HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2021-10-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Auditor-General's Report

Auditor-General's Report

In committee.

(Continued from 27 October 2021.)

The CHAIR: The house is in committee and we are examining the Auditor-General’s Report. The minister appearing for examination this afternoon is the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development. I remind members that those asking and answering questions need to stand and that questions must refer to a budget line or page number.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Minister, I would like to refer to page 377. In reference to the fact there is no evidence to support the approval of grants in tranche 2, the Strategic Business Round grants, the Auditor-General was advised by your department that cabinet notes would provide evidence of the approval of projects in tranche 2. However, when the Auditor-General sought that information, it was denied by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. Why did your department provide incorrect advice to the Auditor-General?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I thank the member for the question. As outlined in the report, there was no supporting evidence to those grants in tranche 2. It states there that they were advised by PIRSA that there were 13 projects from tranche 1 that were approved by the government, and it was confirmed it was those 13 projects.

We were also advised by PIRSA that cabinet notes would provide evidence that there was approval of tranche 2. The fact that PIRSA told them that cabinet notes were the documents that would provide that evidence and then the Department of the Premier and Cabinet did not make those documents available does not mean that PIRSA misled the Auditor-General.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: It is quite concerning that the advice was obviously changed. On the same page, 377, it states there was no evidence of nine projects from tranche 2 being appropriately approved. The question is, minister: were they appropriately approved? That was a concern raised by the Auditor-General.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: As I previously stated, the process was that those were, as PIRSA stated, taken through to cabinet and therefore cabinet documents were the evidence. The cabinet documents were not released by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, but they were approved.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Obviously this was a concern for the Auditor-General because it has been raised on page 379, where the Auditor-General states they were advised that the cabinet submissions PIRSA referred to as evidence of approval for tranche 2 projects were later changed to cabinet notes. The Auditor-General requested those cabinet documents under Premier and Cabinet Circular PC047. I quote:

Disclosure of cabinet documents to investigative agencies, which allows the Auditor-General to request a cabinet submission subject to certifying that it is required in the proper exercise of statutory functions…The department of the Premier and Cabinet declined our request for these documents on the basis that cabinet notes do not contain approvals.

On what date were the cabinet submissions changed to cabinet notes, which denied the Auditor-General access to them?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am advised that these are cabinet documents that are in the remit of cabinet and they are documents that would require the cabinet office to approve. I do not have the authority to approve those cabinet documents. It is an issue for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: But you are the minister and you would have signed in that cabinet submission. Will you take on notice to come back to the house on what date those cabinet submissions were changed to cabinet notes?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I thank the member for her question. I am certainly happy to investigate whether it is appropriate for me to supply that particular date, if such a date occurred, around a change of cabinet document to a cabinet note. I am more than happy to investigate if appropriate.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Minister, my last question was focused on what date the cabinet submissions changed to cabinet notes. My consequent question is: who made the decision to change the submission to cabinet notes and who authorised it?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I did as minister.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: If you authorised it, why do you not have the date that you authorised it, and why did you do it? Why did you change it?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: As I said, I am happy to investigate this. The issue here is that the decision to put them in as a cabinet note was mine. They may have been prepared in another form, but we need to investigate whether that was the case, that is, whether they were prepared in another form and then changed. They were only ever lodged as a cabinet note, is my belief, but we need to check carefully that that be the case.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Minister, can I just clarify that you are not clear whether you lodged it as a cabinet submission and then subsequently changed and lodged it as a cabinet note? This is a clarification.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: As I said, this is a reasonable time frame ago. I do not have the exact detail and documents in question in front of me at this point of time, hence I am happy to investigate to see whether that was the case. At this point in time, I cannot you give any further clarity.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Just turning back to page 377, what were the nine projects that were included in the Strategic Business Round grants that the Auditor-General sought to look at.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Can I please get a bit of clarity. You are asking for the nine from where in particular?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: On page 377, it states:

[There is] no evidence to support approval of grants in tranche two.

We were advised by PIRSA that the 13 projects from tranche one were approved by the SA government.

It further states:

We could not be provided with any other documentation to evidence the approval of tranche two projects. As a result, we have no evidence that the remaining nine projects were appropriately approved.

I am asking you today: what were those nine projects?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I can go through the tranche 2. There was $2 million to McMahon Services Australia Pty Ltd for the construction and operation of the Port Pirie Resources Recovery Facility. The next one was $2 million to Australian Grain Exporters Pty Ltd for the construction of a high-tech cleaning, splitting, sizing and bagging plant for value-adding to pulses.

Then there was $2 million to Timberlink Australia for construction of Australia's first combined cross-laminated timber and glue-laminated timber manufacturing plant. Then there was $1.25 million to Pernod Ricard Winemakers to relocate ready-to-drink beverages manufacturing from Victoria to South Australia and then $2 million to Kingston Estate Wines for the expansion to increase onsite capacity from 136 megalitres to 157 megalitres.

There was $2 million to Aurora Limited for a glass beneficiation plant, $2 million to Beresford Estate for Vale Brewing Taphouse and accommodation pavilions, $2 million to Beston Pure Dairies for an accelerated lactoferrin plant expansion and a bioprotein research cluster, and $2 million to The Bend Motorsport Park for construction of an international standard group 1 quarter mile dragway.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Minister, did the Auditor-General ask you about these nine projects?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am informed, not specifically.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I just find it quite curious, of course, that he makes considerable mention of it in his report if it was not raised with your department previously. You were obviously able to provide the house with these nine projects so it just seems unusual.

Looking also at page 377, the Auditor-General has identified 22 successful Strategic Business Round applicants through PIRSA's internal records. However, the 22nd applicant is not listed on PIRSA's website. There is the 22nd plus an additional grant he raises on page 377. So who are these successful applicants that are not listed on the website?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I thank the member for her question and, yes, there were a couple at the time that were not identified on the website. As we work through the process with the funding deeds and arrangements with the applicant, we will work with them on announcing those projects—in their interests and ours as government—for timing for the benefit of the project. Those projects were not on the website at the time due to that.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Has that now been corrected? Is that 22nd project now on the website?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: No, the last one is not currently on the website because we are still in the process of finalising those arrangements.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Minister, the financial year ended on the 30 June 2021, so this is a reflection of that financial year. It seems unusual, given we would have had a funding deed, an agreement, and I would take it that that agreement would include a disclosure publicly. Why has it taken so long? Why are you hiding this 22nd applicant?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Thank you again for the question in relation to this. The arrangements in relation to this particular business are there to actually facilitate the wishes of the business, at their request, so we are working through that project with them. Also, there is a period of three months particularly after the end of the financial year to bed these things down as well, so there is that opportunity for this to happen.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Minister, it is now four months after the end of the financial year. Am I correct that the funding deed was signed last financial year?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: My understanding is that, no, that deed was not signed necessarily before the end of the financial year due to some arrangements with the project that we were dealing with. We progressed that deed on the basis that we saw the importance of this project and we will continue to work with business around that.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Minister, this must be a very, very special project for how you have spent money to be denied to the people of South Australia, and this has been raised by the Auditor-General. So I raise my concern with you that it seems completely remiss that this is not there, but I will move on. Looking at page 374, in regard to the Regional Growth Fund, how much is the Regional Growth Fund over the forward estimates and how much of it has already been allocated?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I guess, firstly, just some clarity about the risk: the way we manage the Regional Growth Fund is it is paid to the grant recipient on the reaching of milestones, so the risk of the money is not actually incurred until the milestone is reached. The risk is minimised to government in relation to money not being used appropriately because we require the project to meet those milestones before payment. The Regional Growth Fund is $160 million in total over its life; $75 million has been allocated and, to this point, $16 million has actually been paid out to people who have reached those milestones.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Can I clarify: the $75 million is allocated for this financial year? Or could you detail how over the forward estimates that is allocated?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: The $75 million is actually over the period up until now that the projects have been approved. As I said, the $16 million has been actually spent. As the projects are reaching those milestones, the money will be drawn down and paid to those grant recipients, but it is actually allocated in the budget year when the projects are awarded.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Minister, when you talk about $160 million over the forward estimates, how much is exactly unallocated given that you have milestone projects coming?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: It is quite simple maths. The $75 million that has been currently allocated means that, of the $160 million, there is $85 million still to be allocated. That is based on $15 million per year into the forward estimates for projects. So there is $5 million in the competitive round and $10 million in a strategic round.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Just moving onto questions about the legislative compliance framework, I refer to page 372 under Financial statistics. It states here that PIRSA has 831 FTEs. Can you provide a breakdown of where those FTEs are situated?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: As this is a primary industries and regional development portfolio, and PIRSA has offices right around the state, we do not have that detail in front of us to be able to tell you how many full-time workers are in each of the offices. But we are more than happy to get that breakdown to you to show how many there would be here in Adelaide versus how many would be out in those regional offices.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Thank you, minister. Minister, it is quite concerning to me that this is the third year in a row that the Auditor-General has raised specific concerns relating to the implementation of the legislative compliance framework. In fact, I raised it with you last year.

The Auditor-General raised concerns about the implementation and the need for your department to improve, and last year in this house you advised me that you and the department acknowledged the Auditor-General's findings and that significant work had been undertaken in the legislative compliance framework. You also said that it would be intended that that work would be completed by June 2021 that will enable central monitoring to register of all legislative compliance responsibilities. Why is it then that on page 373 of this year's Auditor-General's Report he once again states that implementation of the legislative compliance framework needs improvement?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Thank you again for the question. I guess one of the important things is to actually understand what this compliance issue is in relation to. This is a longstanding issue, not just recent but longstanding, that is in the process of being corrected.

It is in relation to keeping a register of any issues around PIRSA's arrangements and legal obligations, whether they be financial reporting or whether they be pieces of legislation that require action by PIRSA. This is a register to keep a record of when there are failures in those cases. It is actually understanding when there has been a problem, whether it be meeting a date to appoint someone, whether it be meeting time lines on lodgements of documents, those sorts of issues.

This has now been put in place. The compliance is in place, and as it is being rolled out through the organisation the staff are being educated on this process so that they can understand how the process now works. It has been done in those usual operations of staff management to make sure they have an understanding of their obligations under this register going forward. It is also allowing them to understand now what their requirements are in keeping this register.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Well, I hope we need not speak of this again. Looking at page 374, the Auditor-General criticised the former Minister for Primary Industries, Tim Whetstone, for awarding Regional Growth Fund grants to projects that were not recommended by the department. What have you done to ensure that this does not happen again?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I thank the member again for the question. It is something that we take very seriously in making sure that we have an understanding of these projects that are being submitted. I have a panel that makes recommendations to me as minister. It is independently chaired so that we get a good, independent recommendation.

We also make sure that I am presented the full gamut of applications, not just those they have chosen to recommend, so we can have a full look at any projects that are there. This is to have understanding of why those recommendations have been made by the panel and to make sure that we are delivering the best outcome for the opportunity that is there. I think it is a very robust way of bringing projects to me as minister, to make sure that the selection of the right project is made so that we can actually deliver the outcomes for the state.

The CHAIR: I will give you one last question, member for Ramsay.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Thank you very much, Chair. Going back to the nine projects where information was not released to the Auditor-General, will you now release all the supporting documentation to show that the grants were awarded appropriately?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: As I stated before, those documents are cabinet documents and they are not for my release. They are for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet to determine whether they be released.

The CHAIR: The time for the examination of the Minister for Primary Industries and the Auditor-General's Report has expired. Thank you, minister, and thank you to your advisers. Member for Ramsay, thank you. We now move to trade and investment.

Welcome to the Minister for Trade and Investment to the examination of the Auditor-General's Report. Welcome also to your advisers. The member for Ramsay is leading the questioning today. I just remind the minister and other members that you need to stand to both ask and answer questions. Questions must refer to at least the page number and a dot point, if you can. Member for Ramsay, you have the call.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: My first question refers to Part C, page 1. Why was the Department for Trade and Investment not audited as part of the Auditor-General's Report?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: The agency was audited by the Auditor-General and we got an unmodified opinion from the Auditor-General. It just was not in the annual report. He chose that.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Just to clarify, minister, the department was audited but was not a part of the report. On that note, did the Auditor give a reason for excluding DTI?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: As I reiterate, the Auditor-General did issue an unmodified opinion on the Department for Trade and Investment's 2020-21 financial report. I also draw your attention to the fact that it is at the Auditor-General's discretion to choose which agencies are included in his or her annual report. You will notice also in the annual report Part A: Executive Summary the point is also made:

Not every public sector agency I am required to audit is included in this report…I give priority to areas I assess as important enough to be published in this report.

However, there is an opportunity down the track if the Auditor-General wants to. I should note also that we discussed this at length in last year's Auditor-General’s Report and similar reasons were given. I get confidence from the fact that the Auditor-General's approach replicates last year. I think what it says is that he has a high degree of confidence in the financial statements, the financial reports of the department and, as I said, gave an unmodified opinion both years.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: In the work the Auditor-General did do with the department and the audit he did do, was DTI given a performance audit from the Auditor-General 'examining the efficiency, economy and effectiveness with which the public authority uses its resources'? That is on page 10, Part A.

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: I am advised that he did not give a performance audit.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Can I stay on Part A, looking at SA government's financial assistance response on page 33. This section notes that $657 million was allocated to financial assistance for educational institutions. Can you please provide a breakdown of which educational institutions received assistance and how much? Perhaps to put some clarity to my question, my focus is around the support to international students and any compensation perhaps to the downturn of the enrolments.

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: Thank you, member for Ramsay. I was going to make the point also that the detailed breakdown of that $657 million certainly is best asked of the Treasurer, as he was the minister responsible for providing these programs. But, yes, part of that $657 million may well have been from the International Student Support Package. I will make sure with my advisers that that is the case, but that is what I am advised at the moment. That is what I first thought as well. Of that, there was $13.8 million for the International Student Support Package.

That was also in conjunction with the university sector. I believe all three universities—the University of Adelaide, Flinders University and the UniSA—put in substantive funds as well. I am advised it was around the $10 million mark. But in terms of our breakdown for our $13.8 million, it is broken down as $10 million towards the university students, then also a $500 emergency cash grant per student and also a $200 one-off assistance payment for Homestay families. There were Homestay families looking after students as well.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Just to clarify, DTI's part of that was $13.8 million plus you indicated that the university sector gave $10 million.

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: Yes, the $10 million we provided to university students, and the $13.8 million, and in addition to that there was money from the university sector. I believe it was in excess of the $10 million. I think it was per university as opposed to just in one lump there.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I refer to Part A, 3.3, grant management, looking at pages 41 and 42. When was the last time that DTI was audited by the Auditor-General in regard to the management of grants?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: I am advised that part of the audit the Auditor-General does every year includes an audit of the grant programs. The response would be that the last time it was audited was in the 2020-21 year. I remind you that the Auditor-General gave an unmodified opinion.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I can take it that, because you have shared with us in the house and I am sure you are being very transparent, it was an unmodified opinion, but did he make any comments about the grant process? Obviously what we are looking at in the grants process—he indicates very clearly, looking at the selection process, the development and administration of grant agreements and the monitoring and evaluation of activities under the program. That is what he would look at.

While I accept that it was unmodified, was there any commentary made? I ask this in the acknowledgement that this was in response to COVID-19. Maybe the grants in the form that they came were not the traditional way the department has issued grants in the past. I am curious to understand whether there were any comments made.

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: I am advised there were no issues raised about the processing of grants. Just to give you some comfort that, had that been the case for the previous year, it has here in Part A: Executive Summary that the Auditor-General has the discretion to follow up. He states here that, if there were any issues, that would be part of a report in early 2022. I do not expect there to be. I am just saying it is not as though there is no oversight. You will be able to know that what I am saying is being transparent by virtue of the fact that that mechanism is in place, so I have good confidence.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Can I turn now to Part A, cybersecurity, on page 44. The Auditor-General states:

In 2020‐21 our specialised IT audit team conducted ITGC testing over seven agencies and 13 key agency financial systems. Our testing also assessed the remediation of ITGC issues we raised in prior years.

Was DTI one of the agencies included in the ITGC testing, or were your financial systems that you use included?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: I am advised that the Department for Trade and Investment was not audited as one of these seven agencies. It is worth pointing out again that there were no issues raised by the Auditor-General's Department in relation to the Department for Trade and Investment's ICT or cybersecurity.

It is worth pointing out that the South Australian Cyber Security Framework is a whole-of-South-Australian-government cybersecurity policy framework. We discussed that a little bit in last Auditor-General's Report for 2019-20. The Department of the Premier and Cabinet is responsible, of course, for leading South Australian government's cybersecurity agenda, but our department does work closely with the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and, by so doing, is able to leverage what are significant investments that have been put into the state regarding cybersecurity.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: On the same Part A in regard to ICT vulnerability management, page 45, the Auditor-General states:

In 2020‐21 we undertook a high‐level review of 10 public sector entities to understand the level and maturity of their penetration testing and vulnerability scanning of their public facing ICT environments.

Was DTI one of the agencies reviewed for their public facing ICT environments?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: I am advised that we were not.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Can you tell the committee when was the last time DTI was audited by the Auditor-General in regard to the robustness of their public ICT?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: I am advised that the department has not been audited, bearing in mind that the department is quite a young department. Again, I take comfort in the fact that the SA Cyber Security Framework is a whole of South Australian government cybersecurity policy framework, and that puts in place the work. The Department of the Premier and Cabinet is responsible for that.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I turn now to the financial statement and reflect on the expenses on page 3. My question is about the significant increase in expenditure for supplies and services from $13,365,000 in 2020 to $17,825,000 in 2021. What was the reason for this increase?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: Some of it is, in part, just because of COVID, because there are carryovers of things that were underspent in the previous year finding their way into the 2020-21 year. An example is overseas travel. The connection overseas dropped off because international borders closed, so rather than travel overseas that was held across.

Another aspect of it is that our overseas trade representation will increase as well. In the 2020-21 year, we brought online the overseas office in Houston, which has done a fantastic job. That came in in the 2020 year, and then we brought in other ones in August. I just want to get my time line right for you: Seoul came online in that 2021 year, New York came online and New Delhi. Those trade offices really started hitting their straps as well. Houston came online towards the end that 2020 year, so you are getting a whole year of Houston in there, if I do my sums correctly.

Just to put it in perspective, these trade offices were vital while international borders were closed. While our exporters could not travel, they gave a fantastic conduit to importers and distributors in the market, including with virtual wine tastings. I have updated the house about that. When wine exporters cannot be there in person, trade offices were able to set up a virtual wine tasting session where they gave, for example, a collection of wines to importers and distributors and then from South Australia the wineries could take them through a virtual wine tasting.

Another example in Houston was the Central Market, where we had some fantastic South Australian food producers able to put their goods onto a major Texas retailer there. It has been fantastically well received.

The CHAIR: It all sounds very enjoyable.

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: It was.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: On the same page, I note that $12,439,000 was returned in cash to the Department of Treasury and Finance. Why was this expenditure returned?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: The reason is that technically it is complying with the Treasurer's direction around giving that back to the Treasurer. The reason being, again because of COVID, there were some underspends in some areas and other ones were with the office relocations. So some savings were made there in terms of the leasing costs. With those carryovers, they will get transferred across into the 2021-22 budget. You would have seen them coming through there.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Just some clarification on that: there were not any exceptional areas that did not proceed? It was a significant increase in return.

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: There was not anything extraordinary in terms of why that happened. Elaborating further on a previous response, I have further advice that a large degree of that cash return is because of grant programs that were budgeted to occur in that year but, because of COVID, the grant programs that were to be given to business could not proceed. That will then just get picked up again in the 2021-22 year.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: As long as you got the money back. An area that I want to raise with you is in regard to investing expenditure on page 10. I have to say this is a concern I raised during the estimates process, and I notice it in the Auditor-General's Report, in reflection on the financial statement it is there as well. The total for existing investing projects is $0.5 million compared to the original budget, primarily due to the change in timing and scope of the fit-out for the relocation of the department to SA Water House on Victoria Square.

I am trying to get more information about it. In fact, I actually have an FOI—but I am sure the minister is aware of that—that you seem to be unable to release even though I have been advised it has been ready for some time. When was the minister made aware that the budgeted cost to relocate the department was going to more than double in cost? Let us remind ourselves it was $448,000 for the budget cost and now we have spent and additional $499,000. That is more than double. How on earth did we get it so wrong, minister?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: When the decision was first made to move to the office of SA Water, it was of course before COVID happened. That was from an office location where the department was spread across four storeys now into the SA Water building on the one floor. As I said, when the department was first trying to go in there, that was delayed because the department could not get access straightaway. As we talked about in estimates, it was apparent that those desks there were at end of life, but also, because we were in COVID, there was the changed working environment, where videoconferencing became very important. So there were changes in the way the department worked, which I think is really positive going forward.

It is worth reiterating that the benefit of the rotation means an annual operational saving of around $500,000 per year. That is money that we can spend on programs but, importantly, we are now also leasing off a government entity and so the money is staying within government, which is a magnification of that saving.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I must say that these must be the most expensive desks in the whole of South Australia. What I want to know is whether you were aware that the budgeted cost to relocate the department was going to more than double and did you have an opportunity, prior to this massive expenditure, to change the scope, to re-evaluate this project? What did you not do?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: We were leaving commercial premises. The tables were not able to be taken. As I said before, the facilities we were moving into were at end of life and there was other expenditure as well. The department was locked into it when the decision was made back in 2019. The Department for Trade and Investment moved in in 2021. As I said, COVID has changed the work environment and how we work has also changed markedly since 2019.

What I take great comfort in is that overall we are saving $500,000 a year. The staff are working in an environment where they are able to get the best out of themselves and they are able to interact with exporters through videoconferencing and increased collaboration. Overall, it has a really positive effect for the department and, as I said, saving $500,000 a year.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Minister, I look forward to getting that FOI so that I can have a transparent look at those costs. Talking about the staff, I want to go to page 14 and the employee benefit expenses in regard to long service leave. The financial statement saw a reduction in the accumulation of long service leave entitlements from 219,000 in 2020 to 160,000 in 2021. Can you account for this reduction? Most importantly, did any DTI staff use their long service leave during lockdowns, and were they asked to do this? Were they asked to take long service leave?

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: I will just confirm, member for Ramsay. Are you talking about the long service leave line item?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Yes.

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: Yes. I am advised that no-one was forced in terms of that because of COVID, but I think I will take that on notice because that is unnecessary.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I want to know, minister, whether—

The CHAIR: So you are seeking clarification. We have passed our expired time. I will allow this. You are seeking clarification. The minister will answer succinctly.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Yes, I am seeking clarification and you will take it on notice to come back to me if the DTI staff were requested to use their long service leave during COVID.

The Hon. S.J.R. PATTERSON: I am advised no-one was requested to use their long service leave.

The CHAIR: Thank you, minister. Thank you, member for Ramsay. Thank you to the advisers. That concludes the examination of the Auditor-General's Report for today in relation to the Minister for Trade and Investment.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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