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

Debate resumed.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: That was a good observation because it is quite a big jump. You have noticed that it went from $82 million to $152 million. I am told that it is on the back of our significant infrastructure spend in sport. I think you would be aware that we have invested heavily. Of course, when we came to government we invested $10 million in Memorial Drive to put the roof on and another $44 million for the upgrade of that stadium, which has brought back the Adelaide International. We had the Day at the Drive last year, which has been a huge success, so that was a wonderful investment. Also, the show court has a roof on it. That is one of those infrastructure investments that are part of this.

We have also invested in Hindmarsh Stadium. That stadium had not been invested in for a long period of time and we needed to do that to get the Women's World Cup. We are really proud of the fact that we have done that and that we have those games coming here as well. The State Sports Park and the State Centre for Football at Gepps Cross is a huge investment of $25 million, potentially more. I will check that figure for you. There is investment in that piece of infrastructure as well. The basketball project at Wayville is another part of that investment.

Then there have been the grants to the community sports, so it is that elite level as well as the grassroots and community level. The list of projects is fantastic. In fact, I think we have almost completed the Hackham one, which I know is in and around your area. Christies received some money recently for that new centre square pitch for their cricketers, in particular their women cricketers that I know they are trying to strengthen.

I can give you an even bigger breakdown of our grassroots program. We have sports voucher subsidies that are part of it as well. There is some investment in the Thebarton Oval, Gifford Hill. We have invested in the racing industry, and we are getting great returns from that, growing jobs. There is the Active Club Program and a number of other programs. It has been incredibly successful. We are really proud of that. It is the biggest investment in sport that the state has ever seen, and the team is doing a great job delivering it.

Ms HILDYARD: I also welcome the young women from Wilderness, and I have a question that might be of interest to them. Minister, what message do you think was sent to girls and women when the state government initially refused to participate in the bid for the Women's World Cup?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: What page are you referring to?

Ms HILDYARD: The same as I said before, page 1.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am really proud of our bid there. What we did—

Ms Hildyard interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): Member for Reynell!

Ms Hildyard interjecting:

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Please don't be rude.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): Member for Reynell, questions have been asked in silence. The minister can provide his answer in silence.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: When we put our bid in, a few things had to wrap around that. We had to have a certain capacity for our stadium. Hindmarsh Stadium, as I just pointed out, had been neglected for a long period of time when Labor were in government, and it was not up to scratch to be able to be put forward to a bid. We made a commitment: 'We will put a bid in and we will wrap around the improvement of infrastructure there.'

One thing I note—and I am interested in your take on this—is there are only two lots of change rooms. There were no change rooms so that you could have women and men play there at the same time, which is always a real problem with Hindmarsh Stadium. Quite frankly, I cannot believe it was neglected for so long. That was the investment we made, and we have done this right across the state and I am really proud of this. We know that with community sport and elite level sport—

Ms Hildyard interjecting:

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: —sorry, if I can finish—is that you want to have unisex change rooms. You want to have change rooms so that ideally you have four at any one venue, and that means you can just alternate the change rooms. If you have two men's teams playing, followed by two women's teams, followed by two more women's teams, the guys will move out and the girls will play. The next girls' game will come in and move into those change rooms. So it is really important to make sure you are investing in that infrastructure that can get more people playing.

We proudly did that at Hindmarsh Stadium. We have upgraded that facility and the works are going on now. The change rooms there will be at a standard whereby we can have women in those change rooms and we can alternate and play back-to-back games, guys and girls. We can utilise that facility. It will be a ripping facility for the Women's World Cup. It fits in with their bid.

Ms HILDYARD: The question was: what message do you think was sent to girls and women when the state government refused to participate in the bid for the Women's World Cup?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): Member for Reynell, this is a committee—

Ms HILDYARD: The question was not answered.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): It is not governed by the same standing orders that govern question time.

Ms HILDYARD: The last Chair said that it was, sorry.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): I am just being guided by the Clerk.

Ms HILDYARD: I thought it was.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): I would also make the point for future reference and for future questions that questions need to be constrained to the year of the audit period. It is rather unusual, I think, given the changes in the Auditor-General's reporting, that we do not have recommendations or commentary given by the Auditor-General in regard to not so much a particular department but a group within government.

This is rather more wideranging than usual, that we are effectively examining a budget financial statement, as opposed to recommendations from the Auditor-General. I will be quite generous in terms of the questions that are asked, but if they can be constrained at least to that audit period it would be much appreciated. The minister is entitled to answer as he wishes and, if he has not, he can continue.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that leniency. Out of the goodness of my heart, I am happy to understand that there was not that much in the Auditor-General's Report. In fact, the Office for Rec and Sport was not included in the Auditor-General's Report, so I understand the leniency you are affording here to go down this path to have a look at these financial statements.

To the question more so, it goes back to the significant infrastructure increase spend that we have. I think the figure that we have tallied now, as far as infrastructure spend is concerned, is $97 million into soccer we have invested since coming into government, which I am really proud of. That is about making those facilities so that we can get more people playing. It focuses very much on families—which are boys, girls, men, women—and having those facilities so everyone can use the asset. There is no point having female change rooms that sit over here that only females use because, if they are playing an away game, that facility is not being used.

The sporting industry has come on that journey and made sure that we have facilities that can be used by everyone and everyone is benefiting from them. With that, we made that investment into Hindmarsh Stadium so that we could get the Women's World Cup here, and I am really pleased that we were successful in that. We are having the Women's World Cup here in South Australia, and it is going to be a great event. I remember standing with Jenna McCormick when that announcement was made and how overjoyed she was. A couple of young Adelaide United women's players who are coming through the ranks had excitement on their faces because of the opportunity this is going to create.

One of the big selling points, too, with the bid committee was the facilities and the investment we are making into soccer (or football) here in Australia. They were really excited by that. Equally, they were excited by what our city offers and the support we are going to give. I think it is a great indication of the investment we are making into sport and getting really great outcomes for South Australia. I am very proud of it.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, still on page 1, how much of the grant funding went to community sporting organisations and peak bodies, therefore excluding councils and private organisations?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I do not have a breakdown of that, but I am not sure why we would be excluding councils. For example, in your local area, the Hackham club I spoke about before was a partnership with council. I am pretty sure we put in half a million and they put in half a million, or maybe even a little bit more, to upgrade those facilities for that footy club. I am told it has a really developing women's football program, which is great.

Those investments go into council projects, and that is a big part of our grants program. To make sure that you understand the process that we went through as far as our grants program was concerned, it was very much partnering with council. That is a really important piece to us, whereby councils put some skin in the game, we put some skin in the game, sometimes the clubs as well put skin in the game and sometimes the sporting organisations are involved as well. That gives us a really great outcome because we are getting the benefit for everyone.

A lot of our investments are partnered with councils. I am not sure why we would not include that in the overarching involvement of what we were doing here and the overarching commitment to what we have done here as a government. I have mentioned some of those bigger projects, but regarding those smaller ones at grassroots level, I know I have been at Henley Beach footy club with you, Chair, and your local footy club and local sports clubs. They are right across the board.

I was at Croydon Kings the other day, and a great piece of infrastructure is happening there. At the Women's Memorial Playing Fields, I think we have invested $8.9 million or thereabouts there. Again, it is a great facility. Some of those are council-owned assets, and we are happy to partner with councils. Some of them are government-owned assets as well, but we are happy to partner with anyone who is going to improve the infrastructure for sporting communities in our state.

Ms HILDYARD: Are councils, in your view, classified as sporting organisations for the purpose of directing funding to them—not partnering with them, to them?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Again, if you go to most community areas—for example, Walkerville footy club, my local footy club, Brighton footy club, Marion footy club, Mitchell Park footy club—

Ms Hildyard: That's not the question.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: But the point is they are owned by councils, so, yes, they are running sporting organisations. They own sporting infrastructure, so, yes, we want to partner with them and, yes, we will give money to them to build that sporting infrastructure. It is really important for our state.

I am not sure why you are downplaying councils' involvement in these pieces of infrastructure. They do an incredible job owning, running and maintaining soccer clubs, netball courts right across South Australia. Yes, councils have a heavy involvement in sport in our state. They probably own 90 per cent of the sporting infrastructure in South Australia, so I think it is really important that we partner with them and support them.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, on the same page, have any state sporting organisations directly advised you personally that they have had to cut jobs as a result of your direction of grant expenditure in the Partnerships Program?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No, not from my recollection.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, moving to page 16, will you increase the ceiling on the Active Club Program grants listed on page 16 to their pre COVID-19 levels?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: As a background to that, what we did when we did our grants review, the old Active Club Program had some facilities funding and some programs funding as well. What we found from the sporting sector when we did the grants review was that was really confusing. In fact, the feedback was there were a number of avenues to get grant funding. What they were finding was they were doing an application for one round of grant funding, they would be unsuccessful and they would have to go away and do another application for the next round and then another application. They ended up doing three applications and not being successful but investing a lot of time.

What we did was actually move the facilities funding, if you like. We put that all into the CRSFP and added to the fund for grassroots and those programs as well. So we had three funds all going at once. We got them to put in one application, and then they would be funnelled into the program that best suited their application. The department would work with different organisations as they were putting in their applications to make sure they were only doing the one application and not wasting time doing three or four or five.

We kept Active Club just for those programs last year. We actually reprofiled it a little bit, and we got some more money from the Treasurer, which was a great bonus—it is always good to get more money from the Treasurer—and we put that into increasing the Active Club fund as far as a reboot round, because we know that on the back of COVID a lot of the volunteers involved in sporting organisations just went way over and above. You would have seen them, no doubt out in your community as well, buying hand sanitiser, cones to keep people safely distanced, etc., washing balls and all this sort of stuff. It was a really bizarre time in sport going through COVID, as it has been in other areas as well.

We did that reboot round so that clubs could actually get a cash injection. It was a bit of a thank you to all the volunteers who had done so much work and also to pay for some of those incidentals, in particular, that would help them cover the costs. Some clubs used it for things like iPads because they were doing Zoom meetings and that sort of thing. Again, we all know the world we were living in. That is how Active Club was in that reboot round, and we are keeping doing Active Club and it is actually open now but closes on 17 November. That is for programs there.

The other funds we have are for facilities, so again people can apply. There are slightly different sized grants and slightly different stipulations around the grants depending on how big people want to apply and what size projects they want to go for. It is now really clear: programs and facilities through those three grant streams that we have and they then can apply for that and go into the right and appropriate grant program.

Ms WORTLEY: My question relates to 4.2 on page 16. Why was the coastal provider favoured over the experienced inland water provider for the VACSWIM program tender?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am informed that your question actually is not relevant to this paper because this was under the old model. However, to answer your question, there was a competitive tender process that went out. Whenever you are doing these things, you are looking to get the best outcome and the best bang for buck for taxpayer money. People were invited to put their best tender forward. The department, going through the correct probity processes, made a decision on the best provider for this service to get the best value for money for the South Australian public and also the best outcomes, and the appropriate person was selected and awarded the contract.

Ms WORTLEY: Minister, my question was actually: why was a coastal provider selected over an experienced inland water provider? Just to add to that, can you guarantee that all the positions wanting to be filled will be filled in relation to that, and was consideration given to our multicultural communities, many who come from landlocked countries, and that we are now looking, I understand, at three year olds as well? I am just wondering what consideration was given and why a coastal provider was selected over an experienced inland water provider for swimming lessons.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: To reiterate the point, it was a competitive tender process, so it was put out to tender, people applied and put their applications forward. It was assessed and the best provider, with an extensive background in water safety and delivering programs across all communities, was given the contract. Again, when you are spending taxpayer money you want to make sure that you have a robust and competitive tender process and that everyone can actually make an application.

I understand that the people who did apply all felt that the process was a very fair process. Sometimes someone is successful in a tender process and sometimes someone else is not. On this occasion, the successful tenderer was awarded the contract and they are rolling out that contract now, from all my understanding, to a very satisfactory level.

In fact, we have great uptake of VACSWIM again. We know it is a bit of a South Australian iconic institution. People love our VACSWIM program. We encourage people to get involved in VACSWIM, and we are reaching out to as many communities as possible right across the state. In fact, I was involved in VACSWIM when I was a kid and I know how important it is. Having people learn water safety, wherever it is, is vitally important, be it inland waterways or the beach, wherever you swim in our state, and we are lucky enough to have so many options to be able to pick from. Again, the successful tenderer won the contract.

Ms WORTLEY: Minister, you still have not answered my question. Why was one selected over another? What did the one have that the other did not have, given that we are talking about swimming lessons right through? We are also addressing it for very young three year olds now, I understand—even though previously I understand that the inland water provider provided a separate program—and also our multicultural communities. We have young people going out to the beaches coming from landlocked countries.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: With respect, I think I did answer your question, in that it was a competitive tender process. I do not get my fingers on a competitive tender process. That is outlined by the department, and there are probity pathways they have to go through to make sure that we put a tender out there. People apply against the tender and then they are evaluated. Again, I do not do the valuation; the department does that and there are processes they go through.

The successful tenderer was, of course, Surf Life Saving South Australia, who have a huge background in multicultural programs, and they do an absolutely outstanding job in this area. The process was very thorough, but I do not have the details on the steps of those processes. It is not my place to be involved in that nitty-gritty; again, the department does that. The department looks after that and they do a great job with that. The process went through, and both parties said it was a very good process. Unfortunately, one tenderer is successful at the end of the day, and we think that Surf Life Saving South Australia will do an outstanding job. They do a great job in our state when it comes to water safety, and they are now part of—

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): Minister, time has expired. The clock hit zero a couple of minutes ago, so I will draw this session of examination in regard to the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure and Sport, Rec and Racing to an end. If advisers and the minister wish to depart the chamber, please go for it and we will invite the Minister for Environment and Water and his advisers to enter.

Dr CLOSE: If we start with Part C: Agency Audit Reports, page 118, there is a reference:

From 1 July 2020 under section 66 of the Landscape Act, land levies are now collected by the Landscape Administration Fund on behalf of…

The question is: how many councils have been reimbursed for the cost of collection and how much have they been reimbursed for? What is the process for councils to apply?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I am not sure there is any specific commentary or observations in the Auditor-General's Report in relation to that matter. It is just a description of what has occurred. I will ask you, Chair, whether that is in scope.

Dr CLOSE: Just to be clear, the section I am referring to talks about the distribution of funds collected. There has been a discussion previously about funds being distributed to the councils that have done the collecting in order to reimburse them. I am wondering if that has happened.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): Perhaps, deputy leader, you can provide me with a little bit more indication in terms of the reference.

Dr CLOSE: On page 118, the third dot point talks about the levies being collected. They are collected by councils. It talks about the collection of the levies and the distribution of the funds. My question is whether there has been any distribution of funds to councils for collecting the levies. If the minister does not want to answer then we will move on, but that is my reference.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Councils have to apply for that, for reimbursement. We do not believe any councils have done so to date.

Dr CLOSE: If I could just have some clarity about the process for applying, that would be useful.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Just simply, we were not anticipating questions on this because I deemed it to be outside the scope of the Auditor-General's observations, so I do not have those answers.

Dr CLOSE: May I ask for it to be taken on notice?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Just clarify exactly what the deputy leader wants to be taken on notice.

Dr CLOSE: Just what the process is.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I am happy to take it on notice. The process is legislative. I just cannot recall the section of the act, but I will provide that to the deputy leader.

Dr CLOSE: If we can move to page 124, about halfway through the page there is reference to $2.2 million in expenses for the Kangaroo Island bushfire rebuild. What was the budget for that program in 2020-21?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The total budget for the Kangaroo Island rebuilding and reconstruction program, which extends from largely National Parks and Wildlife infrastructure in and around the Flinders Chase National Park, was $45 million. I notice that this refers to heritage fencing. That was funding provided to the owners of pieces of privately owned land under heritage agreement who have been provided with support to reinstate fences for conservation purposes. It is a little outside the $45 million in terms of what went towards the National Parks and Wildlife rebuild.

Dr CLOSE: Further down on that page, the paragraph starts, 'DEW's property, plant and equipment holdings are diverse.' It talks about land being valued at $370 million comprising national, conservation and recreation parks and wilderness protection areas. What is the process for that valuation? To what extent does it take account of the degree of protection, or is that not relevant?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The way that that land is valued is it uses land use value, and conservation land has, unfortunately, in my opinion, quite a low land use. Our parks comprise approximately 21 per cent of the state. I think I am often quoted as saying if you added it all together it is about the size of the UK and for it only to be worth $370 million is probably a bit of a shame. I am very aware that in some jurisdictions—not in Australia, but certainly UK and increasingly in the USA—they are starting to look at natural capital and that value.

It would be great to be able to value it as such in the future, which would probably see the value jump up significantly, but land which is heavily vegetated does not have a large alternative use pathway associated with it and, in a perverse sense, is probably further devalued by the fact that it is protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. That is the process. I am told that it is very revalued every six years or so.

In the Department for Environment and Water's financial statement, section 10.2 called 'Fair value', goes through this in some detail and quite boring detail, actually. The deputy leader might like to have a bit of a look at it. I had not until now, but it is perhaps something we could work up a better policy on if we could get the bean counters to agree to it.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): Value is in the eye of the beholder, as it seems.

Dr CLOSE: Page 128 talks about the effects of COVID-19. The last dot point says that DEW's ability to deliver this part of its mandate—being building and maintaining physical assets—has not been materially affected by COVID-19. I recall from the budget that the Kangaroo Island rebuilding projects are substantially behind. I am wondering whether COVID-19 affected those specifically or whether in fact there are other explanations.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: There is no doubt that, despite the Auditor-General's findings there in a general sense, the operations and the asset maintenance construction of the department have not been impacted in a broad sense. There have been exacerbated impacts—Kangaroo Island in particular, being an island, having particular challenges in terms of access, transportation, where construction costs have been driven up.

With Kangaroo Island, there has also been a fairly detailed engagement process to get community groups. There is a very active conservation movement in Kangaroo Island which is very valuable. We have had the program Reimagine Kangaroo Island, which in itself was delayed by COVID due to the cancellation of engagement stations and things like that.

COVID-19 would have contributed to an extent to delays with the rebuild over there, but I suspect that the most significant delays have been down to just making sure we get the product right—more particularly with Flinders Chase, the decision to move the visitor centre out of Flinders Chase National Park and the American River site and create a gateway site there.

It is the right thing to do and will build resilience into the asset base there. It will create a much more significant entry point to the iconic sites in the west end, but negotiating that access to the private land, which is now Crown land held under the Crown control of the environment minister as that gateway site leading into Flinders Chase, definitely delayed that. Again, perhaps there was some delay due to COVID, but I would suggest probably more so it was just getting the right decision and landing it.

Dr CLOSE: I am happy to now move to SA Water, thank you. We are now up to page 469, and that is the first page of SA Water. There is a reference just over halfway down to the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme. How much of the available water from the NAIS has been contracted?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I do note that there are no specific observations or comments about the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme, and I think the estimates process would allow a general questioning through this. However, I would like to seek your ruling on whether, given there are no specific comments or observations with regard to this scheme in the Auditor-General's Report, that line of questioning is appropriate.

Dr CLOSE: Do you want me to point out what I am referring to?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): If you could point it out. Sorry, you said 169 and it was 469, but I got there.

Dr CLOSE: It is 469. Sorry, did I say the wrong number?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): It is quite okay.

Dr CLOSE: It is down about here. It says, 'Work continued on the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme ($155.6 million project budget),' and I would like to know how it is going with contracting the water. I think that is sufficient reference.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): Minister, I think the question is entirely in order.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I would beg to differ, Mr Chair, because you could say that, with the heading of the paper being SA Water, you could ask any question about any aspect of SA Water. We will agree to disagree and I will be generous at the moment, but I think we need to get a good grasp of how this process should work in the future. I understand that three gigalitres have been contracted to date.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): To be fair, on reflection, an update on a reference to work continuing I think is well and truly in order, minister.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: We will agree to disagree.

