HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2022-11-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Auditor-General's Report

Auditor-General's Report

In committee.

The CHAIR: I declare the examination of the report of the Auditor-General 2021-22 open. I remind members that the committee is in normal session. Any questions must be asked by members on their feet. All questions must be directly referenced to the Auditor-General's Report 2021-22 and agency statements for the year ending 2021-22, as published on the Auditor-General's website. I welcome the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I refer to the Auditor-General's annual report for the year ended 30 June 2022, Part A: Executive Summary of that report, referring to page 16 and section 4.2 of that report. This refers to the difficulty that the Auditor-General had in accessing documents in relation to the sports and infrastructure grants. Can the Premier advise why his government is still refusing to release the sports grants cabinet submissions to the Auditor-General as requested by the Auditor-General?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Because cabinet documents are only entitled to be had by members of cabinet.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I refer to the same section, the Executive Summary, page 15, section 4.1. Why is the government preventing the Auditor-General from fulfilling his legislative obligations in seeking to audit the sports and infrastructure grants process? This is a description provided by the Auditor-General. He cannot fulfil his legislative obligation as outlined on page 15 of this report because of his inability to access these documents.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I have familiarised myself with the page number referred to by the Leader of the Opposition but, if you do not mind me asking, where specifically on that page can the Leader of the Opposition quote that assertion being made by the Auditor-General?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Under section 4.1, it says:

I am professionally bound to ensure I meet specific requirements before issuing an opinion. I must obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide a basis for an audit opinion. What is sufficient is a matter of judgement and risk for the auditor.

There is some more information about convention, and then:

Accordingly, giving an audit opinion on whether a transaction has been conducted properly and in accordance with law occasionally necessitates accessing evidence about what Cabinet authorised and the information that informed its decision.

This enables the Auditor-General to fulfil his legislative obligations. He has not been able to do this in relation to the sports and infrastructure grants because he has been unable to get the documents required to provide that opinion. Why is he being prevented from doing so?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: There are a couple of elements there. I am not aware of anything within the Auditor-General's Report that we are talking about where it says the Auditor-General is inhibited from fulfilling their legislative responsibilities, as is being asserted by the Leader of the Opposition. Nonetheless, in the second part of the question the Leader of the Opposition asks why we are not providing cabinet documents. This is something that we have traversed, obviously, in question time, as it has been traversed in the public realm in the media, and I certainly appreciate the appropriateness of asking the question in this specific forum within the parliament.

The government has a view around the release of cabinet documents. We are very keen to furnish the Auditor-General with all the information that they require in order to be able to assess expenditure of taxpayers' dollars, as is provided for by the substantial reports that have been made available by the Auditor-General himself. Having said that, it is also the government's view that cabinet documents are within the exclusive purview of cabinet members themselves. There is a principle that underpins that, and that is worthy of preservation.

The opposition has formed a view around the commitments that we made at the election to sporting communities. I simply submit to the opposition, and anybody else for that matter, that a commitment to a local sporting community is no different from any other policy commitment that is made in the lead-up to an election, whether it be from the Liberal Party or the Labor Party. There were numerous commitments made by both sides of politics in the lead-up to the election, most of which were pretty prescriptive about cost. There might be some that were uncosted thought bubbles, like Crystal Lake or whatever, but there were others that were quite defined and a cost was put next to it by the Liberal Party, as it was by the Labor Party.

By and large, that is what is being delivered in the budget, and we are committed to doing so. The cabinet's job as the executive arm of government in no small part is charged with the task of seeing to the realisation of those commitments, those policies, and that is what we are very keen to do and go about as diligently as we possibly can.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I refer to the same section again, 4.1, and the paragraph that I previously quoted, which is from the Auditor-General's viewpoint:

…giving an audit opinion on whether a transaction has been conducted properly and in accordance with law occasionally necessitates accessing evidence about what Cabinet authorised and the information that informed its decision.

This being cabinet's decision. Does the Premier agree with the Auditor-General's statement here?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: What I agree with is something I know the Leader of the Opposition agrees with because that was certainly the policy that the former government had and the current government has, and that is that cabinet documents are exclusively entitled to cabinet members and for there to be any exception to that it needs to be approved by the cabinet. It is the policy the former government had; it is the policy that this government has. In terms of audit opinions and the like, all the expenditure that the government undertakes is consistent with delivering on its policies and done in a way that we understand to be entirely appropriate.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Page 15 of the Executive Summary is the beginning of section 4.2, which goes on to the next page. It describes the process through which the Auditor-General would go to access documents such as cabinet submissions. In 3.2 it says:

Upon receiving a request under section 3.1, the Chief Executive of DPC will provide access to the Cabinet submission, subject to the approval of the Premier.

Premier, on that basis, what recommendation did you receive from your chief executive regarding releasing cabinet submissions to the Auditor-General when they were requested?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: To the best of my recollection, I was provided with basic advice that informed me about the options that I had available to me, and I made the judgement that I did.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Just to clarify, there was no recommendation from the Chief Executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet providing the Premier with a direction that he was advised to go in—a yes, you can release these documents or, a no, you cannot. Is the Premier saying he was given a range of options or a continuum of advice that he then made that decision himself?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am advised that the advice that I received was that it was a decision for me to make and me alone. When I say 'me alone', it is a matter that I actually actively discussed with the cabinet as well.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The same page and same section again, 4.2, refers to Premier's circular 047. Are you aware of and do you agree with Premier and Cabinet Circular P047 'Disclosure of Cabinet documents to investigative agencies'?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Just to get some clarity around the question, is the Leader of the Opposition asking about whether or not I agree with the circular?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes. Are you aware of the existence of the circular and do you agree with its contents?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am aware of the contents. I am aware of the circular. I have familiarised myself with the contents of the circular. It is my expectation that, as best as practicable, members of the executive arm of government and the government more broadly observe those circulars. Circulars, of course, are subject to change from time to time; that is the nature of them. But the Premier's circular No. 47, up until this point, has not changed.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Premier, relating to the same comments from the Auditor-General in relation to Premier and Cabinet Circular P047, are you aware of any circumstances in which the Auditor-General can be provided cabinet submissions that are outlined in circular 047 and, if so, can you share them with the house today?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes, the Auditor-General can be furnished with cabinet documents with the approval of the Premier.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: In the Auditor-General's Report in section 4.2 again, and in relation to circular P047, the Auditor-General provides a piece of information that he believes that the government intends to revise this circular. Can you explain why this is the case and when that revision will be undertaken and what that revision might look like?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Yes, I am familiar with the reference that the Leader of the Opposition refers to. Just to be clear, if the Leader of the Opposition does not mind, I will quickly quote it:

At the time of this Report we understand that the SA Government plans to review, and potentially change, this policy. We are not aware of a specific date by which this is likely to occur.

I understand it is standard practice for circulars to be reviewed on a periodic basis and I understand that all circulars are currently going through a process of review. This one is no exception, and I understand there is an aspiration for that process to be concluded this year.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Premier, can you tell us who is leading that review? Is it you in your role as Premier, is it the chief executive of the department, is it the head of Cabinet Office, or is it another public servant within the Department of the Premier and Cabinet?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I understand that, in a strict sense, it is the responsibility of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, led by the chief executive. Of course, if there were to be an amendment to a Premier's circular, that would ultimately require my authorisation in terms of within the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. Obviously, the chief executive has a role to play, but also the Cabinet Office essentially leads the grant work in terms of the effort that is being undertaken into those reviews or analyses.

I might add for the record that that process is, I understand, a relatively routine one. As it currently stands, I have made no request of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet to make any specific amendment to Premier's circular 047. Just to be clear, that is not to say it cannot change. If I receive recommendations or if something draws my attention to a need to change, then that is something I will turn my mind to.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: In relation to the same topic, would the Premier support revisions to circular 047, which decreased disclosure and transparency requirements?

The CHAIR: There is a level of argument in that question. Are you happy to—

Mr Tarzia: It's an informal process. It's in committee.

The CHAIR: The question still has to be replied to. There is a level of argument in that question. I did not object to what he is talking about. He is happy to raise it, but he has to make it a direct question—and I do not need advice from the member for Hartley, thanks.

Mr Tarzia: It's always free.

The CHAIR: It's always free, yes.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Point of order, sir.

The CHAIR: The member for Unley; I can't wait.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It is actually against standing orders to respond to interjections, which is what you have just done.

The CHAIR: Member for Unley, unless you have something really valuable to add, I would rather you did not say anything.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The assertion from the Leader of the Opposition was that there was a change to the circular that diminished—I am trying to remember the exact word—

An honourable member: Transparency.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: —transparency. What I would simply draw the Leader of the Opposition to is that if you look at Premier's circular 047, the last time the circular was approved—and this is on page 6 of the circular—was 18 February 2019. So if there has been a revision to Premier's circular 047 that in any way degrades transparency, then of course that has been at the hand of the former government.

In that former government, ultimately the person responsible for the Premier's circular was the former Premier but was in no doubt aided by the advice of someone who has a familiarity with the cabinet process, including someone who may have worked in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, and none other than the Cabinet Office. More than that, if my memory serves me correctly, the now Leader of the Opposition was also charged with the unique responsibility of being the cabinet secretary. So if there was a change to Premier's circular 047 that diminished transparency, I suspect that the Leader of the Opposition was well aware of it and might be able to answer his own question.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The Premier has misunderstood the question, but I am going to move on out of compassion. I refer to page 16, dot point 4.2. This is the same section again. The Auditor-General states:

We have not received any information in relation to requests for documentation of the current government…

Premier, are you able to advise how many requests for cabinet submissions you have received—'you' being the current government—from the Auditor-General since the election?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am loath to give a specific number because I would not want to mislead. I am happy to take that on notice. However, I understand that this number has been furnished in the public realm maybe as recently as yesterday—was it in Economic and Finance or Budget and Finance yesterday?

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: Economic and Finance.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: That number might have been furnished by the Auditor-General himself in the Economic and Finance Committee yesterday. What I am in a position to confirm is that I do not believe we have authorised the release of any cabinet documents as per the principle that I explained earlier.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: When taking that on notice, Premier, could you provide a figure on how many requests for cabinet submissions you have received and then maybe break them down if possible—if there is a differentiation here—into the number that were approved and the number that were refused?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I am more than happy to, but, again, I have no reason to believe that information, should it have been furnished yesterday in Economic and Finance, would be inaccurate, but nonetheless we will undertake that exercise. I am more than happy to take that on notice, including the specifics that the Leader of the Opposition has asked for.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Premier, I refer to the same section on page 16, dot point 4.2. Under what circumstances would you release documents to the Auditor-General?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: On all circumstances to which the Auditor-General is entitled to documents. Of course, that is, I can only imagine, pages upon pages upon pages of government documents that the Auditor-General has access to. Of course that does not require my approval. The only time that I would imagine it requires my approval is when the Auditor-General is seeking to get access to documents to which he is not entitled.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Premier, I refer to the same section again. Do you believe there will be circumstances when you release cabinet documents to the Auditor-General in the future?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: There is a policy that guides this practice, namely, Premier's Circular 047, and it is our intention to comply with that policy.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I move to page 19, dot point 5.1.4, with the title, 'What the Auditor-General's Department Needs.' The Auditor-General states that he has made a request to receive an increase in his annual funding budget of $1.569 million to fund 10 new positions and related operating costs. Premier, will you guarantee that you will provide the Auditor-General with sufficient resources to undertake his legislative obligations?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The Auditor-General's function is an incredibly important one. The Auditor-General's examination, not just this form but generally, of the government's expenditure is an essential part of ensuring that the government is doing the right thing, and it is a role that I value and I know that the Treasurer values.

The Auditor-General outlines the savings task that has been imposed upon their office not just in the most recent state budget but over a sustained period of time, and I would like to acknowledge that the Auditor-General has been incredibly diligent with the expenditure of taxpayer funds, as the Auditor-General himself knows in the report. It is not an easy operating environment for the government at the moment, if it ever is. It is particularly challenging at the moment, as the Auditor-General himself acknowledges within the report.

When we make decisions in the state budget around saving tasks, whether it be within the Auditor-General's office or within the Department of Treasury and Finance, which itself took a pretty decent haircut and I certainly know there has been a rather substantial haircut in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet as well, which is currently being delivered upon, that has consequences.

These are difficult decisions to make, but the Auditor-General is an important independent office. Naturally, the Auditor-General's remarks that are contained within the report regarding their own circumstances in some respects are not unique at all because every government agency, as far as I know, seeks to make additional funding requests. That said, the nature of this report and what the Auditor-General said is worthy of contemplation and of course that will be provided for in the budget to be handed down in June next year.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Moving on and back to page 13, section 3.3.6, Authority and proper process, where the Auditor-General outlines that governments and Public Service employees must act within the powers and limits set by the law, he goes through the key areas of state legislation that govern that. Premier, looking at those legal instruments that are outlined by the Auditor-General, can you assure South Australians that no conflict, misconduct, maladministration or corruption occurred in the administration of the sports and infrastructure grants and, if so, can you provide evidence for this or should we take you at your word?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: It is a pretty extraordinary question in some respects. The budget is an important process. It rightly enjoys a lot of scrutiny, as do elections, and we are getting on with the task of delivering upon our election commitments and doing it in such a way that we believe is in the best interests of South Australia. Of course, every effort has to be undertaken to ensure compliance with the law. That applies to every citizen in the state and parliamentarians are certainly no exception.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: In section 3.3.5 on page 12, the Auditor-General says:

We have already seen in our local media reporting that making certain funding decisions exposes a government to accusations that such payments are designed for political purposes and lack the established safeguards—

The Hon. P.B. Malinauskas interjecting:

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: It is page 12. There is a section 3.3.5. It provides commentary about media reporting and finishes off with the statement:

…accusations that such payments are designed for political purposes and lack the established safeguards against bias or subjective assessment.

Can the Premier assure South Australians that the Ministerial Code of Conduct was not breached in the assessment, approval or administration of the sports and infrastructure grants process?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I note the Auditor-General's reference to media commentary. The media are no different from the Auditor-General in that they perform an important function within our democracy. The media are, in every respect, independent parties—independent of government—and that is necessary and important. They scrutinise the government in a different way, but with a similar independence that the Auditor-General themselves have.

However, what I might mention, if the media do not mind me saying so, is that that does not necessarily mean they are always right. It is no different from how parliamentarians are not always right. The Auditor-General has formed the view that they should make reference to local media reporting. I guess that is the Auditor-General's prerogative.

In terms of election commitments, yes, of course, they are subject to the political process. To the best of my knowledge, I do not think the Auditor-General has asked for cabinet documents pertaining to our health commitments that we made at the election or the commitments we made around big infrastructure projects worth many multiple times more than the sporting infrastructure commitments.

I am not aware of the Auditor-General asking for cabinet documents relating to our education policy commitments but, rather, asking for cabinet documents, I understand, that pertain to those election commitments that some media outlets have decided are more questionable than others. On what basis that judgement is made in the media is unknown to me. That is for them to explain.

What I would say is that I do not necessarily accord with the opinion of former Prime Minister John Howard, who said there are core promises and non-core promises. We take the view there are only promises. It does not matter if they were to a small sporting community or to the people of South Australia more broadly with a major policy on trade schools, for instance, or health policy, they are all commitments that need to be honoured. We are determined to do that.

One of the reasons we established the Premier's Delivery Unit was to make sure that we can, as diligently as possible, account for all the election commitments that we made and then seek to deliver on each and every one of them. Regardless of their size, they are all important, particularly to those people the commitments were made to.

The CHAIR: The time allocated for the examination of the Auditor-General's Report for this part has now expired. I now call on the Treasurer and the member for Colton. I remind members that this is a normal session of a committee. All questions must be asked by members on their feet and all questions must be answered by members on their feet. All questions must be directly referenced to the Auditor-General's Report and agency statements for the year ending 2021-22 and as published on the Auditor-General's website.

Mr COWDREY: I begin with Part A, section 3, starting at page 6. Treasurer, can you explain the full extent of your role, your office's role and the role of your department in assessing, approving and administering the sports and community infrastructure grant processes?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am a cabinet minister who participated in a cabinet decision in order to give effect to the commitments that we had made at the election and incorporate those into the state budget.

Mr COWDREY: On the same section, did you sign any of the sports and community infrastructure grants cabinet submissions?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The member would understand that is not a question I am going to answer.

Mr COWDREY: Treasurer, again on the same question, did you approve or provide spending authority for any sports and community infrastructure grants?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Perhaps for the member's benefit, cabinet provides the expenditure and the appropriation authority. It is then up to the responsible ministers to administer those moneys being paid to the recipients who have been approved to receive those moneys by cabinet. My understanding—I am happy to check the fine detail on this—is that that was principally undertaken by the Office for Recreation and Sport, and in a number of other instances that was superintended by the Department for Infrastructure and Transport.

Mr COWDREY: I understand the direction of my questions, given your answer in question time last week that alluded to the fact that no matter if in character, grants that were paid—whether they looked to be in the nature of those that were community or sporting infrastructure grants—there were other departments in place that were capable and had the ability to provide grant payments and that DIT and ORSR were not the only two agencies that provided and executed grant funding. Please forgive me if I do continue with this line, as Treasury is the appropriate agency, potentially. Did you delegate responsibility for the approval or administration of any of the sports and community infrastructure grants?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I cannot recall off the top of my head other agencies that were involved in the administration of paying moneys to the recipients who were authorised by cabinet but, as I said in my previous answer, I am happy to take that question on notice and if there are other agencies that did that I am happy to come back to the member and provide that detail.

Mr COWDREY: Again, with reference to the same section, Treasurer, did you declare a conflict of interest at any point in the process for the administration of the sports and community infrastructure grants process?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As I have answered to the member previously and to the house, I am confident that I have met all my responsibilities under the Ministerial Code of Conduct, and no-one has put any information to me that makes me think otherwise.

Mr COWDREY: I will reference Part A, section 4 on page 15 of the report. The Auditor-General makes this comment:

…giving an audit opinion on whether a transaction has been conducted properly and in accordance with law occasionally necessitates accessing evidence about what Cabinet authorised and the information that informed its decision.

Treasurer, do you agree with this comment?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I think the Auditor-General is best placed to comment about how he thinks he is best placed to meet his legislative obligations to the parliament. He may have a view that he needs to access certain information or documents in order for him to fulfil that function but, beyond that synopsis of the circumstance of the Auditor-General preparing commentary for his annual report, I do not really have a view.

Mr COWDREY: So the Treasurer of South Australia has no view as to whether the Auditor-General, in giving an audit opinion of whether a transaction has been conducted properly and in accordance with the law—as transactions are provided in large part by your department, you have no view as to whether those comments align with your views?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Well, you have a conflation of a number of things here in an effort to try to demonstrate a political point. You are asking me a question, recognising that I am Treasurer and have the Department of Treasury and Finance that I am responsible for and that reports to me, that is responsible for many, many transactions and authorisations within the public sector. That, of course, we all recognise to be the case, but where the conflation comes in is by your own use of the term 'a transaction or a spending decision', and it is here that I reiterate the advice that I previously provided to parliament. The authorisation, the approval of transactions, the spending decisions occurred at cabinet within the public sector framework. That is where the authority for expenditure and, if need be, appropriation is provided, so that is within the public sector framework.

It seems to me that the opposition is conflating that process with a desire that, when a member of parliament or a candidate standing for parliament or a political party is communicating to an electorate what their priorities would be should they be elected after a state election—what their election commitments are, for example—the formation of that election commitment, the putting forward of that proposal by a candidate standing for election, it seems the inference is that that needs to occur within the public sector framework.

On that, if that is the contention of those commentating on the delivery of election commitments by this government, I am a bit surprised because, of course, what we see here is quite plain: a political party and members of it made a series of election commitments. After forming government, the cabinet approved the expenditure to give effect to those election commitments. Then, as far as I can tell from the Auditor-General's Report, the ministers and agencies responsible for giving effect to the cabinet decision, i.e. for reaching agreements in order to disburse moneys to those approved recipients occurred, and—as far as I can tell, again, from what the commentary is in the report from the sample that the Auditor-General tells us in the report he has taken—that has been done in accordance with the appropriate controls and public sector financial management framework.

I realise that in some quarters there is a broad desire to conflate the making of election commitments and the appropriate spending decision of funding authority and carrying out of that decision within the public sector framework. There is a desire to conflate that process with what we have seen in the past, including what the Auditor-General says in this same section of his report—for example, when he commented about the previous government's Regional Growth Fund, or when we cast light on the application of the previous government's grassroots funding program in the Office for Rec and Sport almost exclusively going to Liberal-held seats; the only exception to that, I think in round 2, was for one grant to go to an Independent, formerly Liberal-held seat.

The desire to conflate what is happening here and what has been commented on here in this report with that past process I think is completely misguided and unreasonable. I realise why the opposition are doing it—because they think this is some way to score a political hit—but I just do not agree with the conflation.

Mr COWDREY: It is very easy to tell when the Treasurer is a bit touchy. In regard to the same section—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: I thought that was pretty balanced from me, to be honest. I was a lot touchier in question time.

Mr COWDREY: Fair enough. Treasurer, did you request that the Premier not approve release of the cabinet submissions to the Auditor-General?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am not commenting on that. The Leader of the Opposition questioned the Premier about this in the previous half an hour and I think the Premier was pretty fulsome in his responses as to how this process was undertaken.

Mr COWDREY: I refer you to the same section, Part A, section 3. Outside of yourself, Treasurer, who in your ministerial office has access to cabinet submission documents?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I would have to come back to the parliament with whatever information I can provide on that. I know I will get this wrong, but I will try: I think there is a system that is used by Cabinet Office called Shrike. It is the bird that continues to swoop down on people who work in the State Administration Centre without consequence, I think.

There are a number of people who are authorised within ministerial offices. For example, pretty much every ministerial office has a cabinet officer who is a member of the administrative team who liaises with Cabinet Office and provides access to cabinet documents for the minister's benefit, but is also responsible for submitting documents from time to time if a minister is submitting them to cabinet, so they would have access. I assume there would be a number of the minister's own appointed staff, including Chief of Staff and advisers and perhaps other administrative staff, but I would have to come back with a specific answer on that.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to Part A, section 3, figure 3.2, how many grants referred to in the totals in that figure were paid to incorporated organisations? Who were the recipients and to what value?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will take that question on notice. As I said in question time, I perhaps was mistaken, but I had thought that the opposition had asked for this information previously and the government had undertaken to provide that information to the parliament on notice. I am willing to believe the member for Colton. If that has not been provided, then we will provide that.

Mr COWDREY: On the same reference, what checks did the Labor Party undertake to ensure that organisations that were provided grants had the capacity to deliver the outcome or project that funds were provided for?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: For the vast majority of these, that concern is satisfied because in many cases the relevant local government authority is the recipient in these grants.

Mr COWDREY: You may take this same question on notice, as per the one previously. Were any grants provided to private individuals and, if so, who were the recipients and to what value?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Not that I can recall, but I will check.

Mr COWDREY: I refer to the report at section 3.3.6. Can you assure South Australians that no conflict, misconduct, maladministration or corruption occurred in the administration of the sports and community infrastructure grants processes?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I have not seen any information that gives me cause to believe that it has.

Mr COWDREY: Again on Part A, section 3, yesterday a quote attributed to the Premier appeared in The Advertiser online. I quote:

Every single cent of expenditure that comes from taxpayer funds to deliver on our election commitments…is fully transparent and fully available for everybody to see, including the Auditor-General.

Where does this publicly available list exist, Treasurer? The Auditor-General was not aware of a list citing each sport and local infrastructure grant, outlining who received the payment, how much was paid and for what outcome. Can you direct me to the website or the URL?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I think the quote was 'every cent' that is allocated towards government initiatives, including election commitments, so the first port of call for the member to look at would be the Appropriation Bill. This sets out to the dollar, if not to the cent, allocations of moneys that were available for purposes for all government programs, broken down by agency. Then, as the member would be aware, there is an extensive opportunity with the tabling of the Appropriation Bill for the parliament then to examine it.

I probably could not think of a better and more transparent way of presenting all the dollars and cents the government allocates for its programs than by that process, because of course every single member of the public is represented in this one place in parliament so that they all have access to it.

Mr COWDREY: I have a follow-up question to that, Treasurer. Are you saying that the quote provided by the Premier was meant to be read to its absolute literal sense by the people of South Australia and that there is no such publicly available list outlining how much money was provided to each sporting club or local infrastructure project and that you are confirming that there is no publicly available website listing each and every grant paid?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No; we can go back and check the Hansard. You put a quote to me using the specific words of the Premier, and I responded to that quote. If you had a particular context for that, which is a carrying on of the bemoaning of not having a list in front of you about that list of recipients of those moneys that were authorised by cabinet, as I have already said, I am happy to make that available to you.

Mr COWDREY: On radio in May nearly a half a year ago, Treasurer, you committed to shifting your broader election commitments and policy documents from an external Labor website to a state government website. Has this occurred yet and, if not, why not?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Do you have the quote from me there in May, because I do not believe I made that commitment. I am not the minister responsible for government websites. I am happy to stand corrected, but what I recall I said was that it was my understanding that, at that time in May, the new Labor government was going through exactly the same process and suffering exactly the same criticism that the previous Liberal government went through after they were elected in March 2018 of moving their online presence away from a state political party-based website to a government website, for example. That was the context of my comments in May. I think I said that I undertook to get back to the person who asked me that question on talkback radio where that is up to.

I can assure the member for Colton that amongst the responsibilities that have been conferred on me by the Premier, managing government websites is not one of them, although there is of course the Department of Treasury and Finance website. But, as you might imagine, even though that is a website managed by the department that reports to me, it is not necessarily the department that is responsible for managing all government information across all government departments.

What it does have, for example, is the budget papers under a section on that website called Budget and Financial Management. If this is yet another allusion to you not having access to that list of grants, as I said on a number of occasions, including during question time today, I thought that was provided. I understand from the member's remarks that it has not been provided, and I undertake to provide that.

Mr COWDREY: I will leave aside my interpretation of the comments provided on radio. Perhaps, again, it was commentary to the extent that it was an orthodox thing for a website to be removed and shifted across to another website, but it certainly was not an attempt to hide from South Australians what our commitments were.

I think the confirmation was from the Treasurer—and again, I do not want to put words in his mouth—but, to my knowledge, that has not occurred yet, that those election commitments are available for anybody. The crux of where we are going here, with regard to this issue and more broadly, is that a pattern is beginning to emerge. As mentioned in the editorial of The Advertiser this morning, scrutiny when it suits seems to be the way of this government, does it not, Treasurer?

I will shift to Part C, page 540, under the section dealing with the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit. What steps have been and will be undertaken by the department to collect outstanding debts through the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit? Can you elaborate on the different collection management strategies and actions that have been put in place over the past 12 months?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I thank the member for his question. I can direct his attention to page 541 in the third to last paragraph, as follows:

The FERU has engaged a panel of external debt collectors to help collect outstanding amounts, particularly those that are more difficult to recover. The outstanding amounts collected by debt collection agencies since the start of the arrangements in 2016‐17 total $32.8 million.

As for the details of the methods by which those external debt collectors use to recover those debts, I am happy to take that question on notice and provide some information to the member.

Mr COWDREY: I refer to Part C, page 537, looking at commonwealth grant funding arrangements, specifically the ongoing provision of GST payments. Is the Treasurer confident that he can secure an extension from his colleagues in Canberra to the 'no worse off' guarantee for GST funding?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I would certainly hope so. That is the bare minimum that would be acceptable to South Australia. We should note that what is occurring at the moment is that a new arrangement, which was agreed I think in 2018 or 2019 by the former Morrison Coalition federal government, changed the legislation governing the GST to allow for a change in how the national collections were disbursed amongst the states, away from what had been in place since the GST was first implemented to an arrangement which favours Western Australia and does so on an entirely unreasonable and unjust basis.

The complaint from Western Australia—notwithstanding the fact that in the early 2000s after the GST was first introduced they were a net beneficiary of horizontal fiscal equalisation (HFE), something conveniently forgotten by Western Australia—about there being up to a three-year lag effect of accounting for royalty payments and the changes to GST relativities meant that at times they could be both deficient of mining royalties, if there had been a downturn in either commodity prices or demand for those commodities, and an adjustment to their GST receipts to take account for that.

To get out a 10-pound sledgehammer to crack a very fine veneer of a membrane on a beer nut, the federal Coalition government decided to impose a regime where the main principles of HFE were put to one side and a new beneficial arrangement for Western Australia was entered into. This year, for example, more than $4 billion in GST that would have otherwise gone to all other states and territories is being directed away from those states and territories, every single one of them other than WA to WA.

At the same time, the WA government is recording a $6 billion budget surplus and, at this point in time, maybe South Australia will be the only jurisdiction that gets close to recording a surplus in the current financial year. At the same time, Western Australia is getting record revenues from royalties on its commodities. So it is unfair.

There is a temporary bandaid which has been applied to all states and territories where there is a 'no worse off' guarantee and that is that, while those extra GST revenues are being ripped off the other states and territories and given to Western Australia, the commonwealth will come in and top up those states and territories losing that GST out of its own budget, and that only continues until the end of the 2026-27 financial year. So from 2027-28 onwards, we will be worse off.

I had previously provided advice to the house that that would mean that in a financial year under the current circumstances we would be about $280 million worse off. That figure has now been revised to about $320 million a year worse off. If the 'no worse off' guarantee is extended, that would be a bare minimum to protect the financial interests of South Australia. Ultimately, some sort of better reform would be preferred by other states and territories, but I am not sure whether there is the appetite of the federal parliament to do that.

Mr COWDREY: This is one of the areas in which we are completely in lock step: the fact that the bare minimum is to ensure that that guarantee continues. The only detail lacking in your commentary is, of course, the federal Labor Party's unwavering commitment to that change as well. Outside that issue, can I move to one at page 473, Part C. I will just clear up that statement: the federal Labor government supported the original changes to the HFC equalisation.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Changes by the Coalition. The entire parliament and federal—

Mr COWDREY: The federal parliament, almost exclusively together. At any rate, moving on to page 473, Part C, Super SA, the commentary highlights that Super SA is still making the administration and system changes needed to bring fund selection into effect for members. Is this an issue, given the choice of fund is due to be rolled out this month, and are there delays in the project?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Not that I am aware of, but I will take that on notice and double-check for the member.

Mr COWDREY: Are you able to advise whether fund selection is available as of November 2022?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That was the aim. I have not checked between yesterday and today but, as I said, I am happy to check that. I know that when we were talking about this during estimates, the Chief Executive of Super SA was quick to assure us that this was achievable, but I will check. I am advised that it is still the case: it is on track for November, assumedly between now and the end of the month.

Mr COWDREY: Following on, a question a few pages later on page 495, Part C, that section highlights the restructure in asset classes at Funds SA. Are you able to provide further commentary and advice around what drove the asset class restructure and how many customers were impacted?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Certainly, Funds SA in general terms recorded investment losses over the course of the most recent financial year. They were certainly not alone as a fund manager in doing so. The early advice I received from Funds SA as to why—I will provide a bit more context around that. In the last financial year, they recorded investment losses. They were not alone in doing that across other fund managers. However, they and of course me, and we all, would be a little concerned that their overall investment returns were slightly lower than even other industry participants. They were slightly worse performing last financial year than other fund managers, for example, of superannuation funds.

In the previous 12 months, where they had very strong investment returns—from memory, of over 23 or 24 per cent—they had outperformed a lot of those fund managers. I am not trying to say it all evens each other out. My understanding is that part of what is attributable to that overachievement, and then underachievement of the following financial year, is the asset allocation favouring international equities, for example, against infrastructure investment. That was the advice that was first provided to me by the chair, Paul Laband. He has assured me that he and the Funds SA board continue to be engaged and work on reassessing their asset allocations.

While it was good for the 2020-21 financial year, and they outperformed because of that higher than normal exposure to international equities, of course now it has led to what they believe is a level of underperformance against other Australian benchmarks because of that asset allocation of the weightings between the two. That was the sort of early advice I got from them. You will see that this gets a little bit of examination in the annual report and associated documents but, to provide some further information, once again I am happy to take that on notice for the member.

The CHAIR: The time allocated for the examination of the Auditor-General's Report for this section has now expired. I now invite the Minister for Sport and Recreation and the member for Hartley.

Mr TARZIA: Minister, I refer to the Auditor-General's Report, Part A, section 3.2, titled 'Payment of sporting club and local infrastructure grants because of election commitments'. Did the minister personally approve any of these sporting grants referred to by this report?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I thank the shadow minister for his question. Can I firstly just say that sport and recreation clubs in South Australia are institutions that are run through the hard work of volunteers who contribute so much to communities. They so selflessly contribute so much to communities and are often the places that bring people together and provide a really lovely sense of belonging and help to improve people's physical, mental and emotional health and wellbeing.

They are incredibly important organisations, and I am sure that the shadow minister would agree that over the last couple of years through some really difficult times they have managed to bring people together despite sometimes people having to be physically apart. They have maintained that role at the heart of communities.

I am really proud that, amongst a wide range of election commitments, there were commitments made to sport and recreation organisations. As the Premier spoke about, they sit amongst a very broad range of election commitments, and those commitments represent the vision and the policies which we took to the election and which were ultimately endorsed by the people of South Australia.

Those commitments came about because a range of local members, and also indeed candidates at the time, engaged deeply with their local communities, including with those volunteers I spoke about in sport and recreation organisations, and they responded to need those particular sport and recreation clubs identified. I am sure that the shadow minister would agree that those volunteers do need to be heard and we need to respond to them.

I am proud that the vision we took to the election includes that response to a number of those sport and recreation organisations. I think it has been canvassed very well in this place both in question time and during the course of the Auditor-General's Report examination this afternoon—and indeed on previous occasions in this house—the processes that were gone through in ensuring that these election commitments that were made to the people of South Australia are being delivered on. I think the Premier spoke about these promises being ones that will absolutely be fulfilled.

As I have also spoken about in this house on several occasions, I have been very clear about the processes that we went through, and I am very clear that I have upheld all the relevant responsibilities and processes in relation to the commitments that were made.

Mr TARZIA: Referring to the same line, did the minister delegate the approval of any of these grants to anyone else and, if so, who did she delegate it to?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Again, I think that I have been very clear on several occasions here and I will say it again for the shadow minister's benefit. In terms of the delivery of the election commitments, I have upheld all my responsibilities in an appropriate manner.

Mr TARZIA: Referring to the same line, did the minister sign any of the sports and infrastructure grant cabinet submissions?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Again, I think that the Premier and Treasurer have both given answers to similar questions. The processes of cabinet, as the shadow minister knows from his time as a minister, are confidential. The deliberations of cabinet are confidential, and it is part of my responsibility, a responsibility that I take incredibly seriously, to make sure that I uphold that confidentiality about cabinet processes, deliberations, discussions, etc. I will continue to uphold that confidentiality and to act appropriately always in relation to any of those deliberations and it is incredibly important that I do.

Mr TARZIA: Referring to the same line, can the minister please explain the full extent of her role, her office's role and the role of her department in assessing, approving and administering the sports and infrastructure grants?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: In relation to the election commitments, I think I have gone through the sequence of events, but I am really happy to speak about them again. We took to the election a range of commitments to our community that were part of a vision we offered to the people of South Australia, and those commitments related to a range of activities and programs, etc. I am really proud that members and candidates engaged with communities about those particular commitments and deeply engaged in a very open and transparent way with their communities about those commitments. What we are doing now, as the Premier and Treasurer have spoken about, is delivering on those commitments, as we should.

Mr TARZIA: Referring to the same line, did the minister personally approve any of these sporting grants the report refers to that were within her own electorate?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I think I have actually answered this question already, both today and on a number of occasions. I take my role as minister very seriously, and I always act in the appropriate manner and adhere to the code of conduct and any other relevant acts, etc. that of course I should adhere to. I take that responsibility to do so very seriously, and I will continue to take that responsibility very, very seriously.

Mr TARZIA: Minister, referring to the Auditor-General's Report, Part A, section 3.3, the Auditor-General asserts that 'the payment of public money should only occur after all public sector processes are completed'. Does the minister agree with this assertion from the Auditor-General?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I think this goes to an answer that I have previously given to the shadow minister and that is that we were very open and very transparent about the vision that we took to the election, to the people of South Australia. That vision is filled with commitments to the South Australian people and we are getting on with delivering those commitments.

Mr TARZIA: Referring to the Auditor-General's Report, Part A, section 3.3.4, titled 'No government records of why projects were chosen', does your office have any records or assessment criteria available as to why certain projects were chosen?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Again, it is a very similar question to ones that the shadow minister has previously asked both today and on previous occasions in the parliament and my answer remains the same, and that is that we took these commitments to the people of South Australia and we are getting on with delivering those commitments.

Mr TARZIA: Referring to the same line, paragraph 4, dot point 1, would the minister be willing to table here today her approval for individual grant amounts and, if not, why not?

The CHAIR: Can I have that question again, please, because I think the question presupposes something that the minister made a comment on earlier.

Mr TARZIA: I will ask it and then maybe you can allow the minister to reply. The question was a straight question: would the minister be willing to table here today her approval for individual grant programs and, if not, why not?

The CHAIR: The minister has advised the committee, and the minister can correct me if I am wrong, they were cabinet decisions. Therefore, if you are asking the minister to release that information, I think the Treasurer responded to that earlier.

Mr TARZIA: Sir, with all respect, how the minister responds is her prerogative, is it not?

The CHAIR: I am happy if the minister responds. I am just making sure I understand your question and that the minister is able to respond.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I do think that I have already answered this question. I think it is a very similar question to the one that you asked one or two questions into the session. I do think I have already answered it. Again, it is not just today that you have asked questions along that line. I think you have asked in many different ways questions along those lines, so I do feel that I have already answered that question. I think also the Treasurer and the Premier have answered those questions today both in question time and during this Auditor-General's Report examination and, indeed, at other times during question time and also at other public forums.

Mr TARZIA: Referring to the Auditor-General's Report, Part A, section 3.3.6, titled 'Authority and proper process', paragraph 5 outlines the framework of the Public Sector Act 2009. Dot point 4 advises: 'avoid conflicts of interest, nepotism and patronage'. Does the minister believe any grant payments fall short of this advice?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I have definitely answered this question before and I will say again that I take my responsibilities incredibly seriously and always adhere to the appropriate code of conduct and processes, etc., as a minister should.

Mr TARZIA: Referring to the Auditor-General's Report, Part A, section 4, titled 'Access to Cabinet records', did the minister ever receive a request from the Auditor-General to access these documents?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I think that question is one that was put earlier by the Leader of the Opposition to the Premier, from memory when I was tuning in, and I believe that he has answered that question.

Mr TARZIA: Referring to the Auditor-General's Report, Part A, section 3.2, does the minister or anyone in her office have access to the SmartyGrants portal that the Office for Recreation, Sport and Racing uses to administer grants to sports clubs?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I certainly understand the history in relation to access or particular access to that particular system, which is quite a complex system. I have some understanding of what the previous arrangements were for the previous minister. I am really happy to take that question on notice and come back with an answer.

Mr TARZIA: I might ask one more question before I hand over to my colleague, the member for Heysen. Minister, referring to the Auditor-General's Report, Part A, section 3.3.4, did the minister ever correspond with the Premier's Delivery Unit?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Again, I think that the Premier and Treasurer have answered that question.

Mr TARZIA: Sorry, I am just confused because the question was to the minister, not to the Treasurer or the Premier.

The CHAIR: You asked the question. As you indicated to me a bit earlier, member for Hartley, the minister can choose to answer as she wishes. I am letting the minister choose as she wishes.

Mr TARZIA: Would the minister be willing to table any of that correspondence today?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I think I have already answered that question. In saying that the Premier and Treasurer have answered those questions, I think the Premier gave fulsome answers about his particular responsibilities in relation to the question of that nature that was put to him.

The CHAIR: Member for Hartley, do you wish to pass the baton, so to speak, or, if you are a Crows supporter, handball it to the member for Heysen?

Mr TEAGUE: I refer to the Auditor-General's Report 10, at page 20 going over to page 21, and under the heading '2022-23 Budget policy measures and parameter variations' overall but, as far as it relates to DCP, paragraph 3.4.5.

The CHAIR: This is report No. 10 at page 20 and it is 3.4.5, 'Department for Child Protection has required funding for additional resources in recent budgets'; is that correct, member for Heysen?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes.

The CHAIR: What is your question?

Mr TEAGUE: I am just getting to the question. I wanted to give you the benefit of the appropriate report to refer to. This harks back to a similar line of questioning at the budget estimates that you might recall, minister. The Auditor-General there refers to additional resources having been required through operating expenditure policy initiatives over recent years and to the 2022-23 budget providing for $129 million for additional resources. Is that likely to be exceeded, noting the Auditor-General's observation at the top of page 21 that:

…we expect it [the department] will face challenges meeting its operating expenditure targets in the 2022-23 Budget.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Thank you, shadow minister, for the question. I will just start to speak more generally about the need for the—I think $128.9 million is the actual figure that you are referring to. When you speak about the $129 million, I presume you are rounding up.

Mr Teague interjecting:

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Yes, thank you. That additional funding over five years is to fund the cost of caring for children who have entered care. What I would say in relation to your question about the distribution of that funding over that period of time is a similar answer to one I provided to you in estimates, and that is that child protection is an incredibly complex area. It is becoming increasingly complex as an increasing number of families in our community deal with deeply complex interconnected issues. I know we have canvassed those issues here previously.

Many families are dealing with intergenerational trauma with a prevalence of domestic violence; in fact, we know that at least 70 per cent of child protection cases have a domestic violence element. They are dealing with substance misuse, often with mental health challenges, sometimes with housing challenges, and so often with poverty. These are deeply interconnected, deeply complex issues. Every time I think about the growing number of children and families who are coming to the attention of government, it is deeply worrying that now one in three children will have been notified to the Department for Child Protection by the time they reach 18.

It is deeply worrying, again, the complexity of the issues. In terms of the question around the budgeted figure, what I can say is I am really glad that we made a decision to invest in this way into supports and services for children in care. Of course, what we must do alongside the provision of that funding, if we are to begin to work toward reducing the number of children in care, is cast our minds to other investments that we are making in that broad child protection and wellbeing space.

So I would refer the shadow minister to some of the other commitments that we have made because it is incredibly important and it goes to the heart of his question. If we are to make sure that we can reduce the number of children going into care and that expenditure in the long term—and it certainly will be in the long term because, as I said, it is a very difficult and complex area—we need to also do other things that actually support families and support vulnerable children. There is certainly some funding in the Department of Human Services budget in that regard.

There is also $3.2 million that we have committed, on coming to government, to provide additional supports for young people as they transition from care. This is an incredibly important investment because, in terms of beginning to look at how we might reduce the number of children in care, we have to look at that really important transition point when children or young people are exiting care.

It is an incredibly important time to provide them with support around issues like access to employment, access to education and access to training. It is a really important time to deeply support them as they traverse the task of securing secure housing for themselves. That commitment, we hope, will begin to see an impact on that number of children who enter care, which also goes to the budget figure that the shadow minister spoke about.

We know that children who do have a care experience can be particularly vulnerable when they exit care. We want to make sure we are supporting them to have the best possible chance of having success in those areas that I spoke about and also give them the best possible chance to access all those opportunities that I spoke about.

In terms of other investments that have to be considered when we consider the shadow minister's question about that particular budget figure, we are also investing $1.9 million into a community visitor for children and young people in residential care—again, ensuring that they have somebody they can raise particular issues with and be heard about. We really hope that supports them in their care journey and enables them to feel supported as they access those sorts of opportunities I just spoke about.

We are also investing in carer advocacy services to make sure that those carers who generously open their hearts, their homes and their lives to children and young people in care are supported so that we can continue to keep children in family-based care—in foster care and kinship care—and begin to grow the number of carers in that space.

Along those lines, we have also committed additional funding to Grandparents for Grandchildren. Again, that sits alongside that budget investment the shadow minister asked about, because we want children and young people to be supported in those family-based care situations. Providing additional support to Grandparents for Grandchildren means that we are strengthening that ability for grandparents to have a voice and to have their voices amplified and acted upon about the issues that are really important to them and that will help them to keep their grandchildren—and, indeed, in some cases their great-grandchildren—with them so that they can continue to have all the benefits that come with family-based care.

One other investment we are making alongside the $128.9 million investment you asked about, to make sure that we are beginning to address some of those issues that mean there is that need for children to be in care, is to provide funding to the CREATE Foundation to absolutely work to amplify the voices of children and young people who have had a care experience so that they can help to inform us about the best possible pathways forward to ensure that children and young people—particularly, vulnerable children and young people—are afforded the best possible opportunity to physically, mentally and emotionally thrive.

Again, in answer to your question, it is incredibly important that we consider the other investments I have detailed, the investment in programs with families that are administered through the Department of Human Services. It is really important that we look at that investment across the whole child protection system.

In child protection, all these investments are deeply interconnected, and rightly so, because on that continuum of the system there is complexity at every single point. It is incredibly important that we address all the issues that may assist to keep children from being in care, to make sure that children and young people are supported and have a voice when they are in care, to make sure that those generous people who provide family-based care—whether they be foster or kinship carers, including grandparent carers and great-grandparent carers—have the best possible support so that they can continue to keep those children in family-based care.

It is also so that we can learn about what is best for children and young people who are in care and give children and young people the best chance of ensuring that they are safe and supported. We are making sure that their voices are heard in this process as well. I am really happy to talk further about how all of the investments fit together.

The CHAIR: You will not today, minister, because the time allocated for this part of the Auditor-General's examination has expired. Thank you, minister, and thank you, member for Heysen.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.


At 17:37 the house adjourned until Wednesday 2 November 2022 at 10:30.

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