HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2021-10-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Auditor General's Report

Auditor-General's Report

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (15:21): I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended as to enable the report of the Auditor-General 2020-21 to be referred to a committee of the whole and for ministers to be examined on matters contained in the report for a period of one hour.

Motion carried.

In committee.

The CHAIR: I note the absolute majority.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I refer to Part C, pages 448 and 449, under the heading 'Audit findings'. Page 448 of the report states:

The SAHT has engaged five multi‐trade contractors (MTCs) to maintain its properties at a cost of about $115 million a year.

The report goes on to say:

We noted that the SAHT is automatically approving MTC contract variation requests for maintenance orders in excess of $1000, contrary to the Treasurer's approved variation to TI 8.

That is, Treasurer's Instruction 8. The report goes on to say:

The Treasurer has approved a variation to TI 8 that enables MTCs to perform additional work on existing orders up to a value of $1000 per maintenance order without obtaining the SAHT's pre‐approval, provided certain conditions are met. Under the TI 8 variation, the SAHT must continue to pre‐approve any order variations above $1000.

The report goes on to say:

We noted, however, that the automatic approval limit set in Connect was $5000 and not $1000. This has resulted in the automatic approval of order variations in excess of the Treasurer's approved variation limit.

It continues on page 449 by saying:

The SAHT responded that to comply with the TI 8 variation it would have to review and pre‐approve an additional 79,000 to 89,000 transactions annually.

In the short term, and as an interim control, the SAHT has advised us that it will introduce testing of a sample of variations between $1000 and $5000…These proposed changes do not result in compliance with the Treasurer's approved variation to TI 8.

My questions to the minister are, firstly, is compliance with Treasurer's Instruction 8 and other Treasurer's Instructions voluntary or mandatory?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The advice I have received is that, yes, it is indeed mandatory. The reason for the change in the limit is a computer setting. The agency is in discussions with Treasury and Finance, and Treasury and Finance are aware of the complications for the organisation, because clearly, with the large number of transactions that occur through maintenance, having a lower setting certainly slows down work and will have an impact on individual orders.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In relation to the same issue, is the minister aware of what authority Treasurer's Instructions are issued under? Is there a legislative mandate and are there consequences for not complying with Treasurer's Instructions? Are there any sanctions for noncompliance?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I think that goes outside the actual findings that are in the Auditor-General's Report. He is asking me a policy question, which he is more than welcome to ask me in question time.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The Auditor-General's Report said:

These proposed changes do not result in compliance with the Treasurer's approved variation to TI 8.

The minister is obviously not aware, but they are issued under section 41 of the Public Finance and Audit Act, and each breach is a criminal offence with a penalty of up to $1,000. My question is: given these proposed changes do not result in compliance, who is it who is responsible for compliance if a law is broken in relation to this? Is it the minister, the chief executive or the individual officer?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I refer the honourable member to my previous answer.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Just to clarify, the minister has outlined that there is difficulty meeting the changes and they informed the Auditor-General that they would do it differently; that is, go up to $5,000. The Auditor-General says these proposed changes do not result in compliance with the Treasurer's Instruction that has force under the Public Finance and Audit Act and there is up to a $1,000 criminal offence for each breach.

My very simple question is: is the minister honestly saying, after this was issued—this is not a new thing that the minister has just heard of today; this was in the Auditor-General's Report—that neither she nor anyone giving her advice has any idea who is responsible for what can be criminal offences, up to $1,000 a time, when, as the report says, there could be somewhere between 79,000 and 89,000 individual breaches?

The CHAIR: Before the minister responds, could you just give me the proper referral for the bit you are referring to?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I said earlier as I started the question, I am referring to Part C, pages 448 and 449, under the heading 'Audit findings'.

The CHAIR: Thank you.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: What was the question?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I just asked a question.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, what was it?

The CHAIR: The leader has the opportunity to repeat it.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I went through and asked the minister a question. Obviously, the minister was otherwise distracted from answering a question. It is a little disappointing. These are exceptionally serious questions. As we have just outlined, on the SAHT's own admission, between 79,000 and 89,000 of these transactions the audit says do not result in compliance with the Treasurer's variation to a Treasurer's Instruction. The Treasurer's Instruction has legislative force under section 41 of the Public Finance and Audit Act, with the consequence of not complying being a criminal offence.

Minister, given that this was reported in the Auditor-General's Report, this will not be news to you or your advisers or your department. Who is responsible for these breaches? If a prosecution of 80,000 breaches of the Public Finance and Audit Act were to take place, are you as minister going to be the defendant or is it your chief executive or is it an officer from your department?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the honourable member for his clarification. I think it is a bit of an absurd proposition that someone is about to be arrested for paying maintenance bills. As I said in my original response, the agencies are aware that these particular payments do not comply and they are working towards a resolution. But the corollary is perhaps that the Labor Party thinks that we should slow down all the work, which would slow down maintenance and people's Housing Trust properties should be left with their maintenance—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter interjecting:

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Hunter is out of order.

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: For goodness sake!

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Hunter is out of order. The minister has the call and will be heard in silence.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I always know when I hit a nerve when the—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Next question.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. I.K. Hunter interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order, the Hon. Mr Hunter!

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink interjecting:

The CHAIR: The minister is out of order too.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Sorry, Mr Chair.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My next question is: given the minister's admission that slowing down work is an excuse for breaching the law, what authority has the minister sought to be able to be in breach of the law in this way?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I do not think the budget papers refer to anyone about to be arrested or in breach of the law. I have provided an explanation of the work that is going on by agencies to address this particular matter.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Minister, are you aware of what the penalty is for failing to refer misconduct, maladministration or corruption to our public integrity agencies?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Mr Chair, I would like to perhaps point out—and this is no reflection on yourself, of course, good sir—but these particular questions are not like estimates, where members have the opportunity to start going to other matters that are external to them. They are findings—

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order, leader! Listen to the minister.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The Auditor-General has not referred to going and arresting anybody for payment of maintenance contracts.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! I think we are got getting anywhere here. The reality is that these are questions relating to a page in Part C of the report. They have been canvassed at some length, and I will give the leader a little bit more, but I think it will be time to move on to other issues because your time is ticking down. You can probably pursue that once more and then we will move on to something else.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Minister, are you concerned that Treasurer's Instructions are not being complied with, and have you or any members of your executive team previously been found to have committed misconduct or maladministration by an integrity body?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: That is just an offensive question. I have responded to this line of questioning and if the honourable member wants to introduce matters that are not direct findings within the audit report, then he can address those in question time.

The CHAIR: We will move on to the next issue, I think.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In relation to maintenance expenditure generally, I think the Auditor-General refers to an expenditure total of around $115 million per annum.

The CHAIR: Once again, where is that in the report?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Part C, page 448 and 449.

The CHAIR: Thank you.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: How much of the amount that was spent was above $1,000?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I do not have that detail about how many of those transactions were above or below a thousand dollars.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: That's just not true.

The CHAIR: Order! Listen to the answer.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: It says 79,000 to 89,000—you are just not telling the truth now. It is in the Auditor-General's Report.

The CHAIR: Well, if you knew the answer, why did you ask the question?

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The CHAIR: Listen to the minister's answer.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I do not have the exact number.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: You have no idea.

The CHAIR: Order! The Leader of the Opposition, this is not the normal question time. You do get a fair bit of latitude, but let's listen to the minister's answer and then you can have another question, if you wish.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I have answered.

The CHAIR: Next question, the Hon. Ms Bourke.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I refer to Part C, pages 449 and 450. The heading at the bottom of page 448 refers to the 10-year housing strategy, and the top of page 449 says:

The strategy contains 33 actions, which are a mix of short, medium, long-term and ongoing actions. The SAHT is the lead on 26 of the actions, which include:

improving the sustainability of the social housing system by introducing a system-wide strategic asset management approach, including strategic asset disposal and investment.

building up to 1,000 affordable houses.

