HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2023-11-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Auditor-General's Report

Auditor-General's Report

In committee.

(Continued from 1 November 2023.)

The CHAIR: I declare the examination of the report of the Auditor-General 2022-23 open. I remind members that the committee is in normal session. Any questions have to be asked by members who are on their feet, and all questions must be directly referenced to the Auditor-General's 2022-23 Report and Agency Statements for the year 2022-23, as published on the Auditor-General's website. I welcome the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and also the member for Hartley and the member for Morphett. I call for questions from the members of the opposition.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Thank you, sir. Good afternoon, minister, and to your team. I refer to page 289 in relation to SA Regional Roads—Safety Package, the $35 million figure. Is the minister please able to outline the details on how and where that $35 million received from the commonwealth government for regional roads has been and will be spent?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: My understanding is, as you see detailed in the Auditor's statement here on page 289, there is a $35 million South Australian road safety package coming from the commonwealth government. That is detailing when the money has come in; it does not detail the package of works. I can get that for you on notice.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Thank you, minister. This time I will go to page 296. Is the minister able to explain why maintenance defects have increased by $267 million to $440 million since November 2021?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Roads represent one of the large groups of South Australian government assets. The management of our rural roads includes approximately 13,000 kilometres of sealed road, about 10,000 kilometres of unsealed roads, 742 bridges and over 100,000 electrical assets such as signals, lighting, ITS devices, CCTV and variable message signs. The replacement value of the road assets is $42 billion. Our total road maintenance package is $176.9 million, which is a dramatic piece of expenditure per annum.

You might recall that the previous government went out to tender for a number of regional road packages. The advice I received is that those tenders were extremely optimistic in what the previous government thought could be achieved. I will have more to say about that in the house in the coming weeks and months in the lead-up to next year about what I thought was quite irresponsible tendering activities by the previous government.

The idea that some of these figures could have been accepted by the previous government are laughable, given what the expenditure was once we left office compared to the tenders that were received, given in a cycle of high escalation and higher cost. But over half of our road maintenance budget is spent in regional areas. There has been some failure to intervene for road pavement surfaces issues at critical time frames, which resulted in more damage. Therefore, it increases the maintenance backlog.

While maintenance costs to remediate road assets increases exponentially, the backlog in my opinion is increasing because of the contracts we were left with by the previous government. Those contracts are substandard, and I think nearly over a quarter of the increase in backlog maintenance has been because of the construction price index impacting the quantity of maintenance works that can be delivered, but we are attempting to try to deal with this as much as we possibly can.

I do point out that the backlog maintenance grew exponentially under the previous government, and the advice I have is that at no stage did that backlog maintenance decrease while members opposite were in office. We have attempted to do the best we can with limited resources to try to deal with that, as well as with the appalling contracts we inherited.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Again, on page 296—the same sort of issue. Is the minister able to please explain why the road renewal backlog has increased 670 kilometres since 2020, now totalling an estimated 2,090 kilometres as of December 2022, with the estimate to increase to 2,700 kilometres? Is it the same reason or different?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is the same reason. We have inherited road maintenance contracts that are not fit for purpose and cannot meet the demands. I will be making a lot of that detail public very soon, and it will be fascinating reading for people to see what we inherited and what we were left with. It is a very, very disappointing set of circumstances that we inherited.

Backlog maintenance is core business, as far as I am concerned. I think the backlog maintenance that occurred on top of the weather conditions we received over the last four years during La Niña were dramatic, and the contracts were not fit for purpose. I stand by my previous answer that we do not have contracts in place that are able to meet that. Outsourcing all our road maintenance contracts so that the state government performs none of that anymore, I think, has been a disaster—an absolute disaster—and you are seeing that now in the figures.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: In terms of the road maintenance backlog that we are talking about—again, we are talking about page 296 and those figures given—is the minister able to please provide a breakdown of that backlog per regional area? You may have to take it on notice.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am not sure that is part of the subject of the Auditor-General's review, but I will consider that and get back to the committee sine die.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I come to page 274 in regard to the north-south corridor land purchases at the bottom of the page. There is a reference to $368 million as a cost to purchase additional land for the north-south corridor. I have a few questions here. How many dwellings is that? How many of those dwellings or parcels are residential and how many are commercial and how many acquisitions are still to be undertaken broken down into residential and commercial?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: This audit report obviously looks backwards, so I will get back to you for the period under audit for what we have purchased and a breakdown between commercial and residential.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Why don't we talk a little bit about patronage levels on public transport, which is page 290. If you look at page 290, there is a graph and some figures given there. I notice the number of public transport patronage in 2018-19 was 62.2 million compared to 49.6 million in 2022-23. Is the minister able to break that down for a comparison for bus, train and tram?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: For 2018?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: If you do not have the figure at hand for 2018-19, do you have it for 2022-23?

The CHAIR: I just remind the member that the Auditor-General's Report refers to 2022-23. Any information should be about that.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Yes, but he refers to—

The CHAIR: Do not argue with the Chair. That is the ruling.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I do not have the 2018-19 numbers; they are not under audit. But for the parts that are under audit, bus patronage is 40,522,000, tram is 7,494,000 and train is 12,058,000, totalling 60,074,000.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Thank you, minister. When do you expect patronage numbers to return to pre-COVID levels?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is a very good question. I think once we have completed the return of our trains and trams to the public hands and they are back in the public control, we can then unleash the full power of the Public Service and the Rail Commissioner to do the very best we can to try to re-incentivise people to get on our trains and trams. I think the work that has been done to electrify the spine of the Gawler line and the Seaford line has helped. I think the improved amenity of the diesel hybrid electric trains will have a good effect.

We have stopped ordering diesel buses. The previous government was addicted to diesel—dirty diesels. I have been waiting a long time to say 'dirty diesels'. We have stopped ordering those. My view is: frequency, frequency, frequency. What we need to do is make sure that our trains give the appropriate amenity and scheduling required. We are trying to make it easier to get people onto public transport by bringing in tap-and-go facilities, which allow people to use their iPhone, watch, credit card or mobile phone to get on and off public transport easily.

We want to make scheduling as good as possible. I am very excited about the work that the previous government started under Keoride in Mount Barker. I think that on-demand service has been a huge success. I am very excited about the way that we could use that to integrate higher frequency shuttle services between train stations to get people in and out on trains to and from Adelaide. COVID has had a big impact on patronage numbers. The work-from-home phenomenon is sticky and hard to break. I also think that the government's investments in the road transport network may have had a perverse incentive of people staying in their cars.

We are at full employment. Being at full employment, it is hard to recruit bus drivers, train drivers and tram drivers, so making sure that we are offering a full suite of services is hard. It is a long process to recover. A lot of those pre-COVID numbers also involved the shutting of the Gawler line, which had another impact on top of COVID. There are some people who have not returned to our train services from the north. We certainly are encouraging them back on.

I do not have a definitive answer for the opposition about when we can get back to those pre numbers other than to say it is in our mutual interest to get as many people as possible onto public transport because the costs of grade separation and intersection upgrades are absolutely horrendous. We are building for a peak demand and there is latent capacity in our bus, train and tram networks. You can walk around in the middle of the day and see our buses moving air around and our trains and trams moving air around, so there is capacity there for us to try to decongest our network without doing more and more. It is an ongoing project.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Minister, the former minister appears to have enjoyed a higher patronage rate on public transport than you. How do you feel about that?

The CHAIR: Minister, can you just take a seat for a second.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, sir.

The CHAIR: When did the Auditor-General make that comment?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: On page 290, sir. On page 290, there is a patronage chart given from July 2018 to July 2023.

The CHAIR: Sorry, put that again to me.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I have said to the minister that it appears that the former minister appeared to have enjoyed a higher patronage rate on public transport to now.

The CHAIR: Okay, thank you. Did you mean the former member for Gibson? Is that who you were referring to?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Yes.

The CHAIR: Okay, as long as we have the same person.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I think he is wrong. If you read these charts, I think he is talking about Minister Knoll, rather than the preceding minister.

The Hon. V.A. Tarzia interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The former government now, not the former minister? My young friend can get confused sometimes with these types of charts. They are a little bit confusing. We were defeated in March 2018 and then there was a gradual drop in patronage and then a dramatic drop in patronage during COVID. That recovery has not been even, but you have seen, since the change of government, a spike in patronage, so for the entire time that we have been in office it is higher than it was for the entire time my predecessor was minister and for a short period of time while Minister Knoll was, so the real person you are comparing me against is Minister Mullighan and that is where your argument, through youth and inexperience, falls flat. Continue. Here endeth the lesson.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: We were still there in 2018. Let's go to 279, which is the AGFMA ICT systems. Is the minister able to explain why the department had not performed a risk assessment of the draft findings regarding that ICT system?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Given that we are so fond of talking about previous ministers, my young friend must know that this is talking about a procurement that was done by the previous government and must know, reading this audit report, how this reads as a report card of the previous government's outsourcing of these services and might remember the criticism the former government received from the then opposition about this outsourcing and how risky it was.

I have grave concerns about this contract and the way it was managed and the way it was outsourced. The previous government put the current government and the people of South Australia at severe risk. The Ventia contract—the AGFMA contract—quite frankly, is not performing to the standard we were promised by the previous government; in fact, its performance is very substandard. I am very concerned about warranties and registrations not being recorded and about the slow progress delays in invoicing and poor management.

In fact, this reads like every criticism and warning we made to the previous government before they privatised this contract and warned them of this. We told them, 'Don't get rid of the experienced contractors who know how to use these. Don't get rid of the people, the mums and dads and the small businesses.' They knew how to fix government infrastructure. They had been doing it for the last 20 years. They ignored us. We held round table after round table with contractors who were telling us the dangers of consolidating this contract to one provider and here it is. It is like being proven right.

Unfortunately, the current government now has a great deal of work to do to try to get this contract back on track or sever it because when it comes to procurement practices, whether it is the buses, trams or trains or whether it is this, the previous government seem to have a bit of the Errol Flynns around them.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I refer to page 284 at the top of the page, the fourth dot point. Is the minister able to explain why the detailed condition inspections of bridges appears to be overdue?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The top of the page states:

DIT's road asset risk registers had not been reviewed or updated, with some treatments not updated since 2018-19.

The response is:

it is developing an updated risk management plan and risk register for its road corridor assets. The risk management plan covers sealed roads, unsealed roads, bridges and electrical.

it has commenced an update of its asset management strategy for road and bridge assets, including an initial review of domestic and international best practice…

It is as you see outlined there in the response the Auditor-General makes, but I do point out that this is a criticism of the last five years, not the last 12 months. We are putting measures in place to make sure the government does the appropriate reviewing of these assets as needed, and we will prioritise these programs and deliver them as we see fit, and we will do that on a risk-based process.

I have great faith in my agency and the highways commission to be able to deliver this program through a very strict and timely way of managing our road maintenance budget to make sure we can do the repairs that we need to.

Obviously, there are budget processes and MYBR processes that we plug into as we need to, but this audit is a sobering reminder of the importance of having the appropriate checks and balances in place, which we are now putting in place after four years of their absence.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Thank you, minister. Let's move on to the road safety package on page 53 of the Executive Summary, Part A. Is the minister able to please explain why the road safety package for regional South Australia actuals appears to be $46 million compared to the $49 million budget in 2022-23?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised the reason the expenditure is lower than the original budget is due to revised scheduling of works to enable consultation and additional design on occurred plans to work. It was introduced to undertake road safety treatments across the road network of South Australia, and safety measures included shoulder sealing, audio tactile line marking, physical barriers to prevent run-off road crashes and median treatments to prevent head-on vehicle collisions.

We spent nearly $23 million on the Horrocks Highway, nearly $9 million on the Barrier Highway and nearly $5½ million on the Spencer Highway. The Eyre Highway had money spent on it, along with the Karoonda Highway, the Stuart Highway, the Birdseye Highway, Minlaton Road and other works, totalling $43 million, but I understand that it is about better consultation and better design work to make sure we get maximum bang for our buck, and we will do that work as quickly as possible.

The CHAIR: Member for Morphett, are we going to energy?

Mr PATTERSON: Thank you, yes.

The CHAIR: We need to change the advisers. Member for Morphett, you have the floor.

Mr PATTERSON: I refer to the financial statements for the Office of Hydrogen Power SA in the expenses at page 14, 4.1, Supplies and services. In 2023, the Office of Hydrogen Power SA spent $4.675 million on contractors. Could the minister please advise and provide a breakdown of who those contractors were and the services they provided?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: KPMG, GPA Engineering, GHD, Frontier Economics, BDO Services, legal fees and serviced legal agreements, accommodation and expenditure and, of course, accommodation at Wakefield House. Those were some of the consultants used.

Mr PATTERSON: On the same financials, in 2023 the Office of Hydrogen Power spent $1.474 million on legal fees. Can the minister please provide a detailed breakdown of who provided those legal services?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The advice I have is $1 million was for payments for external legal advice and $0.5 million to the Crown. They related to the Hydrogen Jobs Plan and Port Bonython projects. I understand there may have been some external legal opinions received about the Port Bonython projects and Office of Hydrogen Power. I will get the name of the legal firm and get that to the member on notice.

Mr PATTERSON: What was that legal advice in relation to?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: All legal advice is privileged.

Mr PATTERSON: On the same page, in 2023 the Office of Hydrogen Power SA spent $2.655 million on consultants. Can the minister provide a detailed breakdown of who those consultants were?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I just did.

Mr PATTERSON: If you are referring back to the original question I asked previously, that was just around the contractors. There are contractors for $4.675 million, a line item there, and then there are consultants for $2.655 million.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Okay, sorry; I read out the consultancies in the first question. The consultants were KPMG, GPA Engineering, GHD Pty Ltd, Frontier Economics and BDO Services. The contractors were Ernst & Young, OPEX Nominees, R-Cubed Consulting, Woods Street Partners, and Akera Partners.

Mr PATTERSON: Referring to those consultants, what were the services each of those companies listed provided?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: KPMG provided economic modelling, business development and commercial advisory services; GPA Engineering provided expert engineering and technical risk services to support the Hydrogen Jobs Plan; GHD provided specialised advice relating to land transfer; Frontier Economics provided energy market analysis and advice; and BDO provided probity advisory services.

Mr PATTERSON: In terms of the modelling that was undertaken, can the minister advise if that modelling indicated that the Hydrogen Jobs Plan will reduce power prices for South Australian households? If so, by how much?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: First and foremost, these are working documents. I am convinced that it will have a dramatic, positive impact on the wholesale market. I have seen nothing in the consultants' reports that would change my view on that. This plan is designed to firm renewable services and offer those wholesale price reductions, which will then feed into retail prices dropping.

What South Australians are sick and tired of is politicians getting up and saying, 'Vote for me, I'll drop power prices by $303.' Members opposite made that promise in 2018 and got nowhere near close to achieving that; in fact, throughout almost the entire time they were in office power prices were higher under them than they were under the previous Weatherill government, when they said that the power prices were unacceptably high.

There was a moment in the last election campaign when the then opposition leader, the now Premier of South Australia, said, 'South Australians are sick and tired of politicians making these promises. What we've done is we've said we want to impact the wholesale market.'

I will say this again in the little time I have left—and I do not want to take away the ability to question, because I know it is important—the wholesale market and the retail market are being impacted not because of renewables but because of the thermal energy and the gap they provide to firm those services. The gap is what we are paying for, and the gap is the expensive part, and the gap is what we are attempting to break the back of with our hydrogen renewables job plan.

If we can produce cheap hydrogen at a cost-effective price, and firm renewable energy, and bid into the market—not to recover inordinate rent back from the market—we can lower those wholesale prices. If you lower wholesale power prices you then ultimately lower retail prices because retail prices price in the risks of what wholesale power prices may or may not be over the coming 12 months. So we have to make sure that we do all we can to try to smash that wholesale market as best we can by actually having in there a government operator who is selling power contracts into the wholesale market, not to return an extraordinary rent back for the use of our services—yes, get a return on our investment—but ultimately lower power prices, and that should ultimately flow through to residential consumers.

Mr PATTERSON: Just in terms of that modelling, bearing in mind that in the financial year we are going through inflation in South Australia was 7.9 per cent, so the highest inflation in the nation, did the modelling take into account or indicate the effect of this inflation on construction costs and how it would relate to the original pricing outlined by the then opposition of $593 million?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I do not want to pick a quarrel with my good friend, the member for Morphett, but the person sitting alongside him regularly criticises me about what he calls these unforeseen blowouts in infrastructure programs, saying, 'How could there possibly be this much escalation?' while his colleague sitting right alongside of him says, 'Well, there must be a cost escalation here because inflation is higher.'

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner: Well is there or isn't there?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Here we are. If I float, I'm a witch. If I drown, I'm innocent. Which one is it? You are silent on both.

The Hon. V.A. Tarzia: Pick one.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Pick one, yes.

Mr PATTERSON: In terms of where the Hydrogen Jobs Plan was at, as of June 2023, is it still the intention of the government to have their power station up and running by December 2025?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That summer we expect that hydrogen power plant to be open.

The CHAIR: The time available to examine this part of the Auditor-General's report has expired. I call on the Minister for Tourism, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, and the member for Morialta. The member for Morialta, you have the floor.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Let's begin with page 13 of Report 8 in relation to the Adelaide Venue Management Corporation. In relation to Coopers Stadium, the report says that as of 30 June 2023, AVMC had spent $42 million of the funding on this project. At $3 million remaining, the project is due to finish in 2024-25. Can the minister confirm if the upgrade project will be within budget, and the latest update in relation to timing?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Obviously, this is quite an important upgrade for the state. It will enable us to participate in the FIFA Women's World Cup. With the money remaining, the works yet to be completed include a stadium signage upgrade, and that will be completed in November 2023, this month, and a pitch replacement that is scheduled to be completed post the 2023-24 A League season. Works will commence in May, with completion in October 2024.

You asked about additional money. The original upgrade included a roof over the east stand, additional change room facilities, and a pitch lighting upgrade F&B outlet. There will be an upgrade of toilet facilities refurbishment and improved disability access. ABM has invested a further $8.5 million of which $6.2 million has been spent on technology and event infrastructure upgrades, including two large video replacement screens, LED perimeter pitch signage and a public address system.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: In relation to the $8.5 million that the minister just referred to as being additional expenditure, can the minister clarify: is that additional on top of the $45 million budget or is that $8.5 million of the $45 million budget additional investment?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: In addition. It is in addition to the $45 million. Obviously, it was quite a long project. I hazard a guess that these improvements were considered necessary, as well as that big, major upgrade.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The $42 million has been expended and was expended prior to 30 June, as reported by the Auditor-General, and we have achieved what was necessary to have the FIFA Women's World Cup. So, there is $3 million further plus the $8.5 million the minister has just referred to. Is the minister advising the house that all of the remaining works that she listed will be completed within the $11.5 million budget?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: You are misrepresenting some of what I have said. As I said, $8.5 million was in addition, and most of that has been spent already—$6.2 million on tech and event infrastructure upgrades—and there was a carryover submitted to do the LED perimeter pitch signage and public address system. I think most of those were completed already. The only outstanding work is the $3 million that I identified, which is for a stadium signage upgrade and the pitch replacement, and a little bit more on the tech and event; I think it is $1.3 million, if my maths is correct.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Can I clarify an earlier question: do I take it that the $8.5 million that the AVMC chose to invest is captured within the $45 million that the Auditor-General has described?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: No, it is not.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The total budget for the program, then, is $53.5 million, or is the $8.5 million a completely separate figure?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: No, this is completely separate. Obviously, I remember lobbying the previous government at the time about how important it was to have the upgrade, the $45 million, which would make us eligible to participate in the FIFA Women's World Cup. The $8.5 million that I have talked about is completely separate to that.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I will go back to my initial question, then. Some $3 million remains to be spent out of the projects that I was asking about. What is that for and when will it be completed?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Just to reiterate, that remaining money is for stadium signage, and that will be completed this month. The pitch replacement will be completed post the 2023-24 A-Leage season. It is expected to be completed in October 2024.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Going to the Independent Auditor's Report of the Adelaide Venue Management Corporation on page 7, there is an increase of $162,000 for remuneration of key management personnel. Can the minister identify what that is for?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: What are you referencing?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: This is the Independent Auditor's Report, which is one of the annexures to the document we are looking at, page 7 for the AVMC audit report.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: It does not appear we have a copy of that, but I am happy for you to proceed with questions again, if you would like to repeat that.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The minister can take my word for it that the total compensation for key management personnel is listed as $1.842 million in 2022 and $2,004,000 in 2023, an increase of $162,000. I am just wondering what that comprises.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: When it talks about key management personnel, as I am advised, it is the board, the chief executive officer and the executive team. You spoke about the total compensation. It excludes salaries and other short-term employee benefits, which is what it relates to.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I am happy to have a question taken on notice if the minister prefers, but I am interested to know why the significant increase there.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Can you just repeat your question?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I have described several times that there is a significant increase in the money. I am interested in what comprises the increase.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I think what we will do is take it in full on notice, but I understand there was a movement in one of the positions. The Chief Financial Officer became the Chief Governance Officer and was paid additional money, as well as the CFO. So there were two significant staff changes that made that go up, but we will also come back to you and take it on notice to reflect if there are any other changes that need to be included.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Also on page 7 and onto page 8 it talks about members of the board. It appears that there are two extra board members. There are two board members whose terms ceased on 31 January—there are three actually, including the Deputy Chair—and they were all replaced. Then the two normal board members who ceased on that day were replaced by four new board members, who started the following day: Jodi Glass, Ian Horne, Penelope Lion and Gretchen Richards. Can the minister identify the process that was undergone to identify the four board members—skills matrices applied or advertising? What was the process for choosing those four board members?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Certainly, as a minister, I was looking at the opportunity for that board and the different parts of AVM. Obviously, it is our Convention Centre, our Entertainment Centre and Coopers Stadium as well. We were looking for a diversity of experiences. The people who did come onto the board have a diversity of experience in tourism and hospitality, the arts community and, of course, business conferences as well. We are looking for a mix of skills and experiences, and that is what we have.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Was the process managed entirely within the minister's office?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Yes.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Was there any consultation undertaken with either the executive team or the existing board of AVMC in identifying who the new board members would be?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: If I recall accurately, I had some conversations with the chair of AVM at that time and some discussions about the diversities, skills and experience within the board.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Was this an application process or direct approach from the minister to the people involved?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: To be honest, I am going to have to take that on notice. I have to recall the process. I know that my focus was entirely about the skills and experience of the board and the diversity of those skills and experiences.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: In relation to the minister having taken that on notice, she might also, if willing, answer this: if any of the three members who were not reappointed on that occasion had applied, I would be interested to know if there was any particular reason why they were not re-endorsed.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I do recall that there were current members who indicated they did not want to continue, but I think it is best I provide that information on notice.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Thank you very much. Still in the independent auditor's report, but specifically within the letter provided to the chair of the board, it talks about the role of the acting chief executive officer in assessing the entity's ability to continue as a going concern, taking into account policy and funding decisions, and also the acting chief executive officer being responsible for disclosing, as applicable, matters related to going concern, using the going concern basis of accounting unless the assessment indicates that it is not appropriate.

Clearly, the acting chief executive officer has a very important role in engaging with the Auditor-General in the preparation of this report. Noting that the acting chief executive officer would have been appointed, I think, this financial year, not last financial year, so it must have been quite late to the process, is the minister able to outline how far into the engagement with the Auditor-General the previous chief executive officer was? Is the acting chief executive officer in a position to have been able to sign off on everything in relation to this audit?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Well, of course he was. He was a senior member of the team and was very much across the brief, and that is why Mr Martin Radcliffe is the acting chief executive officer. I could not answer entirely how far one had gone and the other, but I have no concerns at all about the ability to have these audit reports signed off.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Is the minister able to advise what the plan is for a permanent CEO? Has the acting chief executive officer already been appointed permanently, or is that process still underway?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: This is a decision of the board. I understand that they are undergoing that recruitment process right now.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: In relation to the decision that was taken to ban Melbourne supporters from the site, is the minister able to advise what conversations she had, if any, with the previous chief executive officer prior to the decision being taken?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I do not think this has any relevance at all to the Auditor-General's Report.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Is that the ruling, sir?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Odenwalder): That is the ruling, yes.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: In the interests of time I will move on.

The Hon. Z.L. Bettison interjecting:

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Yes. Let's go to SATC. Thank you very much. In relation to page 413 of the larger document under 'Income', the identification is that income rose significantly to $135 million as a result of increases in appropriations and SA government grants. The main drivers were major new tourism marketing initiatives on the one hand and, secondly, money received from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet’s Major Events Fund. In relation to that money received from the Major Events Fund for new, ongoing and expanded sponsored and managed events, is the minister able to provide an exact figure of funding received from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet's Major Events Fund?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: That would be $34.1 million.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Is the minister able to provide a breakdown for new, ongoing and/or expanded sponsored and managed events—what the $34.1 million is comprised of?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: No. That is commercial-in-confidence.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Are each of the payments from the Premier's Major Events Fund singularly and individually commercial-in-confidence?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Yes. Perhaps I could talk a little bit more at length about the important work we do with these major events. Of course, coming to government, this is a key part of our election priorities, and we added $40 million over four years for major events.

The role of the South Australian Tourism Commission: we have the South Australian Tourism Commission-owned and managed events, such as the Santos Tour Down Under, Tasting Australia presented by RAA Travel and, of course, the National Pharmacies Christmas Pageant. What has been slightly different with these new events that have come on, such as LIV Golf Adelaide and the AFL Gather Round, is that they are SATC-sponsored events with a component of marketing, event delivery and city dressing that is managed by the SATC.

Now, of course, there are many other events that we fill out the calendar with, like the Adelaide International, WOMADelaide, the Adelaide Equestrian Festival, Illuminate Adelaide, Harvest Rock and Frida & Diego: Love & Revolution that are SATC-sponsored events. Then, of course, you have the NRL Ampol State of Origin, which is an SATC-sponsored event with a component of city dressing managed by the SATC. So there is a combination of ways we support and manage these events. The details of sponsorship payments are subject to contractual confidentiality restrictions and therefore cannot be disclosed.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: For how many events was the SATC provided with funding from the Major Events Fund to help run them?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Obviously, we have seen the cost of events increase quite substantially, so in order to maintain some of our events and bring on new events we saw a variety of those events supported, such as the Tour Down Under, which we brought back in its traditional format and which had some additional support. Of course, there was LIV Golf, AFL Gather Round and Harvest Rock as well.

We are always in continuous conversation about how we present new events and also keep fresh those events that are much loved by South Australians and also those ones that attract interstate guests as well. I think that is one of the key things with that additional funding that came in under the election that has enabled us to continue to have that growth.

As I say, more people are talking about South Australia in the last year than in a decade. Major events are a great catalyst for people to book and come to Adelaide. Of course, marketing is just as important, and that is something we pride ourselves on as well. This is something that we continue to work on together as a team and we have really been pleased with what we have been able to deliver.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The minister has identified LIV Golf and Gather Round and then separately the Tour Down Under in relation to funding from the Major Events Fund towards the SATC. I wonder if I can ask: is it possible to express using a number how many events the Major Events Fund has supported SATC to deliver?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I have already detailed those.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: With respect minister, you have not, unless the number is four. I think we heard specifically referenced the AFL Gather Round, LIV Golf, Harvest Rock and Town Down Under as being major events funding towards SATC. Are there any other events in addition to those four that have been sponsored or supported by grants from the Major Events Fund towards the SATC?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I stand by my previous answer: four events in 2022-23. We have had additional events announced but they were not part of that financial year.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: How many additional events?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Part of that financial year that we are talking about today.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Odenwalder): I think the answer you were looking for, member for Morialta, was four.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Thank you, Mr Acting Chair. That was my guess, but I appreciate your support. In relation to these events, is the minister able to identify whether there is a process that SATC has input into as to how that funding is apportioned? For example, does the SATC seek funding from the Major Events Fund, having gone through its own internal processes, or is the Major Events Fund a procurer of services from the SATC?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The Major Events Fund sits within the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. Ultimately, any significant event the state wishes to pursue will be funded through the Major Events Fund. SATC meets regularly with DPC to ensure information is shared. There is a strong level of coordination and collaboration between SATC and DPC. That means that we are both working together to bolster the state's events calendar to deliver outcomes for our state.

The SA Tourism Commission with its great depth of experience in this area does undertake the analysis of event opportunities, makes recommendations and manages the event contracts. Obviously, a key part of the role that we play is the strategic approach to the development of our state's event calendar. We are trying to complement that core listing of our regularly occurring managed and sponsored events by securing those additional new events to ensure a balanced calendar across the year.

The role of SATC means that it submits bids and negotiates directly with the promotors to secure new events. It focuses on events that will generate significant benefits for the state, contribute to our brand position, and generate media coverage and visitation from national and international markets.

One of our strengths as a state is being the Festival State, a key part of our DNA, but we are also looking at music, food and wine. Of course, there is the cycling, the Tour Down Under next year. The year after next we will celebrate 25 years. We are looking at those mass participation events and one-off national and international events.

What we are always looking for is a mix of drivers for people to book and come into the city. On Saturday, we will be holding the National Pharmacies Christmas Pageant, which is a free event, as is the Santos Tour Down Under, for people to come along. So it is a mixture of ticketed and free events.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: In relation specifically and only to events funded by the Major Events Fund, I have a couple of questions. Can I clarify: in relation to the AFL Gather Round, the expense borne by the SATC, was that entirely met by the grant from Major Events or was there other expenditure that SATC chose to spend itself?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I think that would be a question best directed to the Premier, who is responsible for the Major Events Fund.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: With respect, minister, I will put my question in a different way. Did the SATC expend any funds over and above those it was granted from the Major Events Fund on the AFL Gather Round?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: That is not my understanding. As I said, it was a sponsored event and we did the marketing event delivery city dressing, managed by the South Australian government, but that is how it was supported. Going forward, that is how major events will be funded. There was a significant change, but these major events do not happen very quickly. They have a long plan period, although I have to say that LIV and AFL were rather quick to turn around. It was such a successful experience as well, and we were so thrilled when the AFL signed on for the next three seasons—2024, 2025 and 2026. We worked incredibly hard to turn it around. It was an excellent event to have at Mount Barker and in Norwood as well.

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner interjecting:

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Well, I answered that already.

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner interjecting:

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Yes. It gives me the chance to talk about what was an excellent event and talk about the other roles we played.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Gardner, can you please leave the commentary to yourself.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I will seek a point of order next time.

The CHAIR: We can do that.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: In relation to these events, the management of them, on behalf of the Major Events Fund, is done by the SATC. Can the minister provide any information about how many tickets were given away for free to each of the four events—LIV, Tour Down Under (less so Tour Down Under, if it is free), AFL Gather Round and Harvest Rock—by ministers or the Premier?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: In relation to AFL Gather Round, the AFL is the owner and the promoter and therefore it is responsible for ticketing. In what was a generous gesture from the AFL, tickets were free to club members to games involving their clubs. Beyond that, we understand the tickets were sold to the general public or issued in line with commercial partnerships. The state received ticketing as part of the partnership with the AFL, and I understand the ticketing was used primarily for business purposes and key stakeholders. In regard to LIV Golf, as the SATC is not the event owner or promoter, those questions would have to be answered by LIV Golf.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: And in relation to Harvest Rock?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: It is a very similar situation. It is owned by Secret Sounds. They are the promoter of the event. Where there are tickets the state received, they will be used for key stakeholders.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: In relation to Harvest Rock, can the minister explain a ticket apparently given to someone called Alice, who is on Twitter, now known as X, at @alice_r0se, who asked the Premier for tickets to Harvest Rock and the Premier replied, 'Private message me your email address and I will get you some tickets'? Under what state government policy were those tickets provided?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Are you referring to Harvest Rock in 2022?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I am referring to the one on the weekend where Alice asked for a ticket, apparently was given one, was very excited by the process and it raised interest from a number of other people wondering how they can get tickets, as I am sure many people in South Australia are also wondering.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Thank you so much for that question.

The CHAIR: You are referring to an event that took place when?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The event may have been recently, but the funding was provided by the Major Events Fund to SATC in the financial year in question.

The CHAIR: Member for Morialta, you are getting very close. You will answer my questions, too. My question is: you are referring to an event that took place when, as far as you know?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The event took place last weekend. It was funded, I believe, during the period for which the report is in question.

The CHAIR: You can ask a question about how that money was expended during the period, not beyond the period. Anyway, the time has expired. I welcome the Minister for Education and also the member for Morialta. Are we ready to go? The floor is yours.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Thank you very much, sir. I turn to page 76 of the larger document. We will start talking about infrastructure, if we might. The Auditor-General talks about the 20-year infrastructure plan; the section is headlined 'Education had not finalised its 20-year infrastructure plan.' I remind the minister that last year the minister said that the department's 20-year infrastructure plan was presented to the senior executive group on 21 July last year and that it would be completed by the end of November this year. Can the minister advise why, a year later, that still does not seem to have taken place—or indeed, since the audit, has that taken place?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Thank you, member for Morialta. I understand that the 20-year infrastructure plan is very close. If I recall from some of the documentation I read in preparation for today, I think the previous government had one underway as well that may not have quite seen the light of day. We are very, very close to having ours complete. Some of the things that it will be considering, which I am sure will not come as a surprise to you, will be where new facilities will be required in terms of demographic growth, locations for targeted capital investment as part of a broader school improvement strategy, and where investment is needed to maintain and refresh aged school and preschool infrastructure—of which there is a lot.

I understand that the plan to date has been through Infrastructure SA—two of the gateways, I think, is what they referred to. The advice of Infrastructure SA will form a part of the 20-year plan as it is finally presented which, as I said, is not far away.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: After last year offering us a November date, which we did not make, I understand the minister's reluctance to put a firm time frame on that. Can I potentially ask: if Infrastructure SA has indeed passed it through those two gateways, is it now just up to the department to give final approval and present to cabinet? Are there any other barriers until we have concluded this body of work?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I might clarify my previous answer. It has been through the first gateway, but I understand that it has not been through the second gateway. All the school parts of it are complete. We are dealing with the three-year-old preschool part. I would assume there was probably a hold-up waiting for the findings of the royal commission. Once that is done it will be complete, so not far away.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I thank the minister for that answer, that does make sense. Can I ask about the interplay then between the draft 20-year infrastructure plan and decisions that have been made for the implementation of infrastructure over the year in question, including increased funding for some projects, entirely new expenditure on other projects? Is there an interplay between the 20-year infrastructure plan or are these extra ones in the short term being provided in isolation of that?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: There is interplay between those projects to which you refer and the 20-year infrastructure plan. What I can say is that the project, which I understand the member for Morialta is referring to, has come to me at the advice of the department, so certainly there is a relationship between the projects that I think you are referring to that have received extra money. I think the ones that spring to mind most readily to me are projects where there was a cost overrun, probably because a lot of time had elapsed in some cases between it being announced and between the project either starting or being completed and more money needed to be delivered to either give those communities the scope—

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner: The price of steel going up.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: The price of steel going up and all those sorts of things. The department has sent them out on a number of occasions—I can think of projects like Seaview Downs most recently where I think we added around $4 million and Morialta Secondary College, where things went up. I am not making any criticism of anyone because of that, and the department recommended to me that we either shrink the scope or we add extra money to deliver what the communities were promised in the first place. I think those priorities will be consistent with what we understand is going to be delivered in the 20-year infrastructure plan.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: On the same page, page 76, it talks about how in May 2023 the chief executive approved Education's Strategic Asset Management Framework, which includes an asset management policy and asset management strategy. Can the minister explain how these assets or documents, or whatever they are, interplay with the 20-year infrastructure plan, and is this framework relevant for the discussion that has been going on with Infrastructure SA?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I am advised, member for Morialta, that they are separate. The infrastructure plan is a strategic plan. The asset management framework, which is already in place, has guided some of the day-to-day decisions the department has made around some of those projects I just mentioned and others, but it will be updated to reflect what is in the 20-year infrastructure plan once that is finalised.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Does the asset management framework feed into the decisions that are made about the minor works budget, for example, that is expended every year?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Yes.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: In relation to the minor works budget, are there any inputs into the decisions that are made that are outside of this Strategic Asset Management Framework?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I understand they would need to be consistent with the asset management framework but when a request, for instance, might be made around a site needing further expenditure, the department goes and visits the site and physically inspects it to make sure that what they see there is consistent with what is in the asset management framework. I guess in some cases maybe where it is not, then you could say that not every project is consistent with what is in the asset management framework. But that is definitely the aim: essentially doing the due diligence and going and making sure that what they sighted physically is consistent with the information that is already held in the asset management framework.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: If I can summarise my understanding, if the framework of the program of potential works exists in the department before expending money, it would be checked. In addition to that, there might be a request and the department might physically check that because it is a large volume of buildings, assuming that sometimes the information in the computer system is not all accurate. Outside of those two examples, are there any other mechanisms by which schools or preschools or other sites have been added to the minor works budget or, indeed, infrastructure works in the budget?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I understand that if new information comes to light about a serious deterioration that was not expected—there might be examples, for instance, in some schools of the presence of mould and things like that—obviously we would need to take action and it is potentially not already contained in the asset management framework. But if the physical inspection upon that request being made shows that it is of an urgent nature, which as you would know comes up too frequently, then it might be prioritised. But other than that, no.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I will go to the previous page. In relation to OSHC, can the minister reflect on the reflection from the Auditor that the education department will not complete its annual formal contract performance review until eight months after the end of the preceding school year? More broadly in relation to OSHC, what is the department proposing to do? Are there reforms that the department has been working on during this financial year that would inform the Auditor's comments here?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: There are a couple of things I can say in response to your question. The first is that your characterisation of it not being done in time is correct. The contract management plan was approved on 30 June. Perhaps I can give you a bit of context around what it includes:

the requirement to monitor the outcomes of OSHC advisory committee meetings and annual reviews at sites, including data collection and communication processes;

a risk management plan and detailed risk report which addresses the strategies to manage and monitor identified risks; and

the expectations for annual individual contract management meetings, including frequency of meetings based on the number of services, the role and purpose of meetings with the industry advisory group and individual service providers.

So, done as of 30 June—not done within the specified time frame, but we will endeavour to make sure the next one is. The annual OSHC contract review for 2022 has now been completed also.

Separate to that, in terms of actions we are trying to take to have better systems management over things like this in the out-of-school-hours care sector include an investment of more than $10 million in the OSHC management team—essentially centrally, which manages all those contracts. As you would know there are many of those, so we have given a very big boost to that team to increase its capacity to have line of sight, monitor contracts and make sure that, in addition, things like the review and the CMP are actually done on time next time.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I have a question in relation to the infrastructure plan. I hope that I do not cause Mr Temperly and Mr Bernardi any backache, but if so, I apologise. You may know this off the top of your head. Last year, the minister was good enough to give us an update on progress towards schools in Mount Barker and the northern suburbs of Adelaide. At that time, there was no need identified for a third CBD high school. Is the minister in a position to provide an update, 12 months having elapsed since the last one?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: When I referred earlier to the Infrastructure SA gateways, I am told that was actually in reference to the Mount Barker and northern suburbs schools. They are still continuing through that process now, but I am told that I will have some further advice on the results there, hopefully before the end of the year.

The advice to which the member for Morialta refers from last year, about the potential need for a third CBD school, remains the same. The department has not identified, at this stage, any need for a third CBD school.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Can I clarify with the minister: when he talks about, I think it was the two gateways gone through, was that for both a school in the northern suburbs and Mount Barker?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: For both, in terms of regions, Mount Barker as a region and northern suburbs as a region—so identifying exactly what that need might be in terms of how many schools for both areas, potentially.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: So we could be talking about additional infrastructure within the region, rather than specifically a new school. Do I draw that accurately, or do we believe that it is a new school?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: There will definitely be a need for new schools in both.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: My last question on this: are there any other regions that have been identified, in that financial year, as needing to work with Infrastructure SA on the potential for a new school?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Not at this stage.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I will turn to page 80. In relation to the heading '21 per cent of employee performance development plans were overdue', the Auditor reports:

In recent years we have reported that many of Education's employee performance development plans were not reviewed as required by Commissioner…and Education policy. Our 2023 review found that 21% of Education's employee performance development plans were overdue.

Education provided us with an update on its strategies to reduce the number of overdue performance development plans.

Now that Mr Bernardi has found the page, can I ask if there is any information that the minister can provide us as to how the department is going to address this issue? Is there any interrelationship between this challenge and the Labor Party's policy to enable it to be easier for principals to remove underperforming teachers?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I will endeavour to give an answer on the performance and development policy figure specifically while I get a bit of information around the government's election commitment on managing poor performance. So, yes, you correctly identified 21 per cent of the department's PDPs were overdue as at 30 June—still, obviously, too many, but an improvement compared to the 30 June 2022 date. It was almost 12,000 that year; 6,500 still this year.

There is a range of things the department has been doing to bring that down and is doing to bring it down further. Some of those strategies include a biannual campaign, where all employees are expected to have a current PDP on 31 May and 30 November each year. During the six weeks leading up to both those dates, the department puts out a communications plan reminding people and promoting bringing the PDPs up to date. We think that that has been an effective tool so far in getting that figure down from the almost 12,000 in June last year to the almost 6,500 in June of this year. All line managers can now access real-time reporting regarding PDPs that are due, overdue or on hold, and reminders are sent to employees when their review is due to prompt them to set up their PDP discussion.

Completion rates increased by 23 per cent from November last year to May this year, so we are seeing improvement. Further, to support the effectiveness in schools and preschools, the department has developed a performance and development framework to articulate the connection between developing those individual practices and school and preschool improvement, business unit improvement and performance and development processes. I might get a little bit more advice in terms of any interplay, as you put it, between this and the policy on managing poor performance.

If I could characterise it like this: on the advice I have from the department, not just then but before today, the process in place now is within a term, start to finish, which is what we endeavoured to do, and there really is not any interplay between that and the PDPs or any reason the PDPs would be stymieing that process.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: That is good to know. I refer to page 79, 'Missing employee contracts':

Education was not able to provide signed contracts for 41% of a sample of new appointments we tested.

In relation to this:

Education responded that it would develop a procedure to support hiring managers with their roles and responsibilities for establishing employment contracts.

How is it going?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: That is a very fair question. I acknowledge that the agency has acknowledged to me, when we have discussed this in the past, that the current rate of those without a signed employee contract is not acceptable, but there is a range of things that we are doing to try to make sure that that is done.

I know the member for Morialta would already know this, but I feel I should put it on the record regardless. This does not include things like working with children checks. They obviously have to be done and complete before the employee can go on site. I understand there is a letter of offer of employment which has to be accepted by the staff member before going on site, but that does not change the fact that there is still an issue with being able to find signed contracts.

In terms of things we are doing, for all ongoing and temporary appointments in sites, the nominated person receives an appointment letter outlining the employment conditions associated with their role and is required to respond in writing via email with their name formally accepting the offer. This is an automated process through the system. For corporate roles, the department has mapped the onboarding process to provide clarity about when employment contracts are issued.

The people and culture division will document a procedure to support hiring managers with their roles and responsibilities in relation to employment contracts. We are doing what we can, but clearly there is a lot of room for improvement still.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I just indicate that, although I have many, many questions on TAFE, we do not have much time for it. I have one more on education and then we might move to TAFE, if that helps with the advisers. Going to page 73, there is a series of issues that have been raised that are relevant here. I think there is a preceding page as well, although I have lost it. In terms of procurement and acquisition plans, there is a series of questions here that suggest education is going to:

…reinforce with its procurement staff the need to seek and retain documented approval of extensions to tender open periods.

They had not been done before. There is more in relation to acquisition plans not meeting minimum requirements, and complexity assessments for procurements not followed. For many of these, Education has responded that it would reinforce with staff or remind staff to do what they are supposed to do. Is the minister able to identify if there are system improvements underway here or if there is an explanation as to why this series of challenges seems to be besetting the department?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Again, member for Morialta, we acknowledge an issue here in terms of procurement functions of the department. Perhaps I could outline the things that have been done to try to improve our performance in that area. Those key initiatives include increasing the training that is provided to procurement officers within the department, which is going to continue, and undertaking a review of our procurement framework and policies to improve clarity about the processes.

We commenced the centralisation of waste management in schools, which will see the management that was previously undertaken by the schools themselves now performed by the department. The initiative is planned for completion in term 1 of next year. The issues identified by the Auditor-General highlight the need for ongoing training and support by officers that are leading procurement processes within divisions and for officers within the procurement unit. We will continue to work through all those issues raised by the Auditor-General as part of our continuous improvement. I feel comfortable as minister that it is being taken seriously and the department is doing everything it can to try to improve that.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I refer you to page 482, in relation to TAFE. I probably have time to address the two significant issues written on there. The first is in relation to asset management. The report states that 'user access to the asset management system was not reviewed' and recommendations have been made. The second is in relation to payroll, with overpayments to staff due to delays in processing forms and so forth. There were 97 instances and the report states:

TAFE SA responded that it would implement a number of solutions to address the issue, including updating its policies and procedures.

Is the minister able to explain what he or TAFE are doing in relation to this?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: The system management issues that you have identified in terms of asset management for TAFE are actually a whole-of-government issue that has been affecting all the partnering agencies in terms of those that are part of the Across Government Facilities Management Arrangements (AGFMA)—I am not going to try to give it a different name. Participating agencies have raised this issue with the reference group and the Facilities Management Governance Group for investigation and rectification.

In terms of TAFE and its response specifically, TAFE has current policies and procedures to control access to information, ICT systems, infrastructure and applications, and compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements, including the Code of Ethics for the South Australian Public Sector and the South Australian Cyber Security Framework. TAFE SA has delegations authorising special-purpose payments and expenditure associated with services under the AGFMA contract incorporated within the TAFE SA delegation framework.

Maybe even more specifically, in terms of the finding that Panorama user access controls may not appropriately restrict user actions, TAFE is addressing the Ventia delegations of authority in Panorama as a priority. TAFE will review existing policies and procedures to include specific reference to accessing SA government ICT systems.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The minister may like to answer, or not, but on page 67 of the document, going back to school education, we have a reference to 25,500 FTEs. I note that the Australian Education Union has just voted to go on strike next week. Does the minister care to provide his thoughts?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: On the vote to strike, in particular?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Yes.

The CHAIR: The minister is not required to reply.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I am not, but if you would indulge me, sir.

The CHAIR: It is up to you. I am just saying that you are not required to.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I am happy to. I daresay I am going to need to provide this statement out of this place anyway. It is disappointing. I have asked for some work to be done by the department on the number of students who will be having exams on Thursday and what those exams are and how many students will potentially be affected. Of course, one of the complexities, as the former minister would well remember, is that we will not know specifically how many staff are actually going to take action, basically until the day. So it is hard for us to map what the effect will be.

I have said from day one of this industrial bargaining process that I do not think this is necessary. We have been on a good track, and ultimately it is the decision of the union and its members whether or not they take strike action. My advice to them, before and now, is that if the desired outcome is to make the government in some way more willing to come to an agreement, that is not going to work because we have remained at the table and have remained as keen as you can be to get agreement as quickly as possible.

I guess it will fall to me and to Professor Westwell, as the chief executive, over the next few days, whether that strike does go ahead. Of course, we will do what we can to try to avoid it, if possible, to reassure families of those students who will be taking year 12 exams next Thursday.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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