MINISTERIAL STAFF

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (15:26): My question is to the Treasurer. Why did ministers spend over $900,000 on ministerial staff without the appropriate expenditure authority in place, and why were ministers then granted expenditure authority for more than was actually required? A Treasury briefing to then treasurer Foley dated 7 June 2010, released to the opposition under FOI, states:

Provision of the full 0.908 million would exceed actual requirements...Some ministerial offices will overspend without the additional expenditure authority. We do not have the information to identify which offices fall into which category. Consequently it is probably best to grant the additional expenditure authority.

The former treasurer approