Agency Audit Reports, pages 13 and 380. I am talking about the Festival Plaza precinct, in particular the Adelaide Festival Centre redevelopment supplementation funding, regarding lost car park revenue of $1.4 million for the closure of the car park. There is a dot point under the graph that states:

Adelaide Festival Centre redevelopment supplementation funding of $1.4 million ($1.1 million) for the closure of the car park

Where did the money come from? Was it a direct procurement from Treasury, or was the agency asked to make that payment?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am informed that this was before I was minister. The detail I have here is that there was an additional allocation made by Treasury for a range of measures: improving the design and also the car parking situation that you speak of.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The car park is due to be delivered in the middle of this year. If there are further delays, who is responsible for the supplementation funding? Is it DIT, out of your appropriations, or will it again be a direct appropriation from the Treasurer?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am informed that there is a separate project budget for this one, and it has contingency built in. That would be where anything like that would be considered. From there, it would be a discussion with Treasury.

The CHAIR: The time has expired. Thank you to the committee, the minister, the member for West Torrens and the advisers. We now move to Environment and Water. We are investigating the Auditor-General's annual report. There is no need to stand to ask or answer questions. I invite questions.

Dr CLOSE: I will start by looking at the Environment Protection Authority. I am only referring to the large annual report, not to any of the summary documents at the beginning. I am on page 120. There is reference in 'Significant events and transactions' to surplus cash of $20 million that was returned to the SA government. As the waste levy continues to increase, what is the projected return to government over the next four years?

The CHAIR: Deputy leader, I will allow that question, but be cognisant of the fact that we are examining the report for 2019-20.

Dr CLOSE: Indeed.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: That is a forward projection; that would be an estimates question.

Dr CLOSE: Under the heading 'Functional responsibility':

The EPA financial reporting entity comprises:

a statutory authority with an appointed board established by the Environment Protection Act 1993 (the EP Act)…

What has to date been the role of the EPA with the mangrove die-off in St Kilda?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: That is not contained within this report. This is a report extending from 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020 and there is no reference in the report to the St Kilda mangroves.

Dr CLOSE: There is, however, reference to the statutory authority which has responsibility under the Environment Protection Act, and I am talking about the period of time that this document covers. I am interested in the role that the EPA had in the mangrove die-off or an approval of actions that may have related to the mangrove die-off. If you do not want to answer, I cannot force you, but I think it does fit within the time period and the responsibilities listed.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I am unclear of audit findings in relation to the matter of mangroves at St Kilda.

Dr CLOSE: If I go to page 122, at the bottom of the page there is reference to:

a $2.1 million increase in environmental authorisation fees following an increase in the number of licences issued, driven by the introduction of new fees for petrol station activities…

What has driven this increase in the licence fees? What has been the reason for this increase?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The deputy leader may be aware that this was a budget measure a couple of budgets ago to be a cost recovery measure around an issue which had been an ongoing problem. There were many orphan sites that were petrol station or service station-related where a historic site had gone out of business, been sold, gone bankrupt or in some cases had just been shut down. Many of them were in regional South Australia. They tended to form a reasonably significant component of the orphan sites that the EPA then had responsibility for the clean-up and stewardship of, going into the future.

The introduction of the new fees for petrol station activities which occurred from January 2020 was heavily consulted on. We created different thresholds as to what those fees would be and how they would enter the system with a much more generous approach to small regional stations compared with large metropolitan stations. The idea is that the EPA's funds would be built up to deal with unforeseen situations with regard to contamination flowing from petrol station activities. In my own assessment, that process has been fairly well received by industry and was heavily consulted on.

Dr CLOSE: During the period of time this report covers, has there yet been a corresponding lift in the effort of enforcement activity or clean-up, or is it just about accumulating the resources for the future?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: This money is being applied to a range of site contamination issues relating to petrol stations. About 60 per cent of regulated site contamination activity by the EPA is actually petrol station related, not just orphan sites but other issues that emerge through cracks in tanks and other regulated activities that need to be licensed. Previously, this was unfunded. There was no cost recovery model and it was costing about $1½ million per annum.

Dr CLOSE: Is that what was spent last year?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes, that has not changed—about $1½ million, maybe just a little bit more than that.

Dr CLOSE: A $2.1 million increase?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The $1.5 million was just for petrol stations, whereas $2.1 million is other sites that are regulated as well.

Dr CLOSE: If we turn over to page 123—and I accept the minister does not wish to project to the future—when you look at the table about surplus cash transfer to the Consolidated Account it has gone from $5.8 million in 2017 to $20 million in 2020. What has been the driver for that steady increase in the amount transferred to the Consolidated Account?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Deputy leader, this is a reflection on the increase in the solid waste levy and the funds raised from that.

Dr CLOSE: Thank you, I thought so. That is it for the EPA, thank you. On page 477, 'Significant events and transactions', there is reference to work continuing on the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme (NAIS). How much of that $155.6 million was spent during the period the Auditor-General's Report refers to?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The $30 million figure that is referenced in the Auditor-General's Report would be the figure that was spent during that financial period—or the auditing period.

Dr CLOSE: Did that expenditure trigger a change in the water that was available to Buckland Dry Creek? Was it during that period that there was a change in what water was available?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Three gigalitres of water has been provided into the NAIS system to date, and that occurred around November 2019, so that would have been this period. That would have seen a three gigalitre reduction in the amount of water which previously had been in the wastewater system, instead travelling north to the broadacre farming area and the production.

Dr CLOSE: When was Buckland Dry Creek informed about that reduction?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I do not have that answer. I am happy to take that one on notice for the deputy leader.

Dr CLOSE: I appreciate it. If I can turn to page 479, there is a controls opinion finding about the lack of formal condition assessments being scheduled for water treatment plants. Is there now a schedule in place for formal condition assessments?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The Auditor-General's recommendations or findings there have been taken into consideration, taken on board by SA Water, and an appropriate process is being developed as we speak.

Dr CLOSE: I note on the next page that it says SA Water responded that it would develop and implement a business process to ensure that asset condition grades are updated. That is still in progress? That has not yet been completed?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: It is well underway, but not at completion point.

Dr CLOSE: Is there an estimation of when that could be completed, and will it be public that that has then occurred?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: It will be completed this financial year, and there would be no reason why not to make that public.

Dr CLOSE: Was it concerning to the minister to discover that this was the case?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: There is nothing in the audit report about my particular emotions about the issues in it.

Dr CLOSE: Has the minister assured himself that there has not been any negative consequences from the lack of an appropriate process being in place?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I have complete confidence that SA Water has managed this sensibly and effectively.

Dr CLOSE: Further down, on page 480, there is the reference to the CSIS system, noting:

…that SA Water’s annual review of CSIS user access for 2019…started in April 2019…[but] remained incomplete as at February 2020.

What is the status of that review now?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: That has now been completed.

Dr CLOSE: Good. Page 481 canvasses the question of the Public Works Committee not having reported and endorsed a project that had nonetheless incurred expenditure from SA Water. I see that there is a debate between SA Water and perhaps public works, perhaps the Auditor-General, on the interpretation of the act. My question, though, is: how much was spent in this particular instance by SA Water before the Public Works Committee had completed its inquiries?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: We do not have a specific answer to that. I will take that on notice.

Dr CLOSE: That would be good. What was the process that led SA Water to undertaking expenditure prior to the completion of the Public Works Committee inquiry? Was the minister's office aware that that had happened?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: No, I certainly was not aware. I cannot speak for my extended office, but I was not aware of that. SA Water have made it clear that it is their view and their legal advice that what they have done is appropriate and that that action is not only appropriate but the way they have done things in the past. The Auditor-General has not made a finding against SA Water, but it has simply asked the Attorney-General to take a look at this to provide clarity so that agencies—not only SA Water but other agencies—can implement appropriate controls to ensure they comply with the law. There is clearly some ambiguity there; I guess that will be for the Attorney-General's attention.

Dr CLOSE: In the meantime, will this continue to be the way in which SA Water operates, that it will spend money prior to the completion of Public Works Committee reports?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: We have legal advice that we are relying on that says the way that we undertake these projects as a corporation is appropriate. The Crown Solicitor's Office has confirmed that the interpretation of the act undertaken at the time was valid. Given that no funds were applied to the project before the tabling of the report to the Public Works Committee, we stand by the process, unless legal advice were to say otherwise.

Dr CLOSE: Are there any current projects that SA Water is undertaking that also fall into this category?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: It is a very common approach for a utility to get a project up and running, not to commence construction per se but to start the procurement process, so there certainly would be other projects.

Dr CLOSE: As minister, you are not choosing to issue any directions otherwise? You are comfortable with that being the case until you get the Attorney-General's advice?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I certainly will not be issuing any directions that will slow down important construction and stimulus works around South Australia. As minister, it is my responsibility to rely on the advice of the Crown Solicitor's Office. It would be negligent and possibly a level of misconduct not to do so. I have a legal opinion, which SA Water has, and that is what we must rely on until either the law changes or we get a conflicting opinion.

Dr CLOSE: I turn to page 485, Community service obligations. One of the obligations is to provide water in a more generous or charitable way to communities that are in particular need. What action has the minister or SA Water taken for long-term water security for the Scotdesco community?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: There is no reference to Scotdesco in this audit, and that is outside of SA Water's regulated customer base.

Dr CLOSE: So the community service obligations do not cover the interaction that SA Water has with Scotdesco?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I do not believe they do. Scotdesco is a significant distance outside the Ceduna area, and I think SA Water's obligation goes out as far as Penong but not out to Scotdesco.

The CHAIR: I might just add, deputy leader, that there was actually good rain in the far west last week. I understand Nundroo had over 50 millimetres last week.

Dr CLOSE: That is good news.

The CHAIR: So I would hope and expect that Scotdesco had good catchment after that.

