Auditor-General's Report

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Minister for State Development) (16:10): I move:

That standing orders be and remain so far suspended as to enable the report of the Auditor-General for the year ended 30 June 2011 to be referred to a committee of the whole house and for ministers to be examined on matters contained in the report in accordance with the timetable as distributed.

The SPEAKER: An absolute majority not being present, ring the bells.

An absolute majority of the whole number of members being present:

Motion carried.

In committee.

The CHAIR: The first minister under examination is the Premier and Minister for State Development for 30 minutes. I remind members that the committee is in its normal session, so any questions have to be asked by members on their feet, and all questions must be directly referenced to the Auditor-General's Report.

Mrs REDMOND: Thank you, Mr Chairman, and may I congratulate you on your successful conquest of the member for Croydon in obtaining appointment as the Chairman of Committees.

The CHAIR: I can assure you it was a very friendly affair.

Mrs REDMOND: I am sure. Just like the replacement of the Premier.

The CHAIR: That's right. You are quite right. I agree.

Mrs REDMOND: The note of sarcasm in the Chair's voice is remarkable.

The CHAIR: There was no sarcasm there. That is something you are just attributing to me. Leader of the Opposition, do you have a question you wish to ask?

Mrs REDMOND: Yes, I do. I do have a question.

The CHAIR: You are using your time up. There are 28 minutes left now.

Mrs REDMOND: I refer to the Auditor-General's Report, Volume 3, page 893, under the Statement of Financial Position and Adelaide Studios but probably more easily to page 911 and the grants to the Film Corporation. Premier and Cabinet makes grants to the Film Corporation, hence they appear with the heading of Premier and Cabinet in the top corner of that page. Could the Premier please advise how much is budgeted for future years, and what was the total amount spent by the government on the Adelaide Studios at Glenside?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am advised that the completed project cost for the Glenside arts precinct is $40.2 million.

Mrs REDMOND: Are all works now completed and all costs finalised, or is there budgeting for future years at that site?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That figure represents the total of completed works for the project, and all works will be completed this financial year (they are largely complete now). It is assumed that there is ongoing Arts SA recurrent funding, but my answer is confined to the capital works project.

Mrs REDMOND: Is the Premier able to advise the anticipated income stream from the film corporation, once all the office space is let?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will take that question on notice. It is not strictly related to this examination, but I am happy to take it on notice and bring back an answer.

Mrs REDMOND: Is the government charging for car parking at this area, given that it is adjacent to the new Glenside Hospital mental health facility?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: There is no present car parking regime in relation to the car parking facility.

Mrs REDMOND: On page 911 of Volume 3, the South Australian Film Corporation operating grant at the top of the page is an amount of almost $6 million. Is that budgeted for each year of the forward estimates? Can the Premier advise whether the film corporation will ever be viable without government support?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Without knowing precisely what the sums are going across the forward estimates, it is intended that a similar level of funding would be maintained. I think it would also be fair to say that film corporations of this sort, by their nature, involve public subsidy; it is in the nature of industry development.

Mrs REDMOND: That's why commercial ones are not interested.

The CHAIR: Was that another question or a comment?

Mrs REDMOND: Another question thank you, Mr Chairman. Further down that page, with the list of grants and subsidies, is the international university precinct project, about halfway down the page. I note that no grant was paid in 2010-11. Does that mean that Carnegie Lemon—I mean, Mellon—received no government money in 2010-11, and is any money budgeted over the forward estimates for Carnegie Lemon—Mellon?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The particular line item that the member is asking about concerns RiAus for a project that was completed in 2010, and so there is no 2011 funding amount. In relation to Carnegie Mellon, we will take that question on notice and bring back an answer.

Mrs REDMOND: Premier, while you are taking that on notice, can I ask some other questions that are relevant to that. In particular, what are the Carnegie Mellon enrolments for 2012, and how do they compare? How many students graduated or will graduate this year? Will you continue to fund it after the current contracts expire? Will you be approaching Carnegie 'Lemon' University to ensure that it reaches its student number targets? One of the main questions that I want to ask you is: why should the taxpayers of South Australia continue to subsidise Carnegie Mellon when it has not reached its promised enrolments and in September 2011 the university in Pittsburgh was the beneficiary of a single bequest of $265 million, as reported in the Pittsburgh Tribune?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will take all those questions on notice. They are not strictly Auditor-General questions concerning this report, but I am more than happy to bring back an answer.

Mrs REDMOND: On page 909 of the same volume, near the top of the page, under 'Employee benefits', is long service leave. Premier, I understand that you took to cabinet a submission to allow public servants to cash out their long service leave, but the Under Treasurer instructed departmental CEOs to discourage public servants from cashing out their long service leave. Will you be reversing the government's decision to discourage public servants from cashing out their long service leave and now freely allow them to do so; if so, what will be the annual impact on the state budget?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: In relation to long service leave, there is provision for cashing out long service leave, and there are criteria which have been promulgated, and those employees are able to make application consistent with those criteria, and grants of long service leave cash payments have been made in those circumstances.

Mrs REDMOND: Premier, are you saying that the Under Treasurer did not instruct departmental CEOs to discourage public servants from cashing out their long service leave? My understanding is that that was widely reported and never denied.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will need to check on that. I can remember there being some discussion about this some time ago, but I am advised that there was not an instruction that chief executives should deny people access to this benefit. If I recall the conversation, it was a concern that if all the long service leave was cashed out at one point it would make a fairly substantial change to our budgetary position, but I do not think that there has ever been any suggestion that that would be sought or that it would be granted.

I think that there was some concern expressed by the Under Treasurer at some point, but I do not think that was ever likely to be an issue, and certainly the criteria would mean that it is unlikely ever to be pursued in that way. In fact, I do not think it was in the interest of employees to cash out their long service leave benefits in that fashion, and so it is not regularly accessed, and the criteria, of course, confine its operation.

Mrs REDMOND: I am just a little puzzled as to why, then, you took a submission to cabinet to encourage them and allow them to cash out their long service leave—but never mind, we will move on.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I have already answered that, as you posed the question. This was part of the Public Sector Act; it was part of the bill that was passed by this parliament, so the question could equally be directed at you: why did you support the legislation? It certainly provided for it. The Under Treasurer expressed some concern about its application, but I think those concerns were not in the nature of a direction to chief executives, preventing people from actually accessing them. There were certain criteria which permitted them to access that entitlement. Some have taken advantage of it, and many have not.

Mrs REDMOND: Just two lines further down is Employment on-costs—superannuation. Former premier Mike Rann had a policy of paying some members of his staff more than 9 per cent superannuation. My question, Premier, is: are any of your staff being paid more than 9 per cent superannuation? If so, how many, and at what rate? And, are any ministers paying their staff above 9 per cent?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I don't know the answer to that question; I will certainly take it on notice and bring back an answer.

Mrs REDMOND: What was the value of the total of the redundancy packages taken by the premier and the other ministers, with the departure of the former premier?

The CHAIR: I will just remind members that this is an examination of the Auditor-General's Report ending 2011. My understanding is that those people actually left employment in the 2011-12 financial year.

Ms Chapman: How do you know?

The CHAIR: That they did not leave before?

Ms Chapman: How do you know?

The CHAIR: Because the Premier was still here.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: If the Premier thinks my interpretation is wrong, I am happy for him to correct me, but I would remind members that the questions have to relate to the report.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: My ruling is that the question needs to relate to the report and the period of the report.

Mrs REDMOND: Can I perhaps ask a question about the figures at the bottom of the page which refer to the number of employees who received remuneration in excess of $130,700 during the year. Whilst the total from 2010 has gone down by four in 2011, if you look at the very bottom bands, last year, in the band of public servants who were paid in excess of $300,699, there was one in the band of $310,000 to $320,000, two in the band of $360,000 to $370,000, and one in the band $400,000 to $410,000, whereas this year, we find there is one in the band of $300,000 to $310,000, two at $310,000 to $320,000, two at $340,000 to $350,000, one at $390,000 to $400,000, and one at $420,000 to $430,000. Can the Premier please explain what change of duties has occurred that, instead of four people earning in excess of $300,000-odd, we now have seven people, including people way up over $400,000?

The CHAIR: Can I just ask what page you—

Mrs REDMOND: That is the same page—909, volume 3.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It might assist the member to know that this sum of money is total remuneration, so it includes not only salary but also, if they are to leave through the payment of the TVSP, the TVSP plus their salary. So, a relatively modestly-paid employee in terms of salary, plus their TVSP, can take them up into some of these higher bands—plus annual leave and long-service leave. So, all their accrued entitlements, together with their TVSP, can take them into that band, and that is certainly the case for a number of those employees.

Mrs REDMOND: Can the Premier then provide a breakdown—and I know he might have to take it on notice—as to what of these people are in that category (people whose other departure entitlements have totalled that amount) and what are the people who are actually earning incomes at that level in the Public Service?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am certainly happy to do that. For instance, the person who was in one of the top bands was in fact a non-executive employee, but all the other entitlements on termination took him into that category. I will certainly bring back that breakdown for her.

Mrs REDMOND: Going to page 910—the previous page—there is a whole series of activities of the department listed on that page. The first question I have is: which of those activities does the Thinkers in Residence fall under, and will you be abolishing the Thinkers in Residence?

The CHAIR: Is it page 908?

Mrs REDMOND: Yes, sorry.

The CHAIR: That's okay. I am just making sure we are on the same page.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It fits within Activity 3 which is found on page 898, and there is no present intention to abolish the Thinkers in Residence program.

Mrs REDMOND: If I can go back to page 911 and the list of grants and subsidies, I note that grants to Aboriginal groups including the Aboriginal Community assistance, Anangu Pitjantjatjara operating grant, Wiltanendi Project, funding for the Aboriginal Sports Training Academy and the Aboriginal Community Essential Services assistance have all dropped or went to zero in 2010-11. Why have the grants to these groups been reduced?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: In the main, they are one-off grants or completed programs.

Mrs REDMOND: Can the Premier give any more definitive response, particularly in relation to the operating grant applicable to the Anangu Pitjantjatjara which went from $1.326 million to $465,000, a reduction by about two-thirds?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: There is a classification error here and the AP operating grant is very similar in each year. There is a longer answer, but it is essentially about how payments to health and the AP operating grant have been classified. I am happy to provide the longer answer to you but, essentially, it does not reflect a reduction in the amount that is paid to Anangu Pitjantjatjara.

Mrs REDMOND: I would appreciate it if we could get more detail on that at some point.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I undertake to give you the long answer to that. Just while I am on my feet, I clarify that the person in the top category of remuneration was in fact a director but not a highly paid director. The termination payments, together with the other leave payments, the accrued entitlements, took him into the highest category of remuneration.

Mrs REDMOND: Perhaps, Premier, you can give me an explanation as to why two things particularly dear to my heart have had their funding decreased in the current year; that is, the Adelaide Symphony Orchestra operating grant has gone down from $1.867 million to $1.839 million, and the South Australian Opera from $1.536 million to $1.477 million. What is the explanation for decreasing the funding to those when, clearly, the people involved have had increases because of the expenses of living in this state, thanks to this government?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: As part of the general savings strategy, we have applied savings; we have apportioned them across a range of grants. There was substantial advance notice to both of these organisations of that relatively modest reduction in their grants.

Mrs REDMOND: Can the Premier please explain the basis upon which those who are to get an increase are chosen and the basis upon which those who are to get a decrease are chosen?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It needs to be borne in mind that there is a savings task, but that does not mean that there are not new initiatives or programs that might require additional funding. There is an overall savings task that has been apportioned across agencies. The DPC is of course, not immune from that effort, and it seeks to apply its savings burden as equitably as it can, but it does not prevent there being new programs or specific decisions taken to increase funding for other programs.

Mrs REDMOND: What I am curious about, Premier, is: who makes the decision that, for instance, the State Theatre Company of South Australia operating grant should go up but that that of the orchestra and the State Opera should go down?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The decision would be taken by the Premier on advice from the chief executive of the agency, who would also be given recommendations from Arts SA.

Mrs REDMOND: I refer to the previous page, that is, page 910. Under 'Supplies and services' there is an amount for contractors and consultants. The DPC 2010-11 annual report itemises these consultancies. Can the Premier expand on each of the following and explain what the consultancy was for? Was the 8,250 paid to Ferrier Hodgson for forensic computer investigation in relation to the Sustainable Budget Commission's leaked report or related to the unnamed Labor MP charged with child pornography offences?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I would have to take that on notice, what the subject of that investigation was.

Mrs REDMOND: I have another question on the same consultancies and that is: could the Premier explain what was meant by the $15,281 paid to consultant Martin Seligman for Positive Psychology?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will also have to take that on notice.

Mrs REDMOND: Premier, could I ask you to also take these on notice: firstly, $34,205 paid to Price Waterhouse Coopers for a governance health check; then, $39,900 paid to Laura Lee for Sustainable Futures and Integrated Design Strategy for South Australia. In particular, can I ask the Premier: in relation to that last one, Laura Lee was clearly a Thinker in Residence and was then going to be appointed as the Integrated Design Commissioner. Having recommended the design commission and there having been no advertising of the job, she was going to be the appointed person.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: Indeed, as the member for Norwood points out, she was appointed, then she suddenly for some unexplained reason didn't take the job.

Ms Chapman: 'Picture an airport'.

Mrs REDMOND: 'Picture an airport'. Picture Hyde Park in London, if you will. So, $39,900 was paid to Laura Lee for something called Sustainable Futures and Integrated Design Strategy for South Australia. Given that it falls under Consultancies and Contractors, is that in addition to money paid to her to come here as our Thinker in Residence?

Similarly, an even larger amount of $62,747 was paid to John McTernan for 'Are you being serviced?' There's an appropriate title for a report for this government—'Are you being serviced: a new partnership between citizens and government'. It takes it to a whole new level, really. The same question applies: is this a payment that was in addition to anything paid to Mr McTernan as a Thinker in Residence?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will get an answer but it seems that a number of these above, just looking through the list, relate to Thinkers in Residence. I think they are the payments that are made to our Thinkers in Residence but I will bring back an answer.

Mrs REDMOND: Thank you. On the same page, at the very top of the Supplies and Services, is Accommodation. It is noted that accommodation for this year has gone up slightly from last year at $11,295,000 in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. Can the Premier please explain what accommodation it is that costs this state $11,295,000 a year?

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think it is not generally appreciated when those opposite seek to make a bit of fun about the number of staff who work at the Premier's department that there is a whole range of institutions—State Records, Arts SA, SafeWork SA—that all come within the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. There are over 1,000 employees and a range of institutions that have accommodation space, so that represents the accommodation cost for those employees and the institutions.

The CHAIR: That being the time allocated for the examination of the Premier and Minister for State Development, we now proceed to the examination of the Auditor-General's Report in relation to the Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers, for 30 minutes.

I remind members that the committee is in its normal session, so any questions have to be asked by members on their feet and that all questions must be directly referenced to the Auditor-General's Report. I also remind members that the questions have to relate to the Auditor-General's Report; it is not general question time and it is not estimates. I invite the member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Congratulations on your appointment.

The CHAIR: Thank you very much.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am referring today to Auditor-General's Report Volume 1, which is part B of the agency audit reports. In particular, I will be asking questions from page 102. Minister, the audit has noted here on the Attorney-General's Department that we do not have their report. They note that the financial report of the department had not met the expected standard and, in particular, met the expected quality standard. My question is what specific problems with its financial report has the Auditor-General raised with you or your department?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Mr Deputy Speaker, can I join in this first opportunity I have to congratulate you on your appointment.

The CHAIR: Thank you very much.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As to the question the honourable member asked, I am advised as follows: the Auditor-General has advised that, based on the quality of the financial reports submitted as at 11 August 2011, the report will now be included in the Auditor-General's supplementary report to parliament rather than in the main report. It should be noted that the non-inclusion of the department's financial report in the Auditor-General's Report to parliament does not, I am advised, reflect on the audit opinion likely to be issued, but it does reflect that the audit could not commence as originally scheduled.

Since 2009-10, Shared Services SA has had the primary responsibility for the preparation of the financial report. Any detail regarding why the financial report was not included in the Auditor-General's Report to parliament should be referred to Shared Services SA.

Ms CHAPMAN: Do I take it then that that is the explanation that was given to you, minister, from the Auditor-General as to why it used the words 'did not meet the expected quality standard'? The report does not say, 'Look, Shared Services just didn't get their act together and get it to me on time,' it actually says that there is a failure to meet the expected quality standard. So, what aspects are missing, or have you been told nothing? Has nothing been asked of your department by the Auditor-General's office?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: First of all, to the best of my recollection nothing has been said to me personally by the Auditor-General about any of these matters. Secondly, my understanding from the department, as I have indicated in the answer, is that the movement of these functions to Shared Services has meant that the primary responsibility for discharging the function remains with Shared Services. I am advised that, for reasons that are not entirely known to us, Shared Services was unable to meet the original date for the presentation of material.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is your understanding, minister, that all the information required by Shared Services to prepare the financial accounts to ultimately go on to be audited has been provided by your department. If so, when do you say that your department made provision of all that information, or even answered the last query that they might have had so that they may complete their report?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Again, I am advised that the answer to this question is that the information that is required by Shared Services, my department believes, should already be substantially in their possession. I understand that there has been no recent call for further information—or certainly since August nothing of substance. We are really in the hands of Shared Services in relation to that matter. As I said, I believe that Shared Services is now the responsibility of the Minister for Finance, and it might be that some more information could be obtained there.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you for that recommendation, minister; I will certainly be following that up. Your department, having made the provision available to Shared Services (that being by August and we are now in November), we do not have a report from the Auditor-General. He or members of his department cannot undertake their duties without it. Presumably, it is one of the explanations as to why we do not have your annual report from your department; similarly, that information would need to be made available to complete that report. That being the case, have you made any inquiry of Shared Services about what is holding them up?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I personally have made no inquiry of Shared Services in relation to these matters—at least, I cannot recall having made one. I understand that there have been discussions between my department and Shared Services, but can I say that (and I do not want to truncate this unnecessarily), to the extent that the honourable member would like me to explain the nuances of Shared Services, I am neither the minister nor equipped in any event to do that. What their priorities might be and the way in which they go about their businesses are really matters for Shared Services.

I can say that, for my part as minister, I have no wish to frustrate or interfere with or impede, or in any way cause any delay to the process, and any request for information will be dealt with as quickly as we are able to deal with it.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you, minister. I think we have got to that stage. I think I could fairly assume that, from what you have told us, your department has done everything that is reasonably expected of them and that they have undertaken that diligently and provided the information. You have not, but they have had some discussions with Shared Services. My question is: what explanation has been given to your department from Shared Services or anyone else as to why there is a delay in the finalisation of your department's accounts?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. Can I emphasise again I am not an expert on Shared Services and I am not able to speculate on what is or is not going on within Shared Services. The only thing I can offer by way of a response to the honourable member's question is that I am advised by my department that they believe—and we are already well and truly into hearsay here, aren't we, but let's keep going—that there has been some loss of corporate knowledge in relation to a full understanding of the Attorney-General's Department numbers and information.

Shared Services is working their way through that, and we expect them to be sooner or later in a position where we expect and anticipate that there will be a report which, as in past years, has been okay. We do not anticipate any problems, but the management of all of that and the particular issue as to how and why things are going on inside there is something that I am neither equipped nor able to answer.

Ms CHAPMAN: Minister, I am not asking you that. I have not asked you that for the last 12 minutes. I have asked you what information your department has been given by them. If I understand your response to the last question, your understanding is that the explanation given to your department is that Shared Services, which currently has the responsibility to prepare these accounts, does not have sufficient personnel with the capability to complete the accounts. It is something to do with not having the corporate knowledge, not having the information historically, for example, as to how they might present them or whatever. I am not asking the specifics of that.

It seems that they have come to your department and said, 'We haven't finished your accounts. We have a deficiency here but we are working on it.' That is something that is not causing you such alarm. You have obviously accepted that as the minister, but two months later frankly you are a member of the government who is having to come in here and not be available to answer questions because a report has not been prepared. That may not be your fault, and I am not blaming you for it, but it is reasonable that your department has inquired as to what has happened. If there is a deficiency in the capability of the people to prepare this report, what has your department done, if anything, to offer them some personnel to fix it up or to remedy it so that this report can be completed?

The CHAIR: I have allowed the member for Bragg quite a bit of latitude. The minister has indicated that he is not the minister for the Shared Services.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The CHAIR: Let me finish. I did not interrupt you. The question: how you have rephrased it, I accept that, but it is still the same question. He is not the minister responsible for Shared Services. I am happy for you to put that question to the minister responsible for Shared Services. I suggest we move on to another question.

Ms CHAPMAN: Minister, having received an explanation—apparently you are not allowed to answer that question, so we will just move on—

The CHAIR: I think the minister took my direction; he did not require your direction, member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: Well, he doesn't need to, no, but he has heard yours and perhaps he was speaking at the time ready to give me an answer before you intervened. Nevertheless, minister, having received this explanation about the lack of capability of Shared Services to complete your accounts, have you or your department inquired of Shared Services as to when they will have this report ready for you?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Again, I am advised by officers of my department that their expectation is that we are looking at a time frame of about a week or so.

Ms CHAPMAN: Assuming for the moment that it is forthcoming, and that the Auditor-General may need some time for his department to go over them, will you make yourself and your department advisers available when we do have the addendum report, so that we can ask questions when the report is ultimately provided on that area?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: My understanding is that within a week or so we will have not only Shared Services in a position where it has what it needs but, because of a collaboration between Shared Services and the Auditor, the expectation is that the audited report would be ready. Regarding the second part of your question, I am not familiar with the practice of the parliament in relation to these matters, but whatever it is I will observe it.

Ms CHAPMAN: I cannot remember, in the nine years I have been here—and you have been here the same time, Attorney—when we have had a situation where whole slabs of the Auditor-General's Report are missing as a result of departments not being able to present their financials, as you have indicated. Now it may all be Shared Services' fault, I do not know; but in this instance we have Health, part of your department, and Health alone is a third of the state budget. So I simply ask the question about you being available. I do not know whether there is any precedent for this, but I would like an indication from you as to whether, in the areas that your department has not been able to provide, we can have some time—not necessarily another half an hour, but some time—to cover this portfolio.

The CHAIR: Given that this will be a session I will chair, I would be happy to advise the member if there is any precedent, and what the protocol is.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am just pointing out that I am not aware of any because we haven't had this situation.

The CHAIR: Believe it or not, this parliament has actually been here longer than you have and there may be some precedent prior to your election.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I just add to that? Without in any way wishing to be unhelpful to the honourable member—because I know that her question was not asked in an attempt to capture me in a flytrap in any way—I cannot answer unilaterally on that, particularly when there are other members of the government who may or may not be affected. I know nothing about what other ministers' arrangements are in relation to this because, quite frankly, I have not been focused on them. I have some understanding of what is going on in the areas that concern me.

I imagine that if it came to the point where there was a widespread series of late reports, which is really what the honourable member is envisaging, the way the executive would approach that would be a matter on which there would be some consultation amongst the affected people. I think that is as much as I can give by way of a commitment. I think the rest of that discussion is one, I guess, that I should appropriately have with my colleagues. I do not how many of them are similarly affected and I do not know to what extent they are similarly affected.

Ms CHAPMAN: I thank the Attorney for that. I am sure he will be able to persuade his colleagues of the importance of being open and transparent. That is exactly why we have these question sessions; it is an opportunity for the parliament to identify concerns raised by the Auditor-General.

I come to the Auditor-General's correspondence with you. From time to time in the year we are talking about, the 2010-11 year, the Auditor-General may well have written to your department, and your department written back to him, about issues that have been raised during the course of the—

The CHAIR: We are referring to the Auditor-General's Report.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am talking about the 2010-11 year, that is entirely covered on page 102. Whilst we do not have the information, we have the Auditor-General's assessment of the 2010-11 year. My question is: will you make that correspondence available to the committee? I am happy for you to take that on notice—as the correspondence between your department and the Auditor-General and response.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think I will avail myself, Mr Chair, of the kind invitation to take it on notice.

The CHAIR: I think that would be wise. Member for Bragg, do you wish to ask another question?

Ms CHAPMAN: Of course, I can FOI it, Mr Chairman, so I did not appreciate that smart remark, thank you very much. I am asking the Attorney, in the spirit of cooperation here, that it be provided. I accept his indication that he will take that on notice and thank him for that.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: That was not a 'no'.

Ms CHAPMAN: I understand.

The CHAIR: Nor a yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Absolutely, but it was a little more accommodating than the chairman's quip.

The CHAIR: I have been corrected already.

Ms CHAPMAN: I would like to go to the Court's Authority, of which there has been a portfolio of financial accounting available to consider. On page 191 of the same volume, under Fines, Levies and Fees, the total amount of un-locatable receivables has decreased by $28 million in the two years from 2009-11. How much of this was written off?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think it would be unhelpful to the committee and to the member for Bragg for me to respond in a way that constituted something little better than an educated guess, and I think it is better for me to take that on notice.

The CHAIR: You do not know, in other words?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I certainly do not know off the top of my head, and I can indicate my departmental officers are in a position to make what you might call a stab at it, but I would prefer not to do that, because that might mislead people or be unhelpful.

Ms CHAPMAN: I would be very happy for that to be taken on notice and, in doing so, minister, would you also identify what has been written off in the following classes of debt write-off: (a) people un-locatable; (b) court varied enforcement orders; (c) died; (d) gaoled interstate or (e) imprisoned in South Australia?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Again, Mr Chairman, yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Page 207, volume 1, consultancies: were any of the consultancies paid for during 2010-11 for projects to look at upgrading the courts, including making courtrooms disability friendly, and will you provide on notice the names of the consultants who were paid for reports?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The answer to the question in detail I will take on notice, because, again, I think that will be more helpful. I can talk in general terms, however, and say that the vast majority of the funds expended were in relation to the consideration of deficiencies in the Supreme Court.

Ms Chapman: Deficiencies?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Deficiencies, yes, and what might need to be done, in particular, for the Supreme Court. I think I had best leave further information for a more considered answer.

Ms CHAPMAN: On page 105, on the Public Trustee, is a statement that the annual statement reviews were not performed for approximately 70 per cent of personal estate clients. Firstly, my question is: what is the target?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Sorry, what page was that?

Ms CHAPMAN: Page 105.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the target is 100 per cent review, and as a result of additional resources, which were provided, I believe, in the last budget, the expectation is that 30 June next year will be the point at which that target is achieved.

Ms CHAPMAN: As at 30 June next year, I think your Public Trustee is also going to be taking responsibility for managing disability accounts, which are being transferred on a fee-paying basis from the Department for Families and Communities. Has your department budgeted to have any provision for those?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that it is intended that the cost implications associated with that additional workload will be defrayed by the fees which are charged. So, there will be a zero net change to PT.

Ms CHAPMAN: Can the Attorney give some explanation as to why 70 per cent of those personal estate clients had not been completed in that financial year and had not been provided?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the situation is that, given the resources PT had at the relevant time, this particular function—which is largely an audit or review function, really—was not regarded as as important as some of the other more pressing functions within PT, and for that reason the resources available were allocated to the more pressing aspects of the PT's work. As I have indicated in a previous answer, that is now a matter that is being addressed by the additional provision of resources to PT, and the expectation, as I said before, is that by 30 June next year the 100 per cent will be achieved.

I think it is probably relevant to say also—if I am not straying too far from the spirit of these proceedings—that it is no secret that in years gone by there has been criticism of PT by various people. I think the evidence you are seeing before you today, and the answer I have given to you now about the review, should confirm in everyone's mind the fact that the PT is very, very seriously seized of improving its performance and is extremely well led.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am certainly encouraged by that, but there is something I have heard from you previously, Mr Attorney, and from your predecessor, and in assurances given to the inquiry by this parliament. As user of this service myself in providing annual reports to the Public Trustee for a relative, in the preceding two years there has been a fee charged for that, so there should have been somebody there at the other end of the line who, with a fee, could actually attend to this service.

To find that 70 per cent of these have not been completed is very concerning; whether a low or high priority, it is a regulation which is required with good reason. To find that there has been such a woeful performance in that regard is concerning, but we will see in next year's report whether that has been remedied. I have a couple of questions on planning.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: In relation to that little bit of commentary, can I just say that I am advised that these are not private clients. These are PT's own matters.

Ms Chapman: That's even more concerning.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Indeed. Can I say, member for Bragg, I was not attempting to say that the results are something that we are content to see continue. That is not the view.

Ms CHAPMAN: Planning, page 834, volume 3: the report states that the department's fraud and corruption prevention policy has not been endorsed. Can the minister provide details to us on that policy and why it was not endorsed? Has the policy now progressed and been covered and implemented or what is the time frame expected on that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the answer, as best as I can give it, is that the policy was completed. However, unhappily, the department has been abolished, and so it now falls into the new, bigger department.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There will be, but the particular question you asked relates to the generation of a policy within a department that has now been abolished. In relation to what the policy is for the larger department, that is I guess a matter for the CE and whoever of the larger department. It was completed, I am advised, just in time for the department to be abolished.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Bragg—

Ms CHAPMAN: I think we are finished. Just so we can clarify it for the next section, can the minister explain to me which department it is going to?

The CHAIR: Member for Bragg, time has elapsed.

Ms CHAPMAN: Because I will ask Patrick. Has it gone to urban planning or has it gone somewhere else?

The CHAIR: You can answer that question.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Or don't you know?

The CHAIR: Where has that department gone to?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As I understand it, this is now a matter for the new, larger department which is headed up by Mr Hook which has, primarily, my friend the member for Elder, the minister, as the main minister, but with me administering a proportion of the department and the Minister for Transport Services, in effect, working in association with the infrastructure and transport element which is the minister for infrastructure's main area.

The CHAIR: The time having elapsed for the examination of the Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Minister for Business Services and Consumers, we now proceed to the examination of the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure and the Minister for Housing and Urban Development.

I remind members that the committee is in its normal session so that any questions have to be asked by members on their feet and all questions must be directly referenced to the Auditor-General's Report. I also remind members that this is examination of the Auditor-General's Report. This is not estimates and this is not question time.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, and I also congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker. I privately offered my congratulations, but I do it publicly now. I wish it was estimates: there is actually a lot less detail on here. It is hard to find things.

The CHAIR: Unlike the previous questioner, I suggest you spend more time on questions than the commentary and we will cover more area.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: True. I refer to Part B, Volume 2, page 630, the Land Management Corporation. It confirms that there will be a need for a supplementary report to be submitted to the parliament. It refers to the fact that the corporation's joint venture activities require further work to be undertaken, resulting in it coming through later. It talks about one of its joint venture activities, which has been the hold-up here. Can the minister confirm which of those joint venture activities is the problem?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: As I understand it, the matter is now resolved and they are just about ready to make a report; I do not know if it will be here by the end of the year. The financial report for the Land Management Corporation was submitted to the Auditor-General in August. During the course of the audit it was noted that some further work was required. The joint venture in issue is the Port Adelaide Marina joint ventures.

Very simply, because there are private sector parties—and I understand there are some private sector auditors—an issue had arisen because one of the JB parties disputed valuations used by the Valuer-General in the calculation of land tax. My understanding is that the matter is now largely resolved, that it is no greater than that and that we should see the report quite soon.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I certainly understand that it would be a far better situation to have a report that included all activities, but was any consideration given to submitting a report based upon the joint venture activities that were without dispute and a supplementary report only for the Port Adelaide one?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: That's not our decision. The Land Management Corporation, which delivered its financial report in August, believed it had addressed all the matters it needed to address. This arose, and it is up to the Auditor-General how he deals with this, and this is the manner in which he has chosen to deal with it.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The minister, as part of his first answer, has referred to the Port Adelaide situation as being the problem area and, indeed—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No; the Adelaide Marina joint ventures.

Mr GRIFFITHS: If I can refer a question about the Newport Quays project to you and seek your indulgence—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I'm a bit at large because I haven't got a report on it.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I live in the hope. Unless I ask a tricky question for the minister to confirm the other projects the Land Management Corporation is involved in and I get a question to come from that—but there is no data available for the minister to refer to in an answer, I take it?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: In truth. I am as fair as I can be, but we do not have an Auditor-General's report into the Land Management Corporation. When there is a supplementary report, I am sure you will be able to ask questions on it, but I do not have a report and it would be very hard to ask me about something that I do not have.

Mr GRIFFITHS: As well-informed as you are, minister, no doubt you could give me an answer on it. At the time of the supplementary report being considered by the parliament, what level of time will be available to scrutinise it?

The CHAIR: That question has already been asked. To make sure that there are consistent questions and answers provided, you will be given some advice on that. That question was asked by the previous questioner.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I refer to Part B, Volume 5, pages 1474 and 1475, the Adelaide Oval redevelopment. The Auditor-General's Report points out that some $9 million has been expended from the funds provided to DTEI to progress the Adelaide Oval redevelopment. Are you able to confirm how much of this money was spent on the tender process to undertake the major package of works for the project?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I assume you are referring to the tender for the main construction contract that has just gone to Public Works. I do not think we have anyone here from the area. What I might do is see if I can get a phone call made and find the answer. You can go on with something else and we will try to find it. I would have to get either Rod Hook or Manuel Delgado to let me know about that.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I also have a question about the workforce participation, skills development requirements and the level of industry participation in South Australia. That is all part of the question I intended to pose here, but does that rely on other people to be present?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I actually do not think it is commented on in the Auditor-General's Report in any event. If you want me to bring back details on that sort of thing, I will try to do that, but the entire tendering process was Public Works. Given that your people asked many, many questions there, I cannot imagine that there is any area they have not been provided detail on; if there is something that they have not, we will try to find it for you, but it will be a fairly common tendering process for government.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I will accept that. Indeed, my understanding is that Public Works is meeting tomorrow morning to have some further questioning about the Adelaide Oval redevelopment.

I refer then, minister, to page 1474 and the Building the Education Revolution, for which your department was responsible. There is some commentary attached by the Auditor-General about the time lines on it, but I just have some general questions. Are all the projects complete, and are you able to detail to us the number of BER projects that have been undertaken in South Australia?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I think the school builds are more than 90 per cent complete. Again, I will have to get the appropriate people on it. My understanding is that most of the school programs are complete. There are some other housing programs that I think are largely completed. I would have to get the appropriate people to get the details for you, but what I can say is that the program in South Australia—as in many other places, but in particular in South Australia—was an outstanding success. It was a program that the master builders organisation said saved the industry in South Australia.

I can assure you that the vast bulk is complete because we are now getting something like 18 tenderers per job when we used to get three, which in itself is a bit of a concern. There is a bit of a gap there between what is happening now and what will be kicked off by Olympic Dam, but it would be nice to have another one of these programs. I will get you the details, but I can absolutely assure you and the house that the outcome was a very, very good one for the people involved and for the state.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, the shadow minister for education and I had a briefing quite early on in the process. Mr Hook and Mr Bob—I have forgotten his surname—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Boorman.

Mr GRIFFITHS: —Boorman, yes. He was involved in coordinating it, and he was also quite helpful to us in providing details. I suppose the reason I pose the question is that, in the last paragraph of the Building the Education Revolution section, on page 1474 it refers to certain matters that were raised within the department for consideration and comment. Do you have any information available to you as to what those areas were about during the audit process?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: From memory, the Auditor raised some questions about the fact that we had put out standard designs, but some of those had been changed in response to the local schools wanting something different. We sorted that out. We thought it was actually a good part of the program that we were able to have some flexibility to meet local requirements; once explained to the Auditor, my understanding was that he was perfectly content with that. Let me see if I can make it more succinct for you.

There were some matters raised around compliance with certain requirements, such as the Construction Industry Training Board and employment of apprentices. My understanding is that the compliance was, in fact, proper with those. There was some slowness, perhaps, in contractors providing a response to us. Ultimately, payments were withheld until we got that appropriate documentation. But it is my understanding that all compliance issues were thoroughly addressed and completed. I see Rod Hook has come in now.

I would say that the sheer speed of the rollout was one that was challenging to ordinary processes because there were something like 670 public school builds in that period of time of between $1 million and $3 million, or something like that. Sometimes the jobs ran a little ahead of the ordinary processes of government and we did not think that was necessarily a bad thing.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Having been invited to the opening of facilities in my electorate, I know the community saw it as a once-in-a-generation opportunity, too. Given that Mr Hook is in the room now, is it appropriate to go back to some of these?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I am not too sure that it is actually from the Auditor-General's Report. You wanted to know the expenditure on Adelaide Oval?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Just on the tender process for the major component of the build.

The CHAIR: Was the tender process completed by 30 June this year?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No. There will be no reporting on matters that are not completed this year. You asked about tendering for local content and suchlike.

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: That is a matter that is before a parliamentary committee for a thorough examination as we speak. Your colleagues met last week, I think last night and are meeting again tomorrow morning. What I would suggest, perhaps, is that you get either Martin or Michael to ask any of the questions that you have there, because it is more appropriate. The Auditor-General's Report looks back on completed matters in the previous financial year, not what is going on at the moment.

Mr GRIFFITHS: And in as much as that is a bit of a shame, minister, I understand that. We might change our questioning, therefore.

The CHAIR: I have been very patient this afternoon.

Mr GRIFFITHS: You have.

The CHAIR: Tomorrow I will not be.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I turn to the State Aquatic Centre, page 1474. The Auditor-General's Report does detail a time line of that process and it talks about practical completion for the State Aquatic Centre and partial practical completion for the GP Plus centre. It is the last paragraph that I find interesting:

At the time of the preparation of this report, Audit was reviewing aspects of the project, including procurement processes, approval and financing processes, final project costs/obligations, and management and operating arrangements.

It is difficult to pose the question to you—and I should pose this question to the Auditor-General; but if, indeed, the Auditor comments on those but does not identify any problems, is the minister in a position to outline to me what those issues were that the Auditor is reviewing?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I cannot because they are not completed. The project itself still has some things to be completed before the Auditor-General will consequently report on it, for this financial year, next year. In particular—I do not think it is a secret—there is a claim and a dispute between the builder and the government as to the builder's entitlements to extra payments. I think that is following an arbitration process under the contract at present and will be resolved at some time. The matters that were referred to, as I understand it, are matters that the Auditor-General has not advised us on yet because, I suspect, they will be the subject of next year's report.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am just going to seek clarification; so, not necessarily a supplementary report but next year's report?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No; there will be no supplementary report on this or the oval, for that matter. As I understand it, there were matters that had been completed in the financial year which were the subject of audit, and matters that have not been completed will be the subject of further audit. It does not raise anything untoward in it, it merely shows that those matters are not completed for audit.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I suppose that I took the words 'practical completion' to therefore mean 'hand over the facility, public use of a facility', therefore, as that occurred before 30 June 2011, it should have been available as part of this report.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: As I point out, the Auditor-General is very concerned about money. There are outstanding claims. For those that remain unresolved there is a process under the contract for the arbitration of them, and it is our duty to defend the taxpayers' position in that dispute.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I refer to a different area now, minister, pages 1460 and 1461 of Volume 5. Minister, are you able to confirm whether the problems that were identified with the department's asset capitalisation processes were included in the Auditor-General's recommendation for improvement of the review of project expenditure recorded in the department's 'job cost system' to identify costs which could be allocated to other accounts, that is, capitalised or expended?

Did those problems impact on your capacity as a minister and, certainly, the department's capacity to make decisions about project and funding?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No. You have to understand that there was a record year in relation to capital work in progress: spending $858 million and capitalising $1.2 billion across all asset classes. In terms of the issue of projects referred to as 'completed in prior years', these were very small in value—in fact, $22 million out of $1.3 billion, which had no practical effect.

