HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2021-02-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Auditor-General's Report

Auditor-General's Report

In committee.

(Continued from 3 February 2021.)

The CHAIR: The house is in committee examining the annual report of the Auditor-General. The minister in the examination is the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. I welcome you and your advisers and also the member for Elizabeth. Member for Elizabeth, there is no need to stand when asking questions but could you please reference the page, at least, from which you are drawing your questions.

Mr ODENWALDER: Are we differentiating between the main agency report and the financial statement?

The CHAIR: Yes.

Mr ODENWALDER: Which is curiously unnumbered. I want to thank the advisers for coming in; I appreciate this is an imposition at such a busy time. I want to go to pages 422 to 423 of the main report, where it talks about employee benefits liabilities. It points out that a large part of that is a $14.9 million increase in annual leave liabilities, and I want to explore this a little bit. It also points out that this was the main factor in employee benefits liabilities. What is the general entitlement for annual leave in SAPOL? Is it six weeks of annual leave for a full-time sworn officer? I will start with an easy one.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Yes.

Mr ODENWALDER: It states here that all leave was cancelled between 9 April and 13 May 2020. Was any annual leave cancelled after 13 May 2020, particularly regarding COVID-19? This is what it states here.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I thank the member for the question. I am advised that there were limits on leave. As the member can appreciate, obviously COVID-19 has had quite an impact on South Australia Police. Most accurately, the answer would be that it was actively managed. That issue was actively managed.

Mr ODENWALDER: There were limits on leave across the board. Was anyone exempt from having limitations placed on their leave—any particular ranks, or any particular positions?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Was anyone exempt from leave?

Mr ODENWALDER: Not asked to cancel their leave.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I thank the member for the question. I am advised that sworn and unsworn members did have limits. People could take leave, but it was actively managed.

Mr ODENWALDER: Can you say that again, sorry?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Sworn and unsworn officers had limits. People could take leave; however, it was actively managed.

Mr ODENWALDER: Given that people's leave was cancelled and delayed, are SAPOL now on track to honour all their annual leave for this financial year, including what may have accrued during the cancellation period?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Can I get you to clarify when you say 'on track to honour'?

Mr ODENWALDER: By the end of this financial year, will all members have received all their annual leave entitlements, or will there still be some overhang?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I am not trying to be tricky here, but the entitlement is still the entitlement. Obviously, how that entitlement is taken is a question for the future, but the entitlements remain their entitlements. Did you have anything more specific there?

Mr ODENWALDER: Ordinarily, people take their entitlement within the financial year to which it applies. By the end of this financial year, will all those members who wish to have been able to take all their leave they are entitled to, including what they may have forgone in the previous financial year?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Obviously, the future of COVID presents many unknowns, but it is certainly something that we have to continue to monitor. As I pointed out, the entitlements of those police for this financial year do remain their entitlements and it is something that SAPOL will continue to monitor. It is part of the uncertainty that COVID presents.

Mr ODENWALDER: Have any employees been denied access to police service leave over this period, as distinct from annual leave?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Member for Elizabeth, I would be happy to take that on notice. It is also likely an aspect that has had to be managed because of the uncertainties the COVID-19 pandemic has presented.

Mr ODENWALDER: Could you also take on notice if any long service leave has been cancelled or delayed?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I am happy to do that.

Mr ODENWALDER: Similarly, if you cannot answer it, I would like to know how many people have had leave without pay denied or cancelled, how many applications for leave without pay have been made for the last financial year and up to this point, and how many have been refused and why.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: As it relates to COVID, member for Elizabeth?

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I am happy to take that on notice.

Mr ODENWALDER: The Auditor notes that a number of employees with significant long service leave liabilities also left SAPOL in 2019-20. For the Auditor to note that, can you tell me what the number of employees with significant long service leave who left in 2019-20 was? Was that greater than previous years or greater than the average?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I am advised that is not information I would have here at the moment but I am happy to take that on notice.

Mr ODENWALDER: I might return to this in a moment. I just have a quick question and I want to refer to financial statement reference 4.1—there are no page numbers, helpfully—on supplies and services legal costs. I want to know if the government or the agency have received any requests from the Police Association for reimbursement for legal costs in relation to matters that have been found either not guilty or without conviction.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I am happy to look into that for the member for Elizabeth. I am advised that we do not have that level of detail at the moment, but I am happy to provide that if it is available and appropriate.

Mr ODENWALDER: You will provide that and you will break it down?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: If it is available and appropriate.

Mr ODENWALDER: And amounts?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: We just do not have that level of detail at the moment.

Mr ODENWALDER: We will go to COVID on page 425 of the report. Obviously, we are all aware of the additional pressures it has put SAPOL under. Obviously, extra staffing was needed for the COVID response. Obviously, that has been met in other ways as time has gone by. In the reporting period, what effect did the extra staffing requirements have on other sections? Were there any sections that were significantly understaffed for any period?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I thank the member for the question. Obviously, as the member has alluded to, SAPOL has played a significant role in responding to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic here in South Australia. Ever since a major emergency was declared on 22 March last year, police resourcing, a redirection of resourcing, required to respond to COVID-19 in South Australia, has been driven by many requirements.

Operational requirements included, establishing and maintaining checkpoints at state borders at various times, checking compliance with self-quarantine requirements at Adelaide Airport, restrictions on public activities and gatherings, providing policing and security overlay at hotels used by SA Health for supervised quarantine and, of course, additional police resources were required to staff the Police Operations Centre. It was quite a task. I commend the police commissioner and his team because they also had to make sure that operational service delivery was maintained.

I am certainly not aware of any understaffing, as it was characterised, in any other area as a result. It has been a mighty effort by South Australia Police, and the recent RoGS data shows that they have put in an absolutely sterling effort and I think that is why they enjoy the highest public confidence of any police force in Australia at the moment.

Mr ODENWALDER: So you are telling me that throughout the reporting period COVID had no appreciable effect on any section that was not related to COVID in terms of staffing? There were no shift changes, there was no reduction in staff hours across different sections at all at different stations?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I thank the member for the question. I am certainly not aware of understaffing in any areas as a result but, obviously, SAPOL had to conduct a whole range of policing/active resourcing. That all certainly meant that there had to be redirection of resourcing at various times to make sure that they could do things, as I said, to establish and maintain checkpoints at state borders, the Airport, self-quarantine, public gatherings and activities, continue to provide a police and security overlay at hotels by SA Health and provide additional police resources to staff the POC. I will also take advice and see if there is anything else to add.

Member for Elizabeth, obviously there would have had to have been various shift changes, appreciable differences in those shift changes, but at the same time service delivery was maintained across the board.

Mr ODENWALDER: Perhaps understaffing was a leading term: we will call it reductions in staffing. Did the SAPOL contribution of staff to the Multi-Agency Protection Service, for instance, remain steady over the reporting period and in the six months following that, or was there a reduction in SAPOL staffing at that service? Perhaps while your adviser is standing up, the prosecution service too?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Member for Elizabeth, to perhaps provide an overview of various aspects, I might take that on notice. That way I can go back, get up-to-date information and provide, if you like, an overview of what you are seeking rather than me just speaking in more general terms. If you are after something in particular, I am happy to take that on notice and provide what I can, if it is appropriate.

Mr ODENWALDER: I appreciate that minister, yes. Most of the spending in terms of COVID-19 is related to staffing. How much spending was there on other non-staff resourcing, and what was that spending on? The report specifically refers to unbudgeted increases in expenditure, particularly employment benefits, and supplies and services.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I am advised that SAPOL incurred additional unbudgeted COVID-19 expenditure in employee benefits of $3.2 million and also supplies and services of $3.4 million, in 2019-20. Supplies and services expenses increased due to the purchase of additional personal protective equipment. Other equipment: there was also cleaning, as the member would appreciate. That cleaning subject includes facilities, operational equipment and vehicles.

There was also IT and communications, including additional working from home capability, because obviously it was quite a disruption, and many people were able to work from home. Obviously, this is an insidious disease, which is why services were affected the way they were and that expenditure on equipment and cleaning had to be made. That also brought with it increased travel and accommodation requirements.

Mr ODENWALDER: I will go to 2.6 of the financial statement, which talks about net gain from the disposal of property and other assets. It notes again, from land and buildings, $316,000. Can you tell the committee what property was sold for $316,000?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Member for Elizabeth, I am advised that is from the sale of the old Roxby Downs Police Station.

Mr ODENWALDER: How much is the government hoping to get for the Stirling Police Station?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I see the former Treasurer. He would appreciate that some of this information would be commercial-in-confidence. We may not necessarily want to advertise the exact price which we might want to obtain for that particular item.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: You have to publish a price range.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I am advised we may not want to. It may not be in the public interest at the moment.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! Minister, you are answering the question.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: That is what I am advised but, if that is incorrect or there is an updated position that I am advised, then I am happy to provide it. But that is my advice at the moment.

Mr ODENWALDER: It is currently for sale, though, isn't it? It is on the market right now.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: As I understand it, yes.

Mr ODENWALDER: At no published price range?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I think the question is more about the government's expectation on what we expect it to sell for.

Mr ODENWALDER: What other police stations are the government intending to sell? Are you intending to sell Kalangadoo, Kingston, Robe, Lucindale, Beachport or Port MacDonnell police stations?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: No, not that I am aware of.

Mr ODENWALDER: Will you rule that out?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I do not see how that is relevant to the 2019-20 financial statements but not to my knowledge, not that I am aware of.

Mr ODENWALDER: Can we ask if anybody knows?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I refer to my previous answer.

Mr ODENWALDER: I will stay on the financial statement at 5.3, property leased by SAPOL. When will the Hindley Street Police Station cease operating on its current site?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I am not sure how that relates to the 2019-20 financial statements. Member for Elizabeth, because I do not want to mislead the member, I will make sure that if it is appropriate I will bring back an updated exact time line.

Mr ODENWALDER: Okay, so you are not aware of any time line at all?