Dr CLOSE: That is good. It might put off the day when they need some additional assistance, but it probably does not deal with it long term. If the minister were to make a decision that the community service obligations would require SA Water to do something, is that within the minister's power?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: A strategy or a protection has been set up to ensure that Scotdesco does have support for the provision of water. That is a process that has been agreed through liaisons between the Aboriginal Affairs division of the Department of Premier and Cabinet with SA Water's involvement as well. It is hypothetical to try to project what will happen into the future, but I do believe that we have established a safety net. I know the member for Flinders has been heavily involved in those negotiations as well, and that safety net should see Scotdesco supported into the future.

Dr CLOSE: If we move to page 487, there is reference to service contracts for the maintenance of Adelaide metropolitan water and sewerage infrastructure. During this period there was a decision to change over that contract with Allwater. What provisions were put in place in this period to protect the workers of Allwater in that change?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The deputy leader is correct to highlight that there has been a fairly significant change to the service contract going forward in terms of impact. Two entities will be providing those services with the contract being split. One of those contracts has been secured by SUEZ, and the other has been secured by Lend Lease.

In terms of impact to employees, the SUEZ team have previous experience in operating SA Water's production and treatment assets, and all employees will be invited to participate in a recruitment process to join the new team. I have no doubt that, given the size and scope of the operation, and while different in terms of its deployment, it is still doing very similar task. I suspect many of those employees will be competitive and successful in applying for those positions.

The other provider, Lend Lease, which is taking on the metropolitan field services, will develop a new flexible system with all employees also invited to participate in a recruitment process to join that team. Lend Lease's approach towards developing a new system will drive much more flexibility in when and how the workforce delivers the services that so many South Australians rely on. It is very much the view of the corporation, the board and the government that this will lead to significant customer service improvements.

Dr CLOSE: So there was a requirement or an expectation that all current staff would be invited to participate in the recruitment process but not that they would be guaranteed to be employed?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: That is correct. There is no guarantee given to current staff. This is a changed operator. The Allwater process was not getting the customer service names that we hoped for and so the dividing of the contract and the coming on board of Lend Lease and SUEZ, we believe, will have a significant benefit to customers and allow us to really move towards best practice service delivery.

Dr CLOSE: If I can move to page 491 regarding the renewal of the water and sewer pipe networks, there is evidently a sharp decrease in the pipe renewal expenditure. Why is that the case? What sits behind that? Is it a conscious decision? Is it budget cutting? Is it some external factor?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I believe this is the profiling of the four-year spend which was front loaded and then dropped off but will pick up again. We just entered a new regulatory period and I believe that will pick up again. There will be an injection of funds through the coming couple of financial years and then a drop down again, I think. I am just waiting for further advice with regard to that.

Deputy leader, I have clarified that. There was a direction which saw an additional expenditure at one point in the last regulatory period and that will be repeated in this regulatory period, so that saw that increase in 2017-18 and then a return to normal levels. I expect that graph, if you took it into the future, would demonstrate the same pickup, but we are not looking forward.

Dr Close interjecting:

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Exactly.

Dr CLOSE: I am happy to leave SA Water there and ask possibly one question of DEW.

The CHAIR: What page are we looking at, deputy leader?

Dr CLOSE: It is page 127. On the first page (page 127), there is reference to the bushfires causing damage and to being in the process of settling an insurance claim with SAFA. Has that been settled now?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: As the deputy leader would appreciate, it is a pretty substantial claim in the tens of millions of dollars, so it is a prolonged negotiation process. As the audit report says, we have had a couple of payments there. We expect to get this insurance claim to be in the region of $45 million, so that is a prolonged and detailed process. We are proceeding with our planning and reimagining process for the lost assets on the basis that we will get a claim of around the $45 million figure.

The CHAIR: I will allow one last question, if you want it, deputy leader.

Dr CLOSE: Very quickly, on page 138, regarding the natural resources management boards, there is reference to the amount of money that has been provided to those boards, which are now of course Landscape SA boards. I would expect this will need to be taken on notice, but what is the variation between the income that was received by each of the boards when they were NRM boards and the income received by each board as a landscape board given that the boundaries have changed?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: That is a difficult one to provide an answer to because for some boards—Kangaroo Island and the further afield regional boards—their boundaries have not changed, but the Northern and Yorke board and the Hills and Fleurieu board are completely new in this most recent financial year. Green Adelaide has also had a significant boundary change. It would be very difficult to compare apples with oranges. But with regard to the regional boards—AW, Arid Lands, Eyre Peninsula, Limestone Coast and KI—the amount of money available is very similar. In fact, you could say that, because they have more autonomy with regard to their spending, the amount of money in the hands of the boards has actually increased in those areas.

Dr CLOSE: For those ones where it is complicated, is it possible to take that on notice?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: We could certainly say how much their current budgets are, but because they did not exist before we could not demonstrate what they used to be. We could give you a figure for Hills and Fleurieu, Green Adelaide, and Northern and Yorke under the new boundaries.

The CHAIR: Thank you to the committee, minister, advisers and deputy leader. We will wrap it up there.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.


At 18:07 the house adjourned until Thursday 4 February 2021 at 11:00.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT