HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2021-10-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Auditor-General's Report

Auditor-General's Report

In committee.

(Continued from 26 October 2021.)

The CHAIR: Welcome to the committee on the examination of the Auditor-General's annual report. We are examining the Minister for Innovation and Skills for the next half an hour. I remind members that the committee is in normal session. Any questions have to be asked by members on their feet and all questions must be directly referenced to the Auditor-General's 2020-21 report and Agency Statements for the year ending 2021. Welcome, Minister for Innovation and Skills, and I invite questions.

Mr BOYER: Minister, can I direct you to the first page, page 340, second dot point under significant events and transactions, which speaks about your commitment to create 20,800 new apprenticeships and traineeships over the four years from 2018 to 2022. I ask: how many of those 20,800 have been created?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I am advised that as of the end of the financial year, we had 43,000 commencements. That was between July 2018 and June 2021, demonstrating our steady progress to increase apprenticeship and traineeship activities above historic declines, despite the impact of COVID-19 on our economy.

At the end of April 2021, South Australia reported our progress under the Skilling South Australia fund partnership agreement. South Australia received 100 per cent of the year 3, the 2021 funding available, or $21 million under the National Partnership Agreement resulting from this activity. The total revenue available for 2021-22 under the National Partnership Agreement is $8.5 million.

Mr BOYER: In relation to that answer, just to confirm and clarify the 43,000 figure that you gave, you have created 43,000 new apprenticeships and traineeships over the four years from 2018 to 2022; is that correct?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: That was three years. Just to understand the national agreement, the national agreement is based on a number of measures, apprenticeships and traineeships. Pre-apprenticeships are included in that number. This has always been the case. When the announcement was made before the election, it was a policy that was designed in conjunction with an understanding of how the national partnership works and what the outcome would be. It is all based on the baseline on the total number of apprenticeships, traineeships and pre-apprenticeships.

But it should also be understood that all these are measured on the NCVER figures that come out, not necessarily in a single table, but they are measured in the NCVER figures that come out. Of course, that total number over 60,000 in that four-year period was a ramp-up, and I think it is fair to say that the ramp-up has gone extremely well. That 43,000 figure at the end of June is the result of a ramp-up from a standing start when we came to office.

As you would recall, member for Wright, we inherited the worst drop-off in completions in the country, so before we could start climbing that ladder of repair we had to dig ourselves out of a ditch that was dug by the previous government. It is quite extraordinary, if you look at the latest NCVER figures, where we were able to compare the last four years of the previous government, a more than 48 per cent decline in apprenticeships and traineeships in the first three years from March 2018 to March 2021—

The CHAIR: There is a point of order, minister. Just take a seat, please.

Mr BOYER: Point of order: standing order 98. The minister is debating the question and now giving us a history lesson on things that happened in the past. The question was a very straightforward one about whether or not his figure of 43,000 new apprenticeships was at the same parameters as the 20,800 that he committed to in 2018 I think it was.

The CHAIR: Yes. Thank you, member for Wright. Of course, I remind all members that today's examination relates to the 2021 audit period. Minister, you are getting to the nub of the question?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I just get excited about the growth that we have had, sir, over that three-year period.

The CHAIR: I can see that.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I need to be restrained sometimes, so I thank you for your help and assistance in doing that. Yes, there has been no change in where the measure was set and what we have achieved. I think that no matter how you look at it—and I know the member for Wright looks desperately for negative news when new figures come out in this space. But it does not matter how you look at it—

The CHAIR: There is another point of order.

Mr BOYER: Reflecting on another member of the house, Chair. I take offence to the assertion from the member for Unley, the minister, that I look for negative news when figures come out.

The CHAIR: Yes, you have taken offence at that. Indeed. So, minister, the member for Wright has taken offence to your comment that he looks for negative news. The easiest solution is for you to withdraw that comment.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I withdraw that comment, sir, and I wait for the positive news to come out next time there are results that are—

The CHAIR: Let's put a positive spin on the afternoon.

Mr BOYER: Still on that second dot point, under significant events and transactions, and referring to your previous answer or answers, were you saying that pre-apprenticeships are included in the 20,800 target figure?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Yes, the baseline was made up of pre-apprenticeships, apprenticeships and traineeships and the figures, the 43,000, is also the number of pre-apprenticeships, apprenticeships and traineeships. It relates to around about a 50 per cent increase over that four-year period. I was very pleased to see that the latest NCVER figures, relating to apprenticeships and traineeships alone, were a 51.5 per cent increase over a three-year period.

We are certainly very pleased with the way the reforms have worked—reforms that were not supported by those opposite, of course, but reforms that are working—and the partnership that we have with the non-government sector, with industry and with TAFE in delivering these apprenticeships and traineeships.

It is also terrific to learn from the latest NCVER figures that came out in March, which relate to 2021, that TAFE in South Australia is leading the nation when it comes to commencements of apprenticeships and traineeships. I think that is evidence of the commitment that this government has to work with all providers and strengthen all providers and ensure that we deliver quality training relevant to industry. That is the key to the outcomes that we have been achieving.

We do not have a one size fits all. This is what used to happen and it has happened for years in the skills training area, where businesses had to basically adopt their own business models in order to qualify to receive funding, which was mainly for the off-the-job training provisions. Through our Skilling South Australia program, we have been able to bespoke design to date, I think, over 200 different programs to suit those individual businesses and industries. We have removed barriers, we have brought enablers in and, for the first time as far as I am aware, there has been support from government for on-the-job training.

Remember, apprenticeships are a combination of on-the-job and off-the-job training. So, in order to support those apprenticeships, we are supportive of the classroom training that apprentices receive and we are also supporting the employers for delivering that on-the-job training. One of the successes we have had in now leading the nation when it comes to improvements in completions is our pre-apprenticeship training.

The CHAIR: There is a point of order.

Mr BOYER: Standing order 98. I gave the minister plenty of time before standing. This could not be further from the question that I asked. This is now just a monologue about the days gone by and has nothing to do with the question that I asked.

The CHAIR: I do not know that I agree that it is a monologue about the days gone by. The question related to page 340, significant events and transactions, and to my mind at least the minister was talking about significant events. Perhaps we will draw this one to a close, minister.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The member himself actually referred to pre-apprenticeships in his question and so I was just about to talk about the importance of pre-apprenticeships in ensuring that we reduce the number of dropouts that happen in training, whether they be traineeships or whether they be apprenticeships, and how we have used the pre-apprenticeship program to get better outcomes: better outcomes for employers and better outcomes for those apprentices and trainees. The first thing is that the pre-apprenticeship enables the apprentice or the applicant, if you like, to make the decision as to whether they want to do this job.

The CHAIR: There is another point of order. I sense the member for Wright is keen to get on with his next question and I will give him the call to ask that next question.

Mr BOYER: Minister, on the same second dot point—and I have gone back to look at the media releases that you put out when you first announced the commitment for 20,800 new apprenticeships and traineeships—I still cannot find anywhere where you said that it had anything to do with pre-apprenticeships. Do you stand by your statement that the parameters since 2018 when you announced this program are unchanged, or have you started counting pre-apprenticeships once you started to fail to meet your target?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: First of all, I want that comment withdrawn.

The CHAIR: Because the question contained an assumption that could be taken as argument. I think we will let it go through to the keeper. You answer the question about pre-apprenticeships.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Obviously I need some latitude to respond to the outrageous allegations that we are failing on our commitment.

The CHAIR: Yes.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: We are delivering on our commitment. Our commitment was based around apprenticeships and pre-apprenticeships and that is what we are delivering, and the vast majority of what we are delivering is apprenticeships. If the member had the patience to actually listen to me, he might learn something about how valuable pre-apprenticeships are.

Mr Boyer interjecting:

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: You want to hear what people say about you when you visit them. You want to hear what they say about your lack of interest in this area.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: You want to hear what they say.

Mr Boyer interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: You are only interested in doing what you need to do to get elected. That is what you tell them. I have heard them.

The CHAIR: Order, members!

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I have heard them.

The CHAIR: Minister!

Mr Boyer interjecting:

The CHAIR: The member for Wright is called to order. Minister, just take a seat for a moment, please. I would like to say something. It does not worry me in the least really how much banter occurs across the chamber because it is actually eating into this very valuable half-hour that the opposition have for questions and the minister has for answers, so let's make the most of that opportunity.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: As I was saying, the pre-apprenticeships, apprenticeships and traineeships are part of the baseline and so of course they are part of the target. Overwhelmingly, the numbers are numbers of apprenticeships and you can see that from the NCVER figures. There is about a six-month lag in the NCVER figures that come out. As I said earlier, the 60,700 traineeships and apprenticeships over that period relate to about a 50 per cent increase on the baseline. Just looking at apprenticeships and traineeships alone, the latest NCVER figures have seen an increase of 51.5 per cent over the last three years, so from March 2018 to March 2021, a 51.5 per cent increase.

As I said, we always said there was going to be a ramp-up. This is a big year this year. This is where we will see a big number of apprentices. We have 3,000 more employers taking on apprentices for the first time—3,000 employers in South Australia who did not take on apprentices under the previous government but who have taken on apprentices because of the support they have received from a significant policy change that was delivered by the Marshall government.

I thank the department for implementing a brand-new policy change. These were the same public servants, of course, who were taking their instructions from the previous government, acting on their policy that saw a 66 per cent decline over six years in commencements for apprenticeships and traineeships. They are a professional team and they have responded to the new policy that has been delivered by the Marshall government to get these extraordinary results that we are getting here in South Australia.

Mr BOYER: Minister, if I could take you to page 344, under Impact of COVID-19, the first dot point says it was around $16.6 million, I think, for extra COVID-19 support with the commencement of JobTrainer and a state government grant, but it looks like only $11.8 million was spent. What has happened to the other $4.8 million?

The CHAIR: Just for clarity, member for Wright, the commonwealth funding by my reading was $13.8 million, in this copy at least: 'Commonwealth funding of $13.8 million' and 'DIS advised it had spent $11.8 million'.

Mr BOYER: Sorry, you are correct; so the difference is $2 million.

The CHAIR: Yes, $2 million.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The member for Wright was I think incorrect there in his first figure of over $16 million; $13.8 million is what the Auditor-General's Report actually says. The $11.8 million obviously accounts for the fact that there is a lag. My understanding is that the federal government pays in arrears. The unspent expenditure is carried over to the next year.

This was a standing start, of course, and this money was received, I think, in the budget in October. That is when that money was announced, and so it gives you some idea just how quickly we got out into the marketplace with that space.

I think that the exciting thing about JobTrainer is the fact that it has given so many South Australians an ability to have very, very low fee training to get them into areas that have skill shortages. For example, the vocational education and training sector we know does play a crucial role in supporting South Australia's future growth and prosperity, and of course our economic recovery from COVID-19, and I remind the member that we are still in that process.

JobTrainer provides access to low fee training places to school leavers, young people and jobseekers. Since October 2000, South Australia has recorded nearly 14,000 low fee JobTrainer enrolments. You can see that we are certainly meeting the targets the funding was aiming at. We have seen strong uptake in health and social care courses, and this is important, of course, because health is the first fastest growing sector here in South Australia.

The top three JobTrainer enrolments are for short courses in the infection control skill set, which is very important, of course, and entry into care roles, and individual support. People also can then move into fully funded qualifications in Certificate III in Individual Support, Certificate III in Early Childhood Education and Care and Diploma of Nursing. These are the top three in that space.

South Australia's implementation of JobTrainer has also included co-designing projects for business, group training organisations and industry. I was pleased recently to launch the KIK Innovation 42 Adelaide JobTrainer Project focused on software coding. This program uses—

The CHAIR: Minister, there is a point of order.

Mr BOYER: Standing order 98, again, Chair. My question was about how much of the $13.8 million had been spent or not spent.

The CHAIR: Yes, that was your question, indeed, because we came up with a shortfall of $2 million. The minister, I think, has addressed that in his answer.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I have addressed that in my answer, but of course it is important that the member understands what the government has been doing with that money, because it has been delivering exceptional results for getting people into jobs.

We do have a low unemployment rate here in South Australia at 5.1 per cent, which is the lowest we have had in 12 years. Also, the youth unemployment rate is now 8½ per cent lower than it was at the beginning of the year, because people have been able to access the skills that industry needs in order to employ them to fill those skills gaps, and JobTrainer has played a role in doing that.

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Mawson, did you have a question?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: No. I just said that there are all these people turning up to the workplace with no idea what they are doing because they have had terrible training by this fellow.

The CHAIR: I will take that as a comment.

Mr BOYER: Minister, I am still on page 344 and the third dot point under Impact of COVID-19 about the funding of $2.9 million. What are the priority sectors that are listed there in that third dot point?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: South Australian businesses continue to support training in full qualifications, as can be seen through the continuing uptake of apprenticeship and traineeship commencements in South Australia. Alongside qualifications, South Australian businesses have expressed an interest to have shorter, bespoke courses and training pathways that are formally recognised to meet emergency industry skills needs. This type of training is referred to microcredentialling.

Microcredentials can provide a responsive and innovative way to address an industry recognised skills gap that cannot be met through current nationally accredited training systems. This is a worldwide phenomenon. It also is being pursued by other jurisdictions in Australia. Microcredentials can be utilised to support people to adapt to changing job roles or workplaces. I think the latest statistics I have seen are that someone entering the workforce today could end up with 12 different careers before they retire. This is where microcredentials ensure they have the skills their employer needs or the skills to start their own business.

The CHAIR: So I have another 10 to go, minister.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Transitioning to a new industry will support pathways between the school, vocational education, higher education sectors and provide a pathway to accredited courses.

Mr BOYER: Point of order, sir.

The CHAIR: Minister, there is a point of order from the member for Wright.

Mr BOYER: I am sorry, but we have only half an hour.

The CHAIR: Yes, I understand that.

Mr BOYER: If the minister cannot even sustain half an hour of questioning his own portfolio without filibustering, it is sad, really sad.

The CHAIR: As other ministers have done in this place, they have given—

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I ask that it is withdrawn.

The CHAIR: No, I am going to deem it a very fulsome answer in fact. Other ministers have done exactly the same. But I do take your point, member for Wright. You have eight minutes to go. You have the call for the next question, member for Enfield.

Ms MICHAELS: May I take the minister's attention to the second dot point on page 344 on the impact of COVID, which refers to the $5 million one-off funding from the Business and Jobs Support Fund, which I assume relates to the SME Business Advisory Services Program. When I asked the minister in estimates about that program, he stated that it was designed to be open until 17 May but attracted such significant interest that it closed early in February. However, now we see in the Auditor-General's Report only $2.7 million of that has been spent as at 30 June 2021. Is it the minister's intention to reopen that program, or is there an explanation as to why that full amount has not yet been spent?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I thought the member for Enfield had had some business experience. The facts are that the money has been allocated. It is a partnership between the business and the adviser. We are not in the business of telling people how to run their businesses. These grants were delivered in response to the need for businesses to consider using the current circumstances to review their businesses and see how they might need to—and I use this word that has come out of COVID-19—'pivot'.

Some of the services that were most requested were business planning, marketing, transformation of business and operating models, business futureproofing, IT and e-commerce. There is nothing about scaling down. Nobody wanted help to scale down their business. This is all the type of stuff you do when you want to expand your business. These grants have been allocated and the businesses are working through them. Obviously, work is being done. Whether they have been billed by the consultants is entirely an arrangement between the business and the consultant. My understanding is that we pay in arrears once the work is done.

Some of this consulting can take quite some time. This is up to $10,000 worth of consulting: $5,000 from the government and $5,000 from the business that is applied for the grant. A number of consulting businesses or businesses that provide these services made expressions of interest to be providers, to be approved, to be used by the companies that receive these grants. I am very pleased with how quickly we got this money out and available and how quickly the offers were taken up when people saw the opportunity to improve their businesses.

I know from being in business myself for 22 years that you can procrastinate about these things. Sometimes, something like this comes along and it makes you decide, 'Yes, I will do it now. No more time to procrastinate. Let's get this done.' I have every confidence that the grants that have been awarded will be used.

Ms MICHAELS: On the same dot point—because I am very well aware of how businesses operate, particularly in professional services sectors—I am well aware that from February until the end of June $10,000 would be very easily well spent, so I am quite concerned that only half of that has been allocated to 30 June. What investigations are you taking to ensure the rest of the amounts are actually used in the way they are supposed to be used?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The transactions do take some time to evaluate. We want to make sure that people have value, so the department continues to evaluate completed projects under the program, with the expected long-term outcomes for business to demonstrate transformations implemented based on the advice received; sustainability; growth, measured 12 months after the program ends; an increase in dialogue and business understanding of transformation and what that means for their business; involve culture and innovation in South Australia; and small business.

I think the member is getting a little bit concerned about a process that is working and a process that is being closely monitored. Do not forget that everybody agrees to the terms and conditions when they apply for these grants. They know that there is a process of evaluation and they know that that takes some time. The consultants know that they might not be paid all the money when they feel it is due because it is a government process. They know that, and consequently there are up to 12 months in which the work is evaluated.

Ms MICHAELS: You referred to a report being undertaken on those outcomes you just listed. When will that report be made publicly available, minister?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I am not sure that it will be publicly available, but I will take some advice on that, and if I am able to bring something back I will.

Ms MICHAELS: So you do not think it is of benefit for taxpayers to know whether these programs are actually beneficial and provide any benefits to SMEs?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I refer to my previous answer.

Ms MICHAELS: Can you advise how many SMEs have applied for and benefited from this program?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: There were 954 applications received for the program seeking funding of $6.773 million, with 684 applicants approved for the value of $5,033,399. They are the total numbers there for you. Obviously, just because you apply for something does not mean you qualify.

Ms MICHAELS: Can the minister advise that, if he does not make any reports available on the outcomes of this program, internally what measures would be taken by the department to assess the success or failure of the program?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Due processes have been in place for quite a period of time in which these matters are handled, and nothing will change from that process.

The CHAIR: The time of the examination of the Minister for Innovation and Skills has expired. We move now to the examination of the Minister for Child Protection. Welcome to the Minister for Child Protection, to your advisers and the member for Reynell, who will be leading the questioning.

I remind members that the committee is in normal session and, as a result, questions need to be asked and answered by members on their feet. All questions must be directly referenced to the Auditor-General's Report 2021.

Ms HILDYARD: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you very much to the DCP staff who are here. I refer to the annual report, Part C, page 64, the section titled Audit Findings, particularly the comments in the report that 33 per cent of performance development plans are overdue and that performance development plans are not being completed on time for new employees. Why are performance development plans not being completed on time for new employees?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I thank the member for her question. As stated, they found that, as at 1 December 2020, 33 per cent of the performance development plans were overdue. DCP advised us that it recently procured a system to improve and streamline the performance of the development process and initiate a communication strategy to improve the PDP completion rates. DCP is continually improving its human resources practices and systems, including the use and reporting of performance development plans.

The PDP completion rates continue to improve and, as at 30 September 2021, 74 per cent of staff had a current PDP. The department's recent procurement of the performance management system (PMS) will also improve and streamline the PDP process. Following a planned pilot phase, full implementation of the PMS is expected to be finalised by the end of December 2021.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, is 33 per cent of performance development plans being overdue acceptable to you?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Firstly, it is important to note that it is actually a recording issue rather than—as at 30 September, 74 per cent of staff have a current PDP, and that is why we are implementing a new system, so that it can be recorded more accurately.

Ms HILDYARD: I guess as a supplementary question, is the fact that 26 per cent of staff do not have a performance development plan acceptable to you?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I am advised that it is unlikely ever to be at 100 per cent because there are people who would be on maternity leave or secondment or placement in other areas. However, that is why we are getting a new system—to make sure that it is as accurate as possible, but it would not be anticipated ever to be at 100 per cent.

Ms HILDYARD: Do you agree that these delays in ensuring that all departmental staff have a performance plan in place poses risks to the safety of vulnerable children?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The Auditor-General did not make any findings about safety or any comments. Certainly he did not acknowledge that there was any issue around safety. One of the things my department, and this government since coming into government, has been doing is focus on filling the long-held vacancies that were there. There were over 273 vacancies in the department when we came to office. We have reduced that to less than 60. I feel there are far more safety issues from understaffing and putting staff under pressure than there are by a few people not having a performance development review.

Ms HILDYARD: I understand what the Auditor-General said in his report. Minister, do you think that the number of staff without performance development plans poses a risk to children's safety?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Firstly, it does not mean that the staff do not have a plan: it is just not an up-to-date, current plan. This is regarding their training and development, so I believe there would not be any risk.

Ms HILDYARD: Was the staff member, or were the staff members, with responsibility for the 16-year-old boy who was, tragically, recently sexually assaulted, one of the staff members with an outstanding performance development plan or a plan that was not up to date?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: As I have said in this chamber many times, I will not be commenting on individual cases, and I will not be using the old Labor tactic of pointing fingers at staff and singling them out. What I can say is that we were very confident that the staff acted appropriately and in a timely manner. The police were notified, an arrest was made very quickly, and staff acted in accordance with policies and procedures.

Ms HILDYARD: A supplementary: exactly when were you notified of that sexual assault?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: As I have answered in the house, and although it is not relevant to this report, I was notified in a timely manner and was thoroughly briefed.

The CHAIR: Member for Reynell, that really was a question for question time.

Ms HILDYARD: It was a supplementary too, yes.

The CHAIR: We are dealing with the Auditor-General's Report. You have the call.

Ms HILDYARD: I refer to the annual report, page 66, Part C, Audit Findings, foster carer reviews. Why are foster carer reviews not being completed on time?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It is important to note that all the reviews for foster carers are undertaken by the foster care agencies, as has been done for many, many years under the former government and under this government. This is really a reporting issue. These are not the actual figures, but the amount that was reported to our department. Some of them may have been delayed—but certainly not 51 per cent.

It is regarding reporting issues with the C3MS program. These adjustments to the reporting system are expected to be finalised by 31 October 2021 and a new cleansed report should be produced. I am advised that currently there is only one foster care review outstanding, and that is due to the carer living interstate.

Ms HILDYARD: What questions have you asked about why only 51 per cent of foster carer reviews were submitted and processed as of July 2021, and when did you ask those questions?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: As the Auditor-General states himself, DCP informed us that a new report is not accurate, as it includes carers who are no longer active or are complex in nature and require follow-up. We noted this makes it difficult to follow up and monitor foster carer reviews to ensure they are completed in a timely manner.

It is also important to note that most, if not all, foster care agencies have time periods—some of them visit fortnightly, some of them visit the carers monthly, but they have regular contact so if there were any issues or any issues to follow up they are in regular contact. We do not rely just on an annual review.

Also, to note is that DCP has completed a review of our processes for family-based carer reviews, which includes foster carer reviews, and DCP's policy governance committee approved and published DCP's carer reviews for family-based carers procedure on 17 June 2021. The procedure review resulted in a change in the requirement of frequency of carer reviews from annual to two-yearly, with a list of circumstances that will trigger a carer review sooner than two years.

This change reflects DCP's assessment of relative risk, streamlines resources to focus on circumstances that increase risk and introduces a consistent review cycle and process for all types of family-based carers.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, in their 2019-20 report, the Auditor-General noted that reports of reviews were inaccurate and that a new reporting process would be in place by October 2020. What went wrong?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: As noted in the report, we have put new reporting processes in place. We found inaccuracies with those and they are being amended—and it is just upgrading and fixing that reporting methodology. It is not that the reviews did not take place; it is that they were not being recorded.

We are making changes to that and, as I said, there is only one that is outstanding due to that person living interstate. Now the reporting will go to every two years because they are seen as very low risk, given that there is monthly contact with carers.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, do you think that the delay with the new reporting process is good enough?

The CHAIR: Member for Reynell, is this still in relation to foster carers?

Ms HILDYARD: Yes.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I do believe that it is important to have timely reporting, and that is why we are continuing to upgrade that reporting process. The main thing is the safety and wellbeing of the children. We already have monthly meetings—the foster-care agencies are required to sight and visit the homes that the foster carer children live in on a monthly basis, so this was considered low risk, hence that it is now going to be reported on every two years.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, how have you ensured that complex reviews that require follow-up are being completed if the reporting process is not accurate?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: While DCP is working to finalise its own mechanism for consolidated reporting on foster carer reviews, it has used compliance reporting from each contracted NGO to ensure legislative requirements are being met. In other words, we ask each individual foster care agency to report how many of the reviews have been provided. It is a manual recording system and that is why we are working to have a better system.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, can you guarantee that no child is at risk as a result of these delays and poor processes?

The CHAIR: So, member for Reynell, this is in the same vein as your previous line of questioning?

Ms HILDYARD: Yes, I have a few more on this.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: As the Auditor-General states himself, we believe these reviews are important mechanisms to identify and address financial, training and support needs of carers. So these reports are not about the risk to the child or the wellbeing of the child. Unlike the case reviews that were below 20 per cent under the Labor government, we have got those up into the nineties. They were not even reported on. That is important for the safety of a child. This is about the financial and training and support needs—which are important, definitely—but not as important as the case reviews that were not undertaken by the former government.

Ms HILDYARD: A supplementary just to clarify: are you saying there is no risk whatsoever to children as a result of those delays and poor processes?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The purpose of these reviews is as a mechanism to identify and address the financial, training and support needs of the carers.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, could you please provide the house with the current foster carer review data, including how many are in progress, how many were completed on time and how many current reviews are overdue?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: As I have stated just before, all but one have been undertaken. So all reviews are up to date and completed, except for one and that is because the carers live interstate.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, do foster carer reviews include a review into a household's mobile telephone policy?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: As part of the licensing of agencies to be foster care agencies, they are required to have policies on eSafety and phones and mobile phones, so that is part of the responsibility of the NGO sector.

Ms HILDYARD: On what specific date will the issue of only 51 per cent of foster carer reviews being completed and submitted to DCP be fixed?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The reporting is being amended and, as I have stated a couple of times now, all but one have been undertaken. So all reviews of foster carers have been undertaken, except for the one who lives interstate.

Ms HILDYARD: Is the report wrong? Are you saying the report of the Auditor-General is incorrect?

The CHAIR: No, the report was to—

Ms HILDYARD: No, sir, I am asking—

The CHAIR: This is my thought on it: the report finishes at 30 June and there has been a period of four months since then, so I guess that has given the opportunity for—

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Correct. Not only was the 51 per cent, yes, the figure that was reported but it was not the figure that was actually completed because of the reporting issues with the system we are fixing. Then I think it was 74 per cent were completed at the end of September—that could have been another area, but we do know that as of now, today, which is after 30 June, there is only one foster carer review that is outstanding.

Ms HILDYARD: Just to clarify and then I will move on, minister, are you saying that the Auditor-General is incorrect in their report when they state that only 51 per cent of foster carer reviews had been completed and submitted to DCP as at July 2021 or the time of reporting?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: There were two parts to that: it is reviewed and submitted. So 51 per cent was the total that was both reviewed and submitted, because of the issues with the reporting system, but far more than 51 per cent was actually reviewed; they were just not submitted. The Auditor-General is correct, but what we are saying is that far more than was reported were actually completed reviews and now, a few months later, all but one have been completed.

Ms HILDYARD: I will move onto the annual report, Part C, pages 66 and 67 (it goes across the two pages) and the audit findings in relation to the KPIs of service providers. Minister, how is it appropriate and safe for children in care to rely on notes that may be inaccurate?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Could you please give further clarification where it says that reports are inaccurate?

Ms HILDYARD: The Auditor-General's Report has highlighted that there is no mechanism to monitor the KPIs of service providers. In the absence of a mechanism, DCP uses reports from its case management system, which the report notes, 'may not be accurate', and that is a direct quote.

The CHAIR: Yes, I have it. It is the second paragraph down on page 67, minister.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: From the Auditor-General's Report—I will not read out your question—the Auditor-General's Department has reviewed the controls DCP has over the carer reviews. In the 2019-20 year, the Auditor-General's Department reported that there was no mechanism for monitoring the KPI to ensure service providers are meeting it. At that time, the department advised that reporting for this KPI was in development and would probably be in place by 30 June 2021. On 11 August, the Auditor-General issued a management letter outlining audit findings that requested comments on any other matters requiring action.

Since then, we have been working with the sector to create the new KPIs and DCP reporting on foster carer reviews. The KPI reporting will begin in quarter 2 with reconciliation of service provider data to follow over the subsequent three months. That is how we will have the up-to-date data.

Ms HILDYARD: I guess this is a supplementary, but it also goes to the substance of what is in the Auditor-General's Report. How did you then assess the performance of service providers if, as the Auditor-General notes and you have just explained, there was no mechanism to monitor if they are meeting their KPIs?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Previously, we relied on self-reporting, so the agencies would report on their own KPIs, and we also had quarterly meetings where there would be follow-up and discussion about those KPIs.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, how can you know that there is no risk posed to children in care as a result of what the Auditor-General describes as inaccurate notes?

The CHAIR: The Auditor-General does not describe them as inaccurate. He is suggesting they may not be accurate. There is a difference.

Ms HILDYARD: Notes that may not be accurate.

The CHAIR: That may not be accurate.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Thank you for your assistance, Mr Chair.

The CHAIR: My pleasure, member for West Torrens, as you know.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: To be clear, the KPIs were being self-reported. Yes, perhaps there could possibly be inaccuracies in that procedure. However, the other safeguards are quarterly meetings in person with the department and, as well, the caseworkers for each child visit the home on a regular basis to check on the child and the foster care agencies also visit monthly, some of them even fortnightly, to check on the welfare of both the child and the carers, so we believe there are many safeguards. This is just purely about the reporting, not really about the safety of the child.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, what personal responsibility do you take for the issue of what the Auditor-General has described as notes possibly not being accurate and the failure to have KPIs for service providers? What responsibility do you take, minister? Not what your departmental officials take but what responsibility do you take for those failures?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Firstly, the Auditor-General made no high-risk findings and the foster care agencies are very reputable NGO agencies, and I have every faith in their ability to manage their contracts and their staff. They are the ones who go out and visit our homes, as well as our caseworkers, and we have quarterly meetings with them as well, so I have every confidence that they are doing a good job.

Ms HILDYARD: I now refer to the annual report Part C, page 70, titled Child Protection Services. Minister, why have DCP expenses not risen at a rate commensurate with the growth of children in care, and what role does a lack of expenditure on services and supports for children in care play in children being out late at night, unsafe and uncared for?

The CHAIR: It is a broad-ranging question, minister, with a minute to go.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will start with the first question. From page 70 that you are referencing, over the last five years the number of children in care has risen by 33 per cent or 1,162 children, whereas Child Protection Services expenses have risen by 2 per cent or $7 million.

Firstly, I would state that in the last three years under this government there has been an average increase of just over 7 per cent of children coming into care, whereas during the last three years of the Labor government it was around 9 per cent. We are stemming the increase in growth of children coming into care. We are doing that by investing in intensive family support services, family group conferencing and many, many other areas.

Coming into government, we did extensive contract reform. We are now paying only for the services that we receive. We are not doing block funding like the former government did. We are getting better value for our money and better outcomes for our children. Many of our services are serviced by a panel so that we can get the right services for the right child.

The CHAIR: The time allotted for the examination of the Minister for Child Protection has expired. I thank the minister, the member for Reynell and the advisers.

We now move to the Minister for Infrastructure. Welcome, minister, and welcome to your advisers also. Welcome to the member for West Torrens, who I assume will be taking the lead on this. Before I give you the call, I am going to remind members—even though this is old news to you—that the committee is in normal session and that questions need to be asked and answered by members on their feet. All questions must be directly referenced to the Auditor-General's 2021 report.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I refer the minister to Part C of the Agency Audit Reports, page 310. On the first page appears a total of 2,024 full-time equivalents, I imagine in the Department for Infrastructure and Transport. My first question is: how many of those are capitalised within capital programs within the agency?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I do not have that breakdown, but I will take that question on notice.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Given that the minister is taking that question on notice, I do note that employee benefits make up 9 per cent of the total $2 billion worth of expenses; is that correct? Does that include wages?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Where are you referring to, sorry?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There is a horizontal bar diagram on page 310 listing expenses equalling $2 billion and income is $2.8 billion. There is 24 per cent from appropriation, 26 per cent in fees and charges, 29 per cent from commonwealth and 21 per cent from other. Below it is expenses: employee benefits, 9 per cent. I am assuming that employee benefits is not just superannuation; it is also wages and/or salaries? Yes?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes, that is correct.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: And the amount? That does not include superannuation?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: It does not include superannuation?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am happy to wait and run the calculator through, if that works, or I can take it on notice and get the figure. If someone comes up with the figure before we are done, I will come back to you, but otherwise I will take that on notice.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: My next question goes to significant events and transactions on the same page, page 310. It says contracts were assigned to replace previously internally provided services of heavy rail, starting 31 January. How many DIT or former DPTI employees for the audit period are still working for Keolis Downer on secondment?

The CHAIR: Just for my benefit, member for West Torrens, is that at 30 June?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The audit period.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Just to clarify, there are no employees working for Keolis Downer. They are made available. I am told that number fluctuates from time to time. Of course, they are made available on a fully cost recovered basis.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Can I have the number for the audit period?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: For the entire period or for a point in time?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: For the entire period.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I will see if I can get that figure for you. To come back to the question you asked before, the salaries and wages figure for 2021, excluding super, is just over $136 million.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You can take this on notice if you like: are those expenses capitalised within capital programs within the Department for Infrastructure and Transport? Are they capitalised across all projects, or are they assigned to particular projects?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am told it comes across in two manners: some are directly charged, some are indirectly charged. It depends on the work the employee is doing and the project, accordingly. It falls into two categories: either direct or indirect.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Could you please take on notice for me and give me a break down? I am not interested in the contractors employed by DIT; I am talking about full-time equivalents who are public officers, who are employed by the Department for Infrastructure and Transport, who are assigned to capital programs, who are having their expenses capitalised within those projects. If it is a north-south corridor project, if it is a Hahndorf project, or whatever project it might be, how many employees within DPTI in total, in 2024, that you have for the audit period? How many of those are assigned to infrastructure projects?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: And being paid within the project? Is that what you are saying?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes. If I can move on, within the same page 310 under expenses, employee benefits, for the audit period what was the total amount paid to Mr Fergus Gammie?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am informed Mr Gammie is not an employee. He is a contractor, so he does not appear in that column.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Within the supplies and services section—46 per cent of your expenses—what amount was paid to Mr Fergus Gammie for the audit period?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I do not have that figure at hand, so I will take the question on notice.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Minister, do you have on hand the total amount paid to Mr Peter Andrews for the audit period?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I do not have that figure available.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I refer to the same reference, again, page 310. Mr Andrew Ockenden is assigned what role within the Department for Infrastructure and Transport?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Executive Director, Public Affairs.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Within the audit period, who assigned Mr Ockenden for the preparation of incoming briefs for the opposition?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Who did—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Who within the Department for Infrastructure and Transport assigned Mr Ockenden the role of preparing incoming briefs at every election during the caretaker period? Incoming briefs are prepared, colloquially known as blue books and red books. I understand the opposition has been informed that Mr Ockenden will be playing the role of preparing, within the Department for Infrastructure and Transport, the incoming briefs for the opposition if we are successful at the election. I am just asking who within the department has assigned him that role?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The detail I have at hand is that the different agencies prepare their different agency briefs, and it is all collated. Ultimately, it is signed off by the CE.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The opposition received a note from the government, from the department, I imagine, or it could have been from Cabinet Office, informing us that Mr Ockenden was our liaison point for the agency. I was just wondering who assigned him. If he is not assigned any particular position and the information we have is incorrect, I accept that. I refer you now to page 332 and Part C, halfway down the page: the cost of the substitution services associated with the Gawler line project. For the audit period, what has been the total cost of bus substitution services?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: As you would be aware, bus substitution services are used for breakdowns, or whatever it might be along a line—on the Flinders line as well when that was being put in and when the Tonsley line was being extended. I do not have that figure at hand as far as the Gawler line is concerned but, as we have worked through that process, I am happy to have a look and if we can extract that figure I will return it to you.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Two dash points below that is 'major infrastructure maintenance contracts expenditure increased by $12 million', according to the Auditor-General. Minister, you told parliament that the outsourcing of road maintenance projects would lower costs to the agency. Here, the Auditor-General tells us that costs increased by $12 million. Could you please explain the increase?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: As I have been informed, again through stimulus through COVID, we have injected a big body of work and dollars into maintenance and increased maintenance. We have increased that maintenance work that was done. From a road perspective, you would be aware that when we came into government we had a $750 million road maintenance backlog, so we were very keen to, when and where possible, increase that maintenance work and put more in.

That was probably a key figure of what has been referred to here. The extent of that maintenance work and the extra maintenance work that was done and the figures I am happy to look into for you, but I know that because of the state of a lot of the infrastructure that we were left with, that maintenance work was needed and we had to inject extra funds into it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Your evidence to the house is that the outsourcing did give value for money but you increased the amount of road maintenance work being conducted and therefore there was an increase in total costs; is that correct?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes, that was one of the contributing factors.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I think I overheard 'transition costs'. What were those transition costs during the audit period, and could you break them down for us?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No, I just said that that was one of the contributing factors.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Were there any transition costs moving from an in-house road maintenance service to an outsourced model?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I will take that question on notice.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I refer you now to page 323 of Part C of the audit. We will start down the bottom. The Auditor-General said:

Our review also identified some areas where contract management processes could be improved. These included that DIT:

had not documented processes to ensure that the performance monitoring statistics provided by contractors are accurate

had not implemented processes to ensure that the heavy rail operator complies with legislation or regulations, could improve operator risk management monitoring and had not assessed the risk of non-compliant insurance policies.

They also noted that the Department for Infrastructure and Transport was not completely prepared for the commencement of the heavy rail contract. The report states that these included:

operator plans not being approved prior to the commencement of service delivery

the contract management plan being approved three months after service delivery commenced

some contract management positions were not filled.

They noted, particularly with the heavy rail services contract, a large volume of obligations and performance factors that needed to be managed. Earlier, the Auditor-General is complimentary of the process of the outsourcing, but it seems to me through their comments that there is a large part of the outsourcing that increased risk to the taxpayer and gave concern to the Auditor. Could you please tell the house who was responsible for not implementing those measures the Auditor-General has raised in his audit report?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: To your point, I think it needs to be noted here that the Auditor does state:

We observed that DIT had established a sound contract governance framework for the contracts that includes—

documenting contract management, documenting detailed registers, appointing experienced—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, I said that.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am just making sure that it is noted because he does point that out. Part of this as well was that the audit was done during the transition period, which we accept and the department accepts, and there was a work plan in place. At the time this was done, it was in that transition period. The department has been working on those areas to ensure that, as the work plan was outlined, those points were ticked off going forward.

I stress again the points that were made, the very positive points the Auditor-General made, about this process, understanding there is a transition period that was worked through during the time of this audit being done. He highlights those things that were done exceptionally well and things that needed to be worked on through that work plan during that 12-month time period.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I refer to page 325. After the first three dot points on that page it says:

In 2020-21 we reviewed the procurement of the heavy rail project director role. This role was specific to the procurement process for the heavy rail service contract. We focused on the nature and extent of documentation supporting the decision to apply a single-source procurement approach.

We found that the documentation supporting the decision to proceed with a single-source market approach could have been improved. Specifically, we noted that the acquisition plan:

was approved one business day after the supplier submitted a quote

So they submit a quote and the next day it is approved. Further, the department:

did not explain the urgency in applying a direct market approach—

but the Auditor accepts that this was the first time heavy rail had been outsourced and it was a major and complex procurement. Furthermore:

provided limited information on the capabilities identified as necessary for the role

Interestingly, it says here that there was market research obtained 12 months before the decision. Then it goes on:

did not identify—

that is, the department, including you, minister—

as a risk to be managed, the Chief Executive's past relationship with the service provider.

However, the Auditor-General does go on to say that he 'did not identify any actual conflict of interest in our audit of the procurement'. The Auditor-General's Report that has been tabled in this parliament details that; however, it does identify risks, and we are also dealing with perceived conflicts as well as actual conflicts. The first question I want to ask you is: who commissioned the market research 12 months before the decision was made to outsource heavy rail? Whose decision was that?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: This is before my time as minister, but I am told it was done to procure some bus contracts, for what it is worth. However, I do want to make the point you made—as you read out your statements you lean on some words and you gloss over others—and again reiterate what the Auditor-General said:

We did not identify any actual conflict of interest in our audit of the procurement. Auditor-General's Report 9 of 2021 'Probity of the processes for the heavy rail service contract' provides further information.

You have waved documents around in here before, but I think it is really important that we note that point. The Auditor-General's Report makes it incredibly clear, from that report 9 of 2021. I encourage you all to read it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So your evidence to the committee is that the Auditor-General, in talking about the heavy rail contract, was actually referring to market research on bus contracts?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am told it was market research on advisers for the project leadership on the retendering for the bus contracts. Again, and as I stated, that was something that was before I was minister.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will just read out the opening paragraph again: 'In 2020-21 we reviewed the procurement of the heavy rail project director role.' Heavy rail. He continues: 'This role was specific to the procurement process for the heavy rail service contract.' Then he lists documentation regarding heavy rail, but your evidence here is that the Auditor-General is referencing market research regarding bus outsourcing, bus contract outsourcing, not heavy rail; is that correct?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: As I am informed, this procurement process was from back when they went to secure the bus contracts and they sought to find someone to run the bus contract and were looking for a suitably qualified person. I am told that was the process that was used as a reference point for value for money for the train appointment.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So market research on finding value for money for the outsourcing of bus contracts was used to identify the head of someone who could outsource heavy rail. I suppose that makes sense to someone. Minister, can I refer you to the Auditor-General's Report, Part A: Executive Summary, page 38. On page 38, it details in figure 3.6 investment in road infrastructure initiatives spend up to 30 June 2021.

Minister, road maintenance stimulus was allocated $58 million. You spent only $22 million of that. You allocated $26 billion to be spent finalising Goodwood and Springbank roads and $30 million for Golden Grove. Interestingly, with the new state school roadworks announced as part of, I think, a budget initiative, and I could be corrected, only $2 million of $20 million has been spent during the audit period.

Concerningly, with the critical road bridge maintenance stimulus package, of a $20 million fund you have only spent a million; the Gorge Road and Silkes Road intersection upgrade, I am not sure of the timing on the project, so it could be completely appropriate, that project; and the Fleurieu Connections improvement package, which is the Main South Road and Victor Harbor Road package, I understand; and then Hahndorf. I will work backwards, starting with Hahndorf for my first question.

In your press release earlier this year, you say that you are beginning work on consultation about Hahndorf through design reference groups throughout that audit period. Has any of that money been spent at all on the Hahndorf project to improve traffic flows? Have you done any reference designs? Have you employed any consultants to do any work? Has any money out of the budget been spent?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am informed that millions—I do not have the exact figure but it is in the millions—have been spent on this project. What I do need to point out, as you have run through the table there, and I appreciate that, is I have made this point but I think it is appropriate that I make it again. Since coming to government, of course, I mentioned the road maintenance backlog; that was a key figure that we have had to work on. But what we also had when we went to the cupboard was nothing from the previous government as far as projects that were planned out and ready to go.

So when we get a project—and this was one that the federal government was very keen to support and we agreed with that—we have to go back and do the work. It is a big body of work that has to flow through when we are starting from scratch. That is why we have invested quite heavily in a number of planning projects and planning studies to make sure that we are filling the cupboard of projects to go forward.

I am very proud of the projects that we have picked up and we have gone to the community. We have consulted on three designs; they have given us feedback and we have elaborated on more. If you are going to run through them, I can do it for you if you like. The Fleurieu Connections package was one that your government had a little bit of money for in the forward estimates, and not all the money but most of it was in the out years from memory, and no real planning work was done. The planning work you had done was for more roundabouts. Of course, Labor put that roundabout at Aldinga that the community really do not like and it does not work for them.

