House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Spotless Contract SPOTLESS CONTRACT The Hon. I.F. EVANS House of Assembly Davenport SPOTLESS CONTRACT The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (14:33): My question is again to the Minister for Transport. Following the minister's previous answer, where he stated that the Spotless performance under the contract was good, can he confirm that, in an audit of cooling towers managed by Spotless undertaken this year, there were nine major noncompliance recommendations? The opposition has been advised that air conditioners managed by Spotless at nine different sites, including the South Australian Library, Port Adelaide TAFE and Regency TAFE, all received major noncompliance recommendations in the audit. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly Elder Minister for Transport and Infrastructure Minister for Housing and Urban Development The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (14:34): I congratulate the member for Davenport for working his way through The Advertiser article to the cooling towers. This is the sort of research we expect from Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. The Hon. I.F. Evans House of Assembly The Hon. I.F. Evans: You should have an answer for it. The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Yes. If you will stop being uncivil, as you people normally are, I will. The nature of the contract is a provision of, I think, a wide set of services. The contract is managed rigorously within the department. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Those matters around cooling towers, and some other matters, were the subject of an interrogation by the department as to the standard of that service. So rigorous was the management of that contract that, in fact, the responsible officer took legal advice on whether, if these matters were made out—I hasten to say that: if the matters were made out, and Spotless will have a different point of view—would they amount to a breach? They were advised, yes. They were given the options for dealing with it. The option they took was to deal with it by an exchange of letters with Spotless, and those matters have been addressed. Some are continuing to be addressed and there is some difference of opinion, I must say—and there always is in a contract—between the level of performance that has been made and what the department thinks has been made. Again, if you listen carefully, I am not saying to you that I say, from my own viewpoint, that the performance is good. What I am saying to you is that the officer responsible, who has been in the job for a very long time—and would have been there, I think, when you were in government—told me at 1.30 yesterday that the performance by Spotless on the contract is good. So, I therefore, in the spirit of a proper informed debate, invite the member for Davenport to take a briefing from that officer, where he can ask all the questions he wishes. What I will say is that I am satisfied that our departmental people managing the contract do it with great rigour, in the interest of the taxpayer, and I accept the advice of the responsible officer.