One of the other comments made related to projects not capitalised on a timely basis as required by departmental policy. One specific policy has a very tight time frame for project completion. It is four weeks from practical completion. I think the response is actually to review the policy because the time line is too tight, and my understanding is that the Auditor-General will not have difficulties with that. In terms of what is a record capital spend for the department, the problems or the issues raised were very minor.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Just to confirm for my purposes, then, minister, only $22 million out of the total capital spend was involved in the concerned areas that the Auditor has identified?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: That is one area. One area that was raised was that a number of projects were capitalised during the year which were completed in prior years. What I am saying is that that was $22 million out of $1.3 billion. There was an issue, I think, about monitoring the timeliness of the completion of project completion forms by project managers. None of these were in the least bit serious matters, and, as I said, one specific policy will probably be changed to make it easier to make the time lines because they are unnecessarily tight. It has had no material effect upon the department's rollout of capital or the interests of the taxpayer.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I can appreciate the fact that it is an accounting issue, but then accounting issues do impact on good decisions sometimes, too. Minister, I think you referred in an earlier answer about the fact that currently a one-month time line was in place—that was the policy?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Four weeks.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Four weeks, and that that was unduly tight. Are you able to confirm what it is proposed to put that policy out to?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: That is being worked through at the moment with the Auditor-General to make sure the change is appropriate. As soon as it is resolved, we will let you know.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, as to the references on page 1461 by the Auditor-General, for example about the audit for 2010-11, they also highlight that spreadsheets rather than automated system reports were provided to project managers to review projects and not all capital work in progress sheets were recorded on the department's job cost system. Is it intended to completely remove these problems so that you have an automated system in place that allows accurate information to be available all the time and up-to-date costs?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No, we will not be using an automated system. We are using the current system but we will be working through new procedures to ensure that the current system addresses the issues that were raised. You will find in these big departments with very big capital spends that there is almost every year a conversation between the Auditor and the department about the processes that should be used for reconciliation for classification and suchlike. It is why we have the Auditor, so that they can go through and second-guess everything that is done and make sure we do it better the next year.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I will move to a different area. It is the report provided by the Auditor-General today about the Mount Gambier Passenger Service. I note page 1 refers to the fact that the audit examination disclosed some matters of procurement procedure and practice that were not satisfactory. I must admit that I would have thought that the processes would have been fairly mature by now and indeed that this level of problem would not have existed. Can you outline to me the problems that were found, and are they evident in any other procurement processes?

The CHAIR: Are you in a position to comment?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Not only that, probably we have another minister you should be addressing these questions to now. I think that would be appropriate. This was tabled today. I am not sure who in the department has seen it, but I would point out—and it should be placed on the record—that the Auditor-General makes it very clear that the issues were not sufficient to undermine his confidence in the process.

As I said, what you might want to do is have a look at the RIA and whether it details some of those issues, but really there is now an appropriate minister responsible for the contracting of services. I would point out, too, that while contracting for metropolitan services is more mature, the Mount Gambier services were the subject of a significant change even while I was minister when the local government pulled out of its part of the costs, so it was a relatively new process down there. In short, it is not my contract anymore; it is the Minister for Transport Services.

The CHAIR: You can ask that question on Wednesday 23 November.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I shall. I refer now to pages 1463 and 1464 about TRUMPS and everything that occurs there. I note that there is a new system that is designed to assist with the reconciliation process and it is called T-Recs—not as in dinosaurs, presumably, but someone will explain to me what it stands for. It is an automated reconciliation system. It says on the top line of page 1464 that it is a commercially available property and that the department is acquiring it, but on the first line of the second paragraph it talks about the fact that it is still in development. I suppose I am confused about something commercially available that is still being developed.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: I remind members that we are still in session here and it is very hard to hear the speakers. Minister, did you hear the question?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Yes. The T-Recs system is not, I am assured, a large dinosaur. It went live on 1 July 2011. During 2010-11 the department acquired, implemented and tested a commercially available automated reconciliation system. It is expected to reduce the need for human intervention and provide increased controls that go to the matters raised by the Auditor-General.

The system did require testing, and went live on 1 July 2011, which, of course, is the new financial year. Even before that there was a pretty thorough address of most of the issues that had been raised, in any event, by the previous processes. So I do not think we will see too much more difficulty in this area. I do not know how they do automatic reconciliation systems.

Mr GRIFFITHS: We rely on intelligent people out there who know how to do these things. Minister, are you able to confirm what was the cost of putting T-Recs in place as of 1 July?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I will have to bring that detail back; I do not know. We will come back to you.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Just to confirm though: there is every intention of still using TRUMPS; TRUMPS will still be the main process and T-Recs will just assist with the reconciliation?

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Yes; did you want me to stand up and say yes?

Mr GRIFFITHS: No; I am quite happy with that. I will jump forward to page 1476 and the reference to targeted voluntary separation payments. I note that the numbers have jumped around on that in recent years. Can you confirm—and this might be a bit of a guess, because it is looking at the forward years—how many people are targeted for TVSPs for the 2011-12 financial year?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The relevant fact you are looking for is the FTE reduction target, which is 420 between 2008-09 and 2014-15, to be achieved in that timetable. So it is an FTE equivalent reduction target of 420 in that period of time.

Mr GRIFFITHS: In the short time available I will jump to the question that the member for Bragg attempted to pose to the Attorney.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Good luck.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Well, we were told that it was your responsibility.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I don't think that is what he said, but ask the question.

Mr GRIFFITHS: It relates to page 834 of Volume 3. I took that as being the comment, Mr Chairman. Did you understand that to be the position?

The CHAIR: I did not hear the question or the comment; sorry.

Mr GRIFFITHS: On page 834 it refers to the department's fraud and corruption prevention policy and the fact that it had not been endorsed.

The CHAIR: Yes; your colleague did say that it was your department now, minister.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: What I can tell you is that the existing department, or the department I had last week, does have a fraud and corruption policy, and planning, joining the department, will adopt that policy we already have within the larger department. So there you go—whether they like it or not.

The CHAIR: Which the previous minister indicated.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I go to page 1471, about smart card technology and the SA Transport subsidy scheme. We both know that there have been some problems in the past with that. A recommendation on page 1471 talks about the investigation of the smart card technology to be implemented as part of the transport subsidy scheme. Does that have your support to roll that out? Do you see it as an opportunity to fix some flaws in the system?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is something we have under consideration but have not made a commitment to as yet. It would be expensive, so we would have to be assured that the investment was worth the problem it would cure. But that does not mean that we would sit idly by where difficulties arise with the transport subsidy scheme, and we have made some very thorough investigations into that.

The CHAIR: The time is now completed for the examination of the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure, Housing and Urban Development.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.