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, it is probably more of a question for estimates, I would suggest.

Mr ODENWALDER: Alright, yes.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: The member for Elizabeth has asked me about this in the house before, Chair, and I did make it known that the site was moving to another site. But I am happy to take that particular question on notice and provide an up-to-date time line as to when the site is moving from one site to another in that precinct.

Mr ODENWALDER: Time is running away from us, so I will move to page 420 of the main report. Can you confirm, as it states in the Auditor's report, that the average increase in salary for a SAPOL sworn officer will be 2.5 per cent per year over the next three years? I beg your pardon, it does state that, but can you confirm that it was 2.5 per cent from 1 July 2018 to the end of this year?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I think you have answered your own question. What was the—

Mr ODENWALDER: Can you confirm, as the Auditor has stated, that the average increase was 2.5 per cent per year over this reporting period?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Over the last three years?

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes; from 1 July 2018. That is what it says here.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I am pretty confident that the Auditor-General is correct.

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, we only have a few minutes left. Did you want to move on? I do not mind; I am in your hands.

Mr ODENWALDER: I thought we had two hours.

The CHAIR: Well, I have two hours; you do not.

Mr ODENWALDER: I might ask for Corrections then, sadly. I go to page 80 of the main report, which talks about the servicing of X-ray machines. I assume these are X-ray machines for visitors, or are they for prisoners, or both?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I am advised they are for both.

Mr ODENWALDER: The Auditor-General is very concerned about the level of servicing. The Adelaide Remand Centre, surprisingly, and Yatala have quarterly servicing at their sites, but the maintenance plans for the remaining three sites do not include regular servicing of the X-ray machines located there. The Auditor-General has noted that this could lead to premature equipment failure or malfunction. Has DCS now reviewed and amended its procedures regarding the testing and servicing of X-ray machines?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Yes, I am advised we have. I am advised that DCS certainly acknowledges that the compliance requirements of the Radiation Protection and Control Act must be adhered to due to safety and also security reasons. I am also advised that DCS has reviewed and amended its procedures for the maintenance and servicing of its baggage X-ray equipment at all sites to include the requirement that the scheduling of quarterly servicing be included in the DCS annual preventative maintenance plan, and that DCS complies with all aspects of the Radiation Protection and Control Act 1982. It is to be noted that the servicing of baggage X-ray equipment, I am advised, has been completed at all sites, so that finding, from a DCS point of view, is considered finalised.

Mr ODENWALDER: You are confident that will continue every six months, as the Auditor appears to suggest is correct?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: That is my advice, member for Elizabeth.

Mr ODENWALDER: I go to page 79 to 80, which talks about condition assessments for all DCS facilities. It notes that as of 30 June 2019, the only DCS facility that had been assessed was the Adelaide Remand Centre. When was that assessment undertaken, and was any further work done as a result of that assessment?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I thank the member for Elizabeth for the question. I will have to take that on notice.

Mr ODENWALDER: This year's audit also noted that it appears the only other condition assessment that has been done is at Cadell; is that right? No other facilities have had a condition assessment undertaken?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: At the time of the audit that was correct, but I understand that other sites are also having it conducted.

Mr ODENWALDER: Are they? Okay.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: That was it.

Mr ODENWALDER: Does this mean it is the government's intention to privatise the Cadell facility now? Is that what we are doing? We are cleaning it up to sell it?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Definitely not.

Mr ODENWALDER: Definitely not. You are ruling out privatising the Cadell facility?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I refer you to my earlier answer.

Mr ODENWALDER: Will you rule out privatising any other facilities?

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, that question is—

Mr ODENWALDER: Coached by the finest legal mind in the country.

The CHAIR: Order, member for Elizabeth!

Mr ODENWALDER: Sorry, I am running out of time, sir.

The CHAIR: Time is of the essence here.

Mr ODENWALDER: I apologise and withdraw.

The CHAIR: That question is more suited to the estimates committee.

Mr ODENWALDER: Did the condition assessment at the Adelaide Remand Centre include assessments based on security risk? Were any risks identified and what actions were taken as a result of those identifications?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I will take that on notice, member for Elizabeth.

The CHAIR: Time has expired. The bell went, member for Elizabeth. That completes the examination of the Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services. We now move to primary industries. Welcome to the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, his advisers and the member for Ramsay. I will open this session of the examination of the Auditor-General's Report. Member for Ramsay, could you refer to your page or line in the report from where you are drawing your questions. Thank you.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Minister, I refer to Report 13, Part C, page 389. I refer to the drought assistance program that was announced in December 2019. It states that only $2.1 million had been spent by 30 June last year out of a total of $21 million. Why has your department only released 10 per cent of the drought assistance funds?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Thank you for that question. That $21 million was to be spread over two budgets, so $9 million was allocated into the 2019-20 year and $12 million into the 2020-21 year. The expenditure that occurred in the 2019-20 year was $4.3 million of which $2.1 million related to grants under various components of the package, which included the on-farm water rebate scheme which is $1.35 million; local council rates scheme, $441,000; and the Rural Financial Counselling Service, $305,000. There has been a great uptake for the On-Farm Emergency Water Infrastructure Rebate Scheme since that date as well, to the point that it was oversubscribed and we are negotiating with the federal government to get their support for further expenditure in that package.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: But the Auditor-General was correct that only $2.1 million had been spent? You said another figure. Is he correct or are you correct?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: There was $2.1 million specifically spent on grants but there was $4.3 million spent in total.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I refer to Report 13, Part C, page 389, which states that there has been a $6.7 million increase this past year on contractors and temporary staff expenses for the fruit fly outbreak management and implementing the state's zero tolerance policy. Why is it that despite the state government spending an additional $6.7 million, fruit fly outbreaks are out of control, and we are seeing schoolkids banned from bringing fruit in their lunch boxes across 297 suburbs in Adelaide?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Thank you very much for the question. It is a very important question, and it is something that we are taking extremely seriously. We are very much making sure that we get the resources on the ground and the extra staff to go into people's properties to help clean up the fruit that may be on the ground under fruit trees, to make sure people know what needs to be done.

Also there is the baiting that is required around the outbreak centre itself; there is a 200 metre circle where baits are placed that need to be applied and managed along with traps over a period of time on a very regular basis requiring a very large workforce to do that. It is very important that we continue to follow those protocols.

The reason for an increase in outbreaks this year: the advice that I was given is that the seasonal conditions have actually been perfect for fruit fly. They like the season that we have had, so we have seen their ability to evade us and breed up—it has been greater than normal. But we continue to throw everything we can at it, including the sterile fruit fly that are released into these zones to make sure that we minimise the ability for new larvae to be hatched in fruit and minimise that spread.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: You spent $6.7 million. Was that spent on contractors in metropolitan Adelaide or in the Riverland?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: At that stage all the expenditure has been in metropolitan Adelaide during that year, because the outbreaks in the Riverland have occurred since the end of the financial year.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: There was $10 million spent on fruit fly biosecurity response activities and $6.7 million spent on contractors and temporary staff. What was the remainder spent on?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am advised the expenditure in that space would have been very much around the operation itself, so there would be expenditure on vehicles and fuelling of those vehicles. There would be expenditure on gear required. There would be extra money spent on traps. There would also be significant extra money spent on the sterile fly program to make sure that the flies were available that needed to be dispersed.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: And how much was spent on publicity?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: We are going to have to take that on notice. We do not have it specifically broken down into that detail here.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Obviously, there is considerable concern about public education, so I think the people of South Australia are very interested in knowing how much money was spent.

The CHAIR: I will take that as a comment, member for Ramsay.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I refer to Report 13, Part C, page 391. The Auditor-General has found issues with your department's legislative compliance framework, despite reporting in 2018-19 that it was not satisfactory. Why were the compliance issues still not fixed after being raised in the 2018-19 report?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: PIRSA acknowledged the Auditor-General's findings regarding the legislative compliance framework and the requirement for implementing a coordinated approach to monitoring and assessing legislative obligations and for this to be embedded within PIRSA's governance and compliance requirements.

As acknowledged by the Auditor-General in his 2019-20 report, significant work had been undertaken on the legislative compliance framework, the procedures and the register, which has been developed and implemented. The updated legislative compliance policy procedure and register were approved by the executive team on 6 October 2020. The next steps are to integrate the legislative compliance documents into individual business areas to ensure centralised monitoring and reporting of breaches as per the updated risk management policy.

Reporting to the executive is now aligned with the existing quarterly reporting provided. It is intended for this to be completed by June 2021 and will enable a central monitoring register of all legislative compliance responsibilities.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Let's move to Report 13, Part C, page 392. Can you confirm that it is the biosecurity division that has responsibility for fruit fly?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Yes.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The report states that the biosecurity division did not have a structured or formal program to assess legislative compliance and report breaches. Why does the division that looks after fruit fly fail to have a structured program to ensure compliance?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I have been informed that it was not that it was not compliant, it has actually just been adjusted to fit within a framework.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I am sorry, minister, I do not quite understand what you mean. Why did they not have a formal program?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I have been advised that it is more around it not having a documentation of the formal program.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: That would be compliance. How many breaches were not reported, and what were the breaches?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am advised that there were no breaches that we are aware of.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: But, minister, if you did not have a compliant program—as the Auditor has raised—how would you know? Let's move on. Can you guarantee that there have been no other breaches that have been missed or hidden because you failed to have an appropriate program to identify and report breaches?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Again, I have been advised that the structure of the program was in place for the statutory compliance, but it was not documented as a framework.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Alas, that is why it was not compliant. The Auditor-General has stated that the risk management framework needs improvement. Why is such a critical process such as risk management substandard in a department that oversees biosecurity issues such as fruit fly?

The CHAIR: Could you just repeat that question for my sake, please?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: My concern here is that it was raised in 2018-19, and now the Auditor has said it is not compliant and it needs improvement. I am greatly concerned, as I am sure the people of South Australia are, that this has been substandard, and now we have a fruit fly outbreak and the department has erred.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: The audit recommendation was that we update the risk management policy and risk management procedures to clarify the responsibility and processes of a new risk to be added or changed to the assessment of an existing risk in the strategic or divisional risk register. This recommendation has a medium rating and was raised as part of the interim audit 2019-20.

The review was completed prior to 30 November 2020 in accordance with the scheduled due date. The framework continues to align to ISO 31000:2018 in accordance with the state government's directive. The framework will be presented to the executive leadership team for approval in February and has, I have been advised this week, been approved.

RiskConsole is a new whole-of-government risk management application that will assist in improving governance, and the framework will include the use of RiskConsole across the agency's risk management processes. RiskConsole includes the functionality of an audit log to track changes, deletions to risks, ensuring that changes are appropriate. All internal and external audit actions have been added to RiskConsole for ongoing management of due dates and completion.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Just let me clarify that in 2018-19 the Auditor-General raised with your department his concerns with compliance, and it is only in February, this month, this week, that your department has now updated this compliance. It seems somewhat that the horse has already bolted.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: As I stated, the review was completed by 30 November and has been in accordance with the scheduled due date, as required by the Auditor.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: On the same topic, just to clarify about the aspects of the framework that have changed, you mentioned track changes and RiskConsole, what else did your department determine needed to be changed in order for you to be compliant?

The CHAIR: Member for Ramsay, while the minister is seeking advice, we are halfway through our session now, did you want to do any regional development at any point, or are you happy to stay with this? I do not mind; it is up to you.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: There may well be an opportunity.

The CHAIR: Yes, that is fine.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am advised there were no other issues. It was just about the documentation into the framework.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Are you willing to table that new framework, given it has just recently been updated and was such a cause of the Auditor-General's for its lack of compliance?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I will have to take that under consideration. It is departmental policy, so I will have to consider that.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Referring to the same page, page 392, I turn to the Emergency Bushfire Response in Primary Industries grants. On this page, it states that the objective of this grant program was to assist primary producers who suffered direct damage from a bushfire disaster in 2019-20 with immediate recovery costs. The graphs on page 393 show that more than a quarter of all applicants had to wait for more than a month to be paid after their applications had been approved. Do you think that it was acceptable that people suffering from bushfire disasters were still forced to wait more than a month to receive the relief, which was to be immediate relief, even though their applications were approved?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Thank you for those comments. The Auditor-General did point out there was an improvement over time. There were some initial delays. The delay in payments was initially due to waiting for tax invoices to approve applicants to be processed, as well as initial delays after having to establish applicants' vendor details for payments, which were all due to people having lost all their documentation, etc. This made it very difficult for people to be paid because we had to establish where to pay them. So there were some challenges in the initial stages.

When you go through the full applications, there were 260 applicants, and 169 of them were approved within two weeks—that is, 65 per cent of them. Sixty per cent were approved in the two to four-week period, and then there were 31 applicants that were above that four-week time frame.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Minister, what was the longest time it took for an applicant to be paid after being approved?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I do not have the detail of the longest, but there were 10 applicants who took over six weeks. Some of that would have been very much waiting on details from those applicants to make sure that we were able to establish their claim and where to pay them.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I understand you introduced a streamlined process, which you touched on. Even then, more than 20 per cent of people were still not being paid within two weeks of approval, despite this being urgent recovery. How was it determined who was paid first?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: It is my understanding that once those application were ready to be paid, they were paid. Effectively, once all the details were there and it was able to be verified that it was being paid in accordance with the guidelines and we were able to work out which bank account it could be paid into, those applicants were paid.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I understand that $19.7 million was paid out to applicants. How much is left in that fund? Minister, do you need to take that on notice? You seem not to have that information before you.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: My understanding is that this program was a responsive budget, so effectively the money that was available was what was actually needed. Depending on how many applicants there were, that is what was paid out. There is nothing left underspent.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: So it was returned to Treasury?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: It never came from Treasury until it was required.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Do you think the amount of money that you had for those bushfire grants was adequate?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: These grants were paid to primary producers. They were paid to people who received more than 51 per cent of their income from primary production and who were able to demonstrate loss. We made this program available right up until the end of December 2020, so people were able to apply right up to that date. We paid out, as I said, just under $25 million, which was a total of 414 applicants. We only paid out what was asked for. We could not have paid any more because no more was asked for.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Obviously, I have touched on the delays in some of these payments. Are you aware of any other grant programs administered by your department where people have had lengthy delays in receiving payments even though they have been approved?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am advised there are no known issues in relation to that. The issue in the delay in grants being paid is the lack of information required to process those grants. That is where the hold-ups apply in grants being expended out.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Looking at page 393, the Auditor-General recommended that your department update guidelines to include examples of additional supporting documents that may be helpful for applicants to submit. When did that occur? This is still in reference to the grants.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am advised that there have been continuous changes to improve, basically, since April, making sure that as we became aware of an issue in understanding that information, if there was a way of clarifying that, changes were made. There has also, more recently, been an online version that is making it easier for people to complete.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The Auditor mentioned to you and recommended that you work with Shared Services SA in ways to reduce the payment time and establish clear expectations regarding roles and responsibility and time frames for payment, but he also acknowledges that you are yet to respond to their findings. Why did you not respond to the Auditor-General?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am advised that it is a matter of timing. It was a short time prior to the publishing of this report that the finding was presented to the department, and the response just was not back prior to the publishing of the report. Certainly, it is back and has been dealt with.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Minister, can I now turn to page 400—which may require a change. There was one new loan that was approved on the Loans to Cooperatives Scheme for $28.6 million; who was that to?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Cabinet approved a $28.55 million loan to Almondco Australia Ltd under the Loans to Cooperatives Scheme during September 2019 to assist Almondco to expand and improve its Renmark almond processing facility. Projects funded include:

1. project enhancement of $25.3 million to construct a new almond processing facility;

2. project 2020, $2.7 million to construct and equip an almond sorting room; and

3. project wastewater of $550,000 to install an on-site wastewater treatment plant.

Almondco has drawn down $20.05 million of the $28.55 million loan, following the provision of evidence to confirm the project works complete. Of that, in the 2019-20 year, there was $10.7 million drawn down; the rest is as of 21 January this year. Treasury approved a budget variation of $1½ million to the $17.85 million for 2020-21 for Almondco's loans, the remaining funding of the $8.5 million fund future loan drawdowns during 2021. The Almondco loan is the only current loan from the Loans to Cooperatives Scheme.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Minister, did any other companies or cooperatives apply for loans?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Not during that time frame, no.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Looking at page 395, the report states that there was a $4.4 million increase in the South East Forestry Partnerships Program, including a $3 million payment to DPTI as a contribution towards the Mount Gambier Airport development. Can you please provide a breakdown of the remaining $1.4 million?

The CHAIR: So, member for Ramsay, you are asking for breakdown of the balance of the $1.4 million?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The Auditor-General makes a note that there was $4.4 million and it talks about $3 million. I am asking where the other $1.4 million was spent.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Rather than hold up others, we will take that on notice.

The CHAIR: Thank you, minister, thank you member for Ramsay, thank you advisers. That brings to an end the examination of the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development. We will now move to the Minister for Trade and Investment who has been waiting patiently. The minister's advisers are in place. I would like to make a short statement, if I may here. I refer to Part A of the Auditor-General's Report, Executive Summary, which states:

…all financial reports are published on the Auditor-General's Department website once the audit of the agency is finalised.

A list of the agencies not included in my Annual Report is provided in the Annexure to Part A.

I note that the Department for Trade and Investment and StudyAdelaide are listed in the annexure to Part A as not being included in the report. I further note that the agency statements for the Department for Trade and Investment and StudyAdelaide have been published on the Auditor-General's website.

Based on the referral of the Auditor-General's Report 2019-20 to the Committee of the Whole and reference in the report to agency statements being published on the Auditor-General's Department website, I am prepared to accept questions based on the financial statement of the Department for Trade and Investment and StudyAdelaide now published. Is that clear?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Chair, I do have a concern, because obviously the Auditor makes commentary across all of government. Why this department was not audited—I think it is appropriate for me to ask questions from the Executive Summary and the Controls Opinion.

The CHAIR: That is quite within order, member for Ramsay; or, you can in turn refer to the financials—

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I do have the financial statements.

The CHAIR: —but please do refer to the page.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Certainly. Minister, can I point you to the Auditor-General's Report (Report 13), Part A, page 57. The Auditor-General has published the DTI financial statements but, as we have heard, has not included the department in this report. Why was your department not included?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: That is a question for the Auditor-General.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: You are the only department that was not included. Were you unable to make yourselves available to the Auditor-General?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: I am not advised that is the case. The Auditor-General has issued an unmodified opinion on the Department for Trade and Investment's 2019-20 financial report.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Obviously, as we have spoken about, the Auditor-General provides an Executive Summary and talks about Controls Opinion. Did his audit provide any findings for DTI to consider?

The CHAIR: As in his general audit, to be considered by this particular department?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Yes.

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: I am advised that the Auditor-General's 2019-20 audit did not identify any issues of significance.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Can you say that again?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: I am advised that the Auditor-General's audit did not identify any issues of significance.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I move to Report 13, Part A, page 35. Given that there are roughly 2,900 merchandise exporters in South Australia, how many export businesses received the small business emergency grants?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: That is a question best asked of the Treasurer.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I would think as the minister you might have some interest within that. I guess, in that same term, the Auditor-General mentions that it is only businesses with a turnover of more than $75,000 that were eligible. Do you have data that is available to you to know how many of the exporting businesses were eligible to receive a small business emergency grant, given that the turnover had to be $75,000?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: We certainly have a database that tracks all export businesses regardless of their turnover.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Perhaps you could take that on notice because it would be very interesting to know the conversations that took place from Treasury and Finance. Obviously, exports were massively impacted by COVID-19. Did you hear from Treasury and Finance? Did you have any correspondence about how many export businesses received the grants?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: We certainly deal with the Treasurer's department in regard to this. In regard to that question, the emergency small business grants scheme is administered by the Treasurer. Of course, we have our own grants program for those export-focused businesses. As I said, we have a large number on our database that we deal with on a one-on-one basis.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Obviously this is important because the Auditor-General spoke quite in detail about the impacts of COVID-19, so that is a concern. If we can move now to page 38, also in reference to the impacts of COVID-19, and talk about the additional funding for the Economic and Business Growth Fund. What role does DTI play in approving Economic and Business Growth Fund applications?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: Did you say improving?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Approving.

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: Our department is on a committee that is used to approve those grants and also there is ministerial input.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Perhaps you could elaborate, minister: is this a governance group for the fund, or is this an approval group for the fund?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: The committee is in charge of the governance and then final approval goes with cabinet.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Who takes it to cabinet?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: These grants are across multiple departments, so it would be specific to whichever minister had carriage of that department.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Thank you for that because I am keen to understand how many of these fund applications you had carriage for.

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: That is not relevant to the Auditor-General's Report.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I am going to have to disagree with you. It is very clear that the Auditor-General talks about COVID-19 impacts and about government response and one of the key responses was additional funding for the Economic and Business Growth Fund, which you are a key participant, so I think it is a relevant question.

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: I agree we are a key participant.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: You are not going to answer that question?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: It is not relevant to this report. Certainly, there are other forums to ask those questions.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Chair, I disagree.

The CHAIR: That is fine, but I would remind the member for Ramsay that ministers can answer questions however and in whichever form they wish, so we probably need to move to the next question.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Before I move on, in regard to financial controls, what role does DTI play regarding the Economic and Business Growth Fund and this additional money? Do you provide submissions about recommendations?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: Where a bid into this fund goes ahead and is applicable to either trade or investment, we are actively involved, whether we will be putting it forward ourselves or whether there is a potential grant that would involve trade and investment.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Thank you, minister. Let's now turn to page 42. Am I correct in assuming that DTI receives, and is privy to, commercial-in-confidence data from various private businesses, for example, for a grant application purpose? Do you have cybersecurity processes in place to ensure the safety of this data?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: I am certainly advised that we have cyber protocols in place. At a general level, it is an important aspect having cybersecurity. Obviously, the Premier, in his Auditor-General's examination, canvassed this; it is ultimately his department's responsibility.

I should note that, from a trade and investment point of view, the establishment in Lot Fourteen of the Australian Cyber Collaboration Centre is critical to the South Australian industry, South Australian business, because there are tangible threats to businesses' intellectual property, their proprietary information, so it is vital to our state that we have that established here.

Going forward, our department is certainly investigating how we can work to assist businesses to become more and more cyber safe. I see that as a critical role that will really help businesses in South Australia and also Australia-wide, as it is, as I said, the Australian Cyber Collaboration Centre.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Your department is not located at Lot Fourteen. My question is very specific as to what the Auditor-General raised about his concerns regarding cyber attacks and the increased cybersecurity monitoring of COVID-19 cyber attacks. My question is: what have you as a department got in place to ensure the safety of the data of South Australian businesses that you engage with?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: I am advised that our cybersecurity protocols are in line with the Department of the Premier and Cabinet's guidelines. In fact, we were one of the first departments to put that in place.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Obviously, this has been a concern of the Auditor-General because he talked about it quite substantially. Your department is privy to sensitive government and private sector data. I understand that many of your departmental staff worked from home during the COVID period. Did you implement a strict cybersecurity program or measures during this work-from-home period?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: As I said before, and can confirm, we were complying with the cybersecurity in line with the Department of the Premier and Cabinet's guidelines. I am further advised that the staff, while they were working from home, all used their government devices, which, as I said, had been set up in line with the cybersecurity protocols.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Did DTI experience any cyber attacks during this audit period?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: I am advised that they did not.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: That is good to hear. Did you, as minister, proactively seek any briefings or information to ensure that DTI and government data was kept secure? Obviously, this has been raised by the Auditor-General. Did you proactively seek to ensure that you are up to date?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: You will of course be aware that this committee is dealing with the 2019-20 year; I was not the minister.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Do you have any knowledge of the former minister proactively seeking to ensure that DTI was not making itself open?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: I have been advised that he was aware of the cybersecurity protocols and that we were complying with them. As I said before, I was advised that there were no breaches in that period, so I feel that he was proactive in his approach.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Minister, we have trade offices around the world. How are they supported to prevent cybersecurity attacks?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: Our trade offices are co-located within Austrade. I will detail further in the response the ones that are not, but those that are co-located in Austrade leverage the federal government's security protocols that are in place there. In terms of offices not co-located with Austrade in the UK, they sit inside Australia House and so benefit from the security protocols there, as do our sister state agencies as well.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Regarding the trade offices, obviously the impact of COVID-19 has been severe, in other countries more so than in Australia. What did you do during this time to make sure that those offices representing South Australia were safe?

The CHAIR: Safe from COVID or safe from cyber attack?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Safe from COVID and the impacts of COVID, which obviously includes cyber attacks.

The CHAIR: So just safe in general.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Yes, safe in general.

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: As I said, they were co-located with the Australia offices, predominantly, so they had the overarching guidelines that came about from a federal point of view. From a department point of view, we were in constant contact with those employees at home because with virtual conferencing we were able to actually speak with them and provide them with briefings around health protocols as well.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Good to hear. Minister, can I turn now to the financial statements that were included in the Auditor-General's Report. Looking at financial statement note 4.1, there were seven consultancies engaged in 2019-20.

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: Sorry, which page, just to get me there quicker?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: There is no page number. It is 4.1 under 'Notes' at the end.

The CHAIR: It is 4.1, and the query is in relation to consultants. Have you found it, minister?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: Go ahead, and if I need to go to a different page, I will beg your indulgence.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Minister, seven consultancies were engaged in 2019-20. What was the nature of these consultancy agreements?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: Just define what you mean by 'nature', and then I can maybe give you a little bit more detail.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: What programs were they for? What were the consultancies for?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: My advice is that the nature of some of them was around providing a scoping study to define the final suite of services, eligibility, data requirements and delivery options for one of our programs, the global expansion accelerator.

There was also some advice on a digital interface for new investors and how to provide improved digital support to grow South Australia's economy and global reputation. This is around boosting our digital supply and assistance to both exporters and investors. There was also some advice on international media strategy development as well to allow us to engage in market and be able to effectively do so depending on what country we are trying to target.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Did any of these consultancies occur after the axing of Brand SA, and you were then responsible for promotions SA?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: I am advised no.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Minister, would you be willing to take on notice and table a full breakdown of consultants engaged, the nature of the engagement and the budget?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: To my knowledge, we answered this as part of the omnibus questions delivered in estimates.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I will wait to get those omnibus answers. Can I continue now on the financial statement, looking at note 4.3, grants and subsidies. My question is: there was $1.8 million in grants paid out in 2019-20 in investment attraction. Are these remnants of the economic investment fund commitments?

The CHAIR: Member for Ramsay, could you just repeat that? I have the budget line. What was your question in relation to that $1.8 million?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Is that $1.8 million payout figure, or grants and subsidies paid out, the remnants of the economic investment fund commitments?

The CHAIR: You want to identify that $1.8 million?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Yes.

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: Just so I answer you correctly, do you mind repeating that? Is it the remnants of—

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The economic investment fund. Perhaps it may help you just to detail how that $1.8 million through investment attraction was expended.

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: Just to help you out, I am advised that $300,000 of that $1.8 million mark you mentioned was under the economic investment fund.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Who was that for?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: I will take that on notice.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The $300,000 was the economic investment fund. What was the remainder of the money under the investment attraction line spent on?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: It was $1 million for Food SA and the rest was in grants.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: After the axing of Brand SA, that $1 million was then given to Food SA?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: That is not a question. As I said, it was $1 million for Food SA.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Just to clarify, minister, that $1 million from the investment attraction grants line went to Food SA?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: Yes, I refer to my previous answer.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Are you able to detail information from the other grants programs that you have here? Obviously, it is international education, tourism and trade. Can you detail some of the grants that you have there, perhaps the most significant ones?

The CHAIR: It is headlined as grants and subsidies.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: To make it easier, if you could detail the key grants and subsidies—obviously not each and every one, but the main subsidies and grants.

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: In terms of international education, a key one there was StudyAdelaide. In terms of tourism, a key one was the convention bid fund. In terms of trade, the key ones there are the SA Export Accelerator and also the eCommerce Accelerator.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Turning now to note 3.3, employees' benefits expenses, the Auditor-General noted in your financial statements that 25 employees had been given TVSPs in the past two financial years. Are there any more TVSPs planned for this financial year and, if so, how many, and what are the nature of the roles?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: There are no planned TVSPs for this year, but I should note that we are dealing with the 2019-20 year, so that question would have been a good one for estimates.

The CHAIR: Point of clarification, member for Ramsay: I am reading the page, and at 3.3 the number of employees who received a TVSP during the reporting period was nine. That is what I am reading.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: We are talking about the last two financial years.

The CHAIR: You are talking about the last two years, even though we are investigating the 2019-20 year?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: It appears I erred, Chair.

The CHAIR: With one minute to go, we will have one further question.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Minister, I refer back to Part B, page 37 of Report 13. The Auditor-General makes some comments about different levels of workforce planning maturity. I understand that nearly one in four of all the workforce appears to have worked in DTI for less than a year. Given that the Auditor-General provides express concern regarding dramatic shifts in departmental workforces, are you concerned about this dramatic turnover of your staff?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: No, I am not concerned.

The CHAIR: A good, concise answer, minister. Time has expired. The committee has further considered the Auditor-General's Report 2019-20 and completed its examination of ministers on matters contained therein.


At 18:07 the house adjourned until Tuesday 16 February 2021 at 11:00.

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