We took the opportunity to say, 'Hang on, let's go back and actually do this planning work properly and get a really good outcome for that community.' We were fortunate enough to work with the federal government as well to get some more money to come in for the Victor Harbor Road and Main South Road and package that into the Fleurieu Connections package as is outlined there. I think the ultimate outcome for that has been a real win for that community because in that engagement we found out that, again, they did not want the roundabouts that Labor was going to deliver and that they would prefer grade separation.

So we have worked into our plans grade separation at Tatachilla Road and also where that roundabout is at Aldinga that the previous Labor government put in place. There is a whole heap of congestion around that area. We have also managed to have some money go across to Victor Harbor Road. This is one that the RAA has identified as needing improvement and investment because it had been neglected for such a long period of time, so we have invested in that one as well. That planning work has been done.

Yes, we had to make sure we got that right. Yes, we had to go and do that planning work because if you are just going off a whim, you are not going to get the estimates and the figures right and the magnitude right of what you are looking at. You are not going to get the plans and the designs right. We have done a lot of consultation with the community on that and we look forward to seeing that roll forward. Similarly, with the Gorge and Silkes intersection, I think that is getting close to being completed now, so that is going wonderfully well.

I can run through a number of the others for you, if you like, but it really does hinge on that planning work. I stress the point that when that is not done, you do not have that exact understanding of what is needed, what is required, what the best solution is going to be, and you cannot engage with the community on that. That is what we have done right the way through with all these projects. They have provided great stimulus to those communities. We are going to be delivering and building what really matters to those communities and delivering great pieces of infrastructure for them as well.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Could you please give me a breakdown on notice of how much you have actually spent on the Hahndorf traffic improvements, because the Auditor-General says that as of 30 June you have spent nothing? In your evidence to the parliament just now, you said you had spent millions. I am assuming that those millions are from 1 July until now, so that is a lot of procurement in a very short period of time. I look forward to you providing that for us.

Could I also ask you, before I hand over to my colleague the shadow minister for sport and recreation, in terms of work on the north-south corridor and the tunnel, the first southern tunnel, how much was expended in this audit period on works for the tunnel: design, reference, consultants, soil sampling, the works?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I will have to take that one about the tunnels on notice. But again it is a huge project for South Australia. It is the infrastructure piece. Again, you have been involved. You were transport minister at one stage. I can only presume you looked at this piece of the project and thought, 'This is a bit too hard. Let's go for the easy bits and let's leave the hard bit until the end.' I can appreciate that. This is a tough bit, and you know that, and I know that in your explorations of this project you were looking at doing the open-cut motorway through this section and you parked the tunnel idea. It was a bit too hard. The potential was for you to be delivering a chasm through that community, really through our capital city, which would have segregated those two communities.

That is why we have gone with the hybrid+ model, of course, the two tunnels there with the link in between. We know this is the best solution. We have gone through a big process to land on this and we are working through that now. The reference design will be completed by the end of the year, as I have made really clear on a number of occasions. As we know, certain sections of the reference design will be going to the community to tell them that.

Reports that have come back to me—again, you may have been the minister or involved at the time of the Gallipoli Underpass; no doubt you were in this place—and people have said that one of the frustrations was that they were told their house was going to be acquired and then it was not, and they said that was really disconcerting and disheartening. I know that it would not have been done on purpose. You would not have done that on purpose. But that is what you want to avoid in these processes. That is the step process that we have gone through and we have engaged with the community all the way along.

This is the final piece in the puzzle. It will link that 78-kilometre stretch, the last 10.5 kilometres. It is taking out 21 traffic lights, as you know. It will save 24 minutes of travel time for people and really will give the full benefit of what has been invested thus far. We are very excited about that.

Back to the Hahndorf traffic improvements, I am told there was money invested in that from a planning point of view that did not come from that bucket of money; it came from a planning bucket of money. There was some work done and invested before that 30 June time frame, but since then a lot more money has been spent on that project, as it has right across the board. The figure is $8.8 billion that we are spending on road transport and rail infrastructure here in South Australia.

Our infrastructure spend is $17.9 billion. I see the twinkle in your eye because you know that is a record amount of investment spent on infrastructure here in South Australia. We are really proud of that. It is really important. It is putting jobs on the ground, some 19,000 jobs, with that investment here. It is people in hard hats, people in fluoro vests, and it is putting money on the table of South Australians. We are rolling those projects out and delivering the infrastructure that South Australia needs, and I know the industry is really excited by it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The new definition of passive-aggressive, sir.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I learnt from you.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am not passive: I am aggressive.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): Let's get back to it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I only have a few more questions and then we will get on to sport and recreation. Referring to Part C, page 310, expenses, supplies and services, if the minister could take on notice any legal indemnities paid to any DIT staff for any legal action as a result of harassment or bullying accusations, as a result of any referrals—

The Hon. C.L. Wingard interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —I have not finished my question yet—from ICAC or the Ombudsman's inquiry, any legal representation afforded to them, paid for by the department and any resources allocated in providing documents and information to the ICAC or the Ombudsman for the audit period. If you could take that on notice and I will hand over to my colleague the shadow minister.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): I will give the minister an opportunity to provide an answer to the question, if he wishes.

Ms HILDYARD: Thank you very much to the chief executive and other staff members from the Office for Recreation, Sport and Racing. I will refer in entirety to the financial report for the Office for Recreation, Sport and Racing. The financial statement is the only reference to recreation, sport and racing. Other shadow ministers have asked questions in relation to the financial statements. It is the audited financial statements.

There is no reference to recreation, sport and racing in the Auditor-General's Report. They are all contained in the financial statement. I just wanted to make that clear. I will indicate which page of the statement I am referring to as we proceed. First, in relation to 9.3. dot point 4, page 27, minister, can you please explain the nature of the pending legal action with a building manufacturer?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Thank you for that. I am informed that it is a class action, and we are one of many that are making a claim for damages as part of a bigger class action.

Ms HILDYARD: Does the legal action with a building manufacturer relate to a particular sporting premises entity?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am told it is potentially a couple of venues but, again, it is part of the bigger class action, so it is a collective, if you like. The government have a number of agencies that are acting in this class action; we are one of those.

Ms HILDYARD: Which venues?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I do not have them at hand. I am happy to take that on notice.

Ms HILDYARD: I am moving back to page 1. Can you please explain the increase in appropriation under income on page 1 of the Office for Recreation, Sport and Racing's financial report: in 2020, it was $82,228,000, and in 2021 it is $152,062,000?

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