Dr CLOSE: I think you have to agree with the Chair. That is how this process works. Just above that is the number of FTEs, being 1,556. That is 43 fewer FTEs than the previous year. Can I have an explanation for that difference?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I will have to take that one on notice. I was under the impression we had increased the FTE count and our overall spend obviously with the capital program, being quite large in SA Water, but I will take that one on notice.

Dr CLOSE: I refer to page 479, pipe bursts data, and the number of pipe bursts over the last five years. Can the minister give an explanation for the pipe burst on the Port River Expressway in September?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Can I just clarify the date of that. Was it September 2020 or September 2021?

Dr CLOSE: It was 2021.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I have to say, Mr Chair, that is outside the scope.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): I am very happy to draw that one outside the scope of the audit period. If the burst was after June 30, I am very happy to make that ruling.

Dr CLOSE: I am always happy to seek information, but if it is not forthcoming that is absolutely fine. On page 472, going backwards a little bit, at the top it talks about the negotiations for Adelaide service delivery contracts and that the documentation could have been improved, 'while noting the extensive negotiation planning that occurred'. In that negotiation planning that occurred, was safeguarding the number of jobs included as part of what would be required from the negotiation?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The phraseology used in the reports may not have been as specific as safeguarding jobs, but certainly the employment of South Australians, the assessment and support of the existing workforce, including subcontractors, would certainly have been taken into consideration as part of the decision making and assessment.

Dr CLOSE: Back to page 470, the other audit findings, one of which relates to that documentation, but there are another three as well: is the minister satisfied that those audit findings have been addressed adequately?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The chief executive advises me that actions have been implemented for all of these, and in a discussion earlier today, in fact, we had a conversation about risk management more broadly in preparation for this hearing on SA Water. I am pleased to say that since Mr Ryan came on board as chief executive, the renewed board from the last couple of years has really had a very significant look at not just these audit findings but risk management and audit findings more broadly over recent years and has undertaken a whole range of controls and implemented new processes across the corporation. I have a high degree of confidence that these audit findings and others in historic years have been followed up and appropriate controls put in place.

Dr CLOSE: I will move to EPA now. Thanks, SA Water. On page 115, there is a chart at the top that demonstrates the income and then the expenses and the net result in a line. The income obviously has gone up substantially, 2019-20 and 2020-21. Did the income over the 2020-21 financial year go up more than had been expected, given that more waste was sent to landfill than previously had been anticipated and, if so, by how much?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The deputy leader is correct that the income did go up beyond budget, and that was significantly in part to do with the increase in waste production. We attribute that to a couple of things: more people at home clearing things out, undertaking gardening and other projects that might not otherwise have occurred, and also the strong construction sector in that financial year off the back of COVID, with more renovations and demolitions definitely resulting in more construction waste being generated. That has also fed through to the overall increase in income being beyond what was previously anticipated.

Dr CLOSE: My question was: by how much was that additional over what was expected?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The figure was previously mentioned by the deputy leader. Around 40,000 tonnes more waste was generated, and that would have resulted in between $15 million and $16 million more in terms of the levy take.

Dr CLOSE: On the previous page, 114, there is a reference to the writing off of a fairly large individual debt. How much was that and, without breaching confidentiality, which you may not be able to do, is it possible to describe the circumstances under which the decision was taken to write that off, or the justification for it?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Sorry, I just had to clarify the situation. There was a landfill organisation which the EPA deemed should have paid more than it did in a particular levy. That went to court, and the EPA had essentially booked that they should have received X dollars. The court negotiated an outcome, which was less than X dollars, and as a consequence the difference was written off. There was still a settlement through the courts process, but not what was initially hoped for by the EPA.

Dr CLOSE: I am going to give you a grace of 15 seconds and finish there.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): Very good. Given that time is very close to expiring, the minister's time in regard to the examination of the Minister for Environment and Water has concluded. The committee has further considered the Auditor-General's Report 2020-21 and completed the examination of ministers on matters contained therein.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.


At 18:49 the house adjourned until Thursday 28 October 2021 at 11:00.

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