In August 2021, the SAHT Board report received a report advising that 12 of the 33 actions were complete and 21 were on track.

My question is: can the minister provide a copy of the report to the South Australian Housing Trust Board that details progress of the actions in the strategy?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the honourable member for her question. I think we can take that one on notice and provide some responses in relation to some of those details.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: If the minister is unable to provide the copy, which she has not been able to today, can the minister at least provide the action numbers that are considered complete and those that are considered on track?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, we can certainly do that.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: How many of the strategy actions specifically use the term 'older people'?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I do not have a copy of the strategy on me, but there are several. I think we have some that refer to 'ageing in place' in particular and others that may refer to older people, who clearly are one of the cohorts. We certainly have programs that are specifically directed towards older people. I recently made an announcement in relation to a brand-new set of units that we have built at South Plympton. There are several cohorts and they are particularly one of our priorities.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Can the minister confirm that there is actually one action in the strategy that specifically refers to older people about share housing?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The Labor Party do love to play book club. 'Let's pull out a report and compare notes about whether this word is or this word isn't in.' Older people are one of the cohorts that we do particularly consider as an area of responsibility. It is not just through this particular strategy, but through our homelessness strategy, so I am not quite sure what the honourable member is trying to get at, but we do try to address all needs. Obviously, we do have a number of people who are already in our social housing system who are older, particularly a number of aged pensioners who may well have been in the system for some time and who are some of our greatest tenants.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am guessing the minister will not know the answer for this one either, but how many actions in the strategy include the word 'disability'?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Indeed, I think the strategy by the Labor Party to employ word bingo ignores the fact that we do service all of our clients. There are a great number of them. A number of our clients have disabilities. We are particularly building at least 75 per cent of new housing to silver standard. Indeed, there are some 28 of the properties, which is a joint venture with Unity Housing at Henley Beach, which are to silver standard, so that address is not just for people who might wish to age in place but for people with disabilities. People can unexpectedly have disabilities, whether that is through trauma or illness or a range of things. These are things that we all hope will not happen to us but could happen to anyone.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Can the minister explain how action 3.7 achieves 'bridging the gap between social housing and private rental and home ownership' when it simply jacks up rent in public housing?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Can I just point out that the Auditor-General's hearings are not like estimates hearings, where members have the opportunity to have a very broad range of questioning. They are specifically to the findings of the Auditor, which relate to public—

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The CHAIR: The Leader of the Opposition is not helping.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: —finances. I have indulged them with their little, petty games, but I would draw their attention—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: —back to the findings of the audit report—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: —which are contained in here, rather than strategies, which are separate documents.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I have a question in relation to child protection and the KPIs that are set out in the Auditor's report, firstly, for foster carer reviews. The report states that there was a list of KPIs that set the minimum service level expected by DCP. One of those was to measure the percentage of foster carer reviews completed and submitted.

In 2019-20, there was no available mechanism for monitoring that and the Auditor was subsequently told that a new mechanism would be available in 2021. However, it now appears that that is in place but performance management with service providers had not begun when the report was completed. Can the minister confirm whether that reporting has actually commenced since that time?

The CHAIR: It would be helpful to the Chair if there was a reference.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Pages 66 and 67 of the Auditor's report.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I will need to take that on notice because the formal hearings for that session, I think, were yesterday in the House of Assembly, but I am more than happy to take that on notice and get a response for the honourable member.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can you also take on notice whether the KPI data documented under the heading of 'No documented key performance indicator data for temporary staffing services contracts' has also now commenced or been made available? On page 68, the Auditor states that 33 per cent of performance development plans remain overdue at the time of the report, as at 1 December 33 per cent of the PDPs were overdue. The Auditor states:

DCP advised us that it recently procured a system to improve and streamline the performance development process [for that process]

Can we confirm that that process has indeed been implemented and commenced as well?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am certainly happy to take those on notice and bring back a response for the honourable member.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Going back to the previous reference, Part C, pages 449 and 450. When the strategy refers to, and I quote, '20,000 affordable housing solutions', can the minister explain what the difference is between a home and a housing solution?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The definitions that we are referring to are: when we are talking about a home, we are talking about bricks and mortar; when we are referring to housing solutions or housing outcomes, it is broader than that and includes a lot of the financing issues such as whether it is HomeStart or shared equity or a range of those other solutions.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: How long does a person need to be housed before the minister counts it as a housing solution?

The CHAIR: I am going to ask the member to repeat the question because I did not hear it really.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: How long does a person need to be housed before the minister counts it as a housing solution?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I do not even understand what that question means, I am sorry.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: We will move back to Part C, pages 448 and 449, under the heading 'Audit findings'. How many of the 1,880 empty public housing properties, as revealed in the recent FOI, would be repaired and tenanted now if the agency had complied with the Treasurer's Instructions that exist to make sure that public money is spent properly?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am sorry, can the honourable member refer to the page which talks about vacancies?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I have it under pages 448 and 449 of Part C.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I cannot find a reference to it. I think the honourable member is seeking to use a bit of poetic licence, and I just draw the council's attention to the fact that this is examination of the findings in the Auditor-General's Report.

The CHAIR: I have not been able to find what the honourable member is referring to on those pages either, so perhaps we will move on. Further questions?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I might indicate that given the inability of the minister to answer some of the most basic of questions, we are happy to move on to the Minister for Health and Wellbeing.

The CHAIR: When the minister has his adviser, we will commence. First question, Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I refer to Part C, page 152, where the Auditor-General notes that the locum medical services contract had no contract management plans, no contract manager responsible and no meeting held with suppliers since February 2020. The Auditor-General at that place also notes the cost of services at $19.5 million. My first question in relation to this area is, and I will have a few: noting the cost of providing locum doctors was $19.5 million, what was the cost of the same (providing locum doctors) in the previous year, and what is the projected expenditure for the current financial year?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In terms of the issue the honourable member raises, on page 153 it indicates that the department advised that it would establish a contract management plan for the locum contracts by 31 December 2021. In relation to the information the honourable member seeks, that is in the custody of the local health networks rather than—sorry, I will correct that. It may be that the department holds that information, and we will take that on notice.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the minister for that. I appreciate that the minister will not have all the answers to questions about things the audit report touches on, and I do appreciate that he is taking that on notice and that if he can provide the information—if it is able to be brought together—he will. Can the minister confirm that the comments I read out at the start on page 152 are correct in that the Auditor-General refers to the fact that the government had zero meetings with locum medical service providers over almost the last two years?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Could the honourable member highlight where he is referencing that statement?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The statement of the Auditor-General notes that locum medical services had no contract manager and no contract plans. I think the minister himself in the answer to the last question went on to talk about how it was attempting to be remedied. It also says that there were no meetings held with suppliers since February 2020.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Sorry, with all due respect, I am still unable to find that reference.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Perhaps if the minister could take it on notice to see if there were meetings held with contract suppliers?

The CHAIR: To assist the minister, can you describe a line—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have summarised it, taking from it earlier, sir, so I appreciate—

The CHAIR: Alright, next question.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The minister referred in his answer before about what remedies were being taken to take into account the concerns that have been raised by the audit in relation to locum contract management. Can I just check—and it may have been touched upon in what the minister read out before—is there now a contract manager overseeing the locum contract? If so, what level position is that person at?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: My recollection is that the locum service providers have been procured, at least substantially, through a locum services panel—in other words, whole-of-health contracts—which then local health networks engage in. My expectation therefore is that there would be both contract management responsibilities maintained at the DHW level and there would be contract management maintained at the LHN level, particularly the regional LHN level. It may well be that staff who are responsible for the management of these contracts are responsible for other contracts as well.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I appreciate that and it may well not be the case that there is an individual appointed for the management of these contracts. I am wondering if the minister—and I appreciate he will not have this level of specificity today—could take on notice, both at the LHN level and the broader level, and not the name of an individual, it may be the name of the position that at least in part looks after those contracts?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am happy to give the council advice on how those contracts are managed between the department and the LHNs and the nature of the staffing.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I refer to Part C, page 176, where the Auditor-General flags country doctors' contracts as a matter of concern. My questions to the minister are: what is the status of the rural doctors agreement which will secure new contracts for country doctors, and does the minister agree that there is an urgency for him as minister to ensure that there is an outcome to this dispute?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: My understanding is that the fee-for-service agreement, mentioned on page 176, expired some time ago. Certainly, I have been concerned about the delay in finalising an agreement and in that context, in consultation with the Australian Medical Association and the Rural Doctors Association of South Australia, I have appointed a facilitator to try to progress a resolution.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The Auditor-General refers to the fact that he has been reporting on this since 2018. Can you advise how many contracts with country doctors have now expired and at what locations?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: My understanding is that, somewhat like an EB, the out-of-date fee-for-service agreement would continue to operate until it is replaced by a new agreement.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The Auditor-General says that many GPs and clinics were operating without updated agreements, so how many of these non-updated agreements are there and in what locations?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I do not have that information.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Will the minister take that on notice and bring that to the chamber?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: If it would not be administratively unreasonable, in the sense there are a lot of doctors, but I will certainly seek that information from LHNs and if it can be reasonably obtained we will do so.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I refer to Part C, page 244. Paramedic workers compensation claims effectively doubled since the last financial year, according to the report, increasing by $17.1 million to a total of $35.5  million. The report states that this was largely attributable to several new claims related to seriously injured workers. My questions to the minister are: how many workers compensation claims have been made in the past year in the South Australian Ambulance Service and how many were there in the previous year?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would underscore the fact that this is based on actuarial assessments. In terms of the number of claims, I will take that on notice.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Does the minister know how many of the SAAS workplace compensation claims in the past year and the previous year were in relation to fatigue, exhaustion, mental health or stress?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: No, I do not have that information.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Would you take it on notice and bring it back to the chamber?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Yes, I can certainly take that on notice.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Thank you. How many claims in total are SAAS now managing in terms of workers compensation and how does that number compare to the previous year?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: With all due respect, Mr Chair, I think we are wandering very much towards estimates and a long way away from A-G's. I have addressed the issue in terms of the actuarial assessments and I have gone to the level of indicating that I will seek further information on seriously injured workers.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I would just like to place on the record that I do not accept the assertion that it is seriously deviating. It is in reference to specific things that are mentioned in the Auditor-General's Report. However, I will move to Part C, page 158, where the Auditor-General notes that $144 million was spent on COVID stocks with no guidelines on tracking the frequency of stock counts. He notes discrepancies between records and actual stock that could not be explained and zero procurement records or written contract for $47 million worth of PPE stock sitting in a freight supplier's warehouse. What was the $47 million of PPE in a freight warehouse that was without a contract, what type of stock was it and who was the supplier?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In terms of the context of this reference, I would underscore that May 2021 was very soon after 1 February. The audit was in May 2021, but the PPE stock we are referring to is since March 2020. That was a month after the start of the pandemic, so I make the point that there were significant challenges in SA Health managing the pandemic. In that context, there were holdings of PPE from time to time at the freight company, and that was significantly related to the fact that we had significant needs to get PPE in and we had limited warehousing. As we show on, let's call it the fourth paragraph from the bottom, the one that starts 'DHW responded':

DHW responded that the arrangements were organised to minimise risk to the timely delivery of critical clinical goods and commenced in the same month as South Australia declared a public health emergency.

DHW also advised us that:

a contract variation had now been approved and a letter of variation would be issued to the supplier…

the stock was counted once a year in line with its inventory policy, and it would review and document the methodology supporting stock counts at the freight company's warehouse.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The Auditor-General's Report says—and I am specifically stating in the top paragraph on page 158—'At the time of our audit in May 2021, the freight company held approximately $47 million of DHW's PPE', etc. It is saying that at the time of the audit it held that, so I ask the question again: what type of stock was it and who was the supplier?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Since March 2020, the PPE stock has been held in the freight company. The audit in May 2021 showed that it was approximately $47 million. In other words, throughout the pandemic it has gone up and down. The nature of the PPE I am happy to take on notice. I would hazard a guess that it is masks and gowns.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: So is the minister saying that at May 2021 there was not $47 million worth of PPE in the warehouse, contrary to the Auditor-General's statement?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The advice I have received is that the level of PPE stock would have gone up and down in that period. At times it might have been more than $47 million, at times it might have been less than $47 million, but at that time of the audit, May 2021, it was approximately $47 million.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: For what period of time was there no contract for the stock, and is there now a contract in place?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The financial authority to vary the contract was not obtained until July 2021.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Have all of the supplies worth $47 million that were in the warehouse in May 2021 now been used?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I do not have the answer to that.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Are there any other large stockpiles of stock for which there is no contract?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Not that I am aware of.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Have guidelines on tracking COVID supplies now been implemented?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I refer the honourable member to page 158, where it indicates in relation to this matter that the department said it would develop a contract management plan.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My question is: has that been developed as yet?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: We will take that question on notice.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: If it has been put in place, can that be provided to the chamber?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I will certainly see if that is possible.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: The Auditor has reported that as at 30 June 2021 approximately—

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Sorry, can I have the page reference?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: It is 32. I am reading directly from the page. It says, 'At 30 June 2021 approximately 1.5 million COVID-19 tests had been conducted in South Australia by SA Health and external laboratories.' Does the minister know what the overall cost of that testing regime has been?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: This is page 30 of Part A.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Page 32.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Yes, testing, down the bottom. 'At 30 June 2021 approximately 1.5 million COVID-19 tests had been conducted in South Australia by SA Health and external laboratories.' You would like to know the cost of them?

The Hon. C. Bonaros: The cost of that testing regime.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In terms of SA Health, I think we do have that information. I will just see if it might not be in here. We are just quickly seeing if we can identify that in relation to SA Pathology costs, but I would make the point that my understanding is that the private pathology providers are accessing commonwealth funding through the MBS program, so those costs would not be covered by us.

For the sake of curiosity, my understanding is SA Pathology alone is approaching two million tests now so, if you like, the battle goes on. If we can readily identify the costs of the tests that SA Health have delivered through SA Pathology, we will certainly pass those on, but the question as it relates to private pathology providers would be a matter for the commonwealth, not the state.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: On page 253 of the Auditor-General's Report, there is a section that relates to the use of Sunrise EMR. There were issues raised around the review processes for that and some responses from SALHN that it would review Sunrise EMR user access in September 2021, following activation, and then annually, and then develop a work instruction to support that user access review process and so on. Can the minister confirm whether that process has actually commenced?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: As the honourable member indicated, SALHN did respond to say that they would review Sunrise EMR user access. They are going to develop a work instruction, and as part of user access control Sunrise accounts are being disabled if they have not been used for six months. I will certainly seek an update from the network and provide that to the honourable member.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I refer to Part C, page 261, the report says:

Staff from both WBSA and DHW's Procurement and Supply Chain Management team (PSCM) were responsible for elements of the procurement of My Home Hospital services.

The Auditor-General cites numerous issues with the government's My Home services procurement on page 151, including changes to the evaluation team's membership and voting rights with no explanation, failure to properly approve conflict of interest management plans and deviations from the acquisition plan with no assessment or documentation. What conflicts of interest have been recorded as part of this procurement?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would make the point to the honourable member that on page 148 the Auditor-General lists a series of procurements, six in particular: the My Home Hospital procurement; the GE Health Care; the Urgent Mental Health Care Centre; the SDAATS program, which is drug and alcohol; pathology collection consumables; and mammography equipment.

The department then goes through a number of themes, a number of issues across those contracts, and the department indicates its response. In terms of the specific question that the honourable member asked in relation to any conflicts of interest in relation to My Home Hospital, I am happy to take that question on notice.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: What specific conflict of interest management plans failed to receive the appropriate approval, and are they now appropriately authorised?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I do not have that information available; I will certainly take it on notice.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Is the minister saying that he does not know whether it is still undertaking procurements without appropriate conflicts of interest plans in place, even though I think this was raised by the ICAC back in 2019?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: With all due respect, the issues that were raised by the ICAC commissioner are not about conflict of interest management plans in relation to these procurements.

The Hon. C.M. Scriven interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The Hon. Ms Bonaros has the call.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I have a couple of questions in relation to the Women's and Children's Hospital. I refer to page 268 of the report, where under the heading 'Limited workforce planning for medical officers' the Auditor highlights that the Women's and Children's Hospital has not to date implemented a specific workforce strategy, and without such the Auditor goes on to say that the ability of the hospital to effectively manage this employment group may be impaired, impacting its overall ability to meet strategic and operational objectives. What measures have been put in place to ensure that that plan is now being implemented?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: On page 268, two paragraphs after where the honourable member's quote started, it indicates that WCHN responded that SA Health is committed to developing a whole-of-health workforce strategy. My understanding is that WCHN is seeking to dovetail their local framework into that whole-of-health workforce strategy.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Has that work commenced?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The development of a whole-of-health workforce strategy has commenced, but it has not been completed.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: When is it expected to be completed?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am happy to take that on notice.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: In relation to consultancy engagements involving the Women's and Children's Hospital, there was one case identified—and this is at the bottom of page 268—where an example of a consultancy engagement for $240,000 was approved by the chief executive officer, rather than the chief executive of DHW. The Women's and Children's Hospital Network responds that this is an isolated incident. Does the minister have any details about the consultancy engagement that cost $240,000 that is referred to there?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: No, I do not, and if I could anticipate the honourable member's next question, I am happy to take that on notice.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am mindful of time, so I might quickly go to one question on correctional services for the minister.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am not the Minister for Correctional Services.

The CHAIR: No, but your colleague took one previously on a referral.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I just have to find it now, sorry.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am referring to Part C, page 151, on the same topic as previously. Why was the membership of the evaluation team altered and why were some evaluation team members' rights altered? Can you say who left and who was added?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am happy to take that question on notice.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: In what way was the acquisition planned for this procurement deviated from?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Could I remind honourable members that the Auditor-General did this audit and has not qualified the accounts for the department. The Auditor-General has audited the accounts of the department and has not qualified them. What I take from that is that certainly the Auditor-General has raised issues that he believes need to be addressed. The department has provided their response to the issues raised and their proposed actions and, as I said, the Auditor has not qualified the accounts. In relation to the specific issue the honourable member raised, I will take that on notice.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: In relation to correctional services on page 76, 'Employee benefit expenses', there is a decrease by $9.5 million, due mainly to salaries and wages costs of $5.3 million and TVSPs. Can the minister advise how many of those were directly related to staff from the Adelaide Remand Centre prior to the outsourcing?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: On behalf of my honourable colleague, could I clarify that you mean prior to the outsourcing and not including—

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Including the outsourcing, sorry.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am certainly happy to take that on notice for my colleague in the other place.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I want to place on the record our appreciation to the ministers for their cooperation and expansive answers today.

The CHAIR: Even that of the Treasurer, who was not required. I conclude the examination of the Auditor-General's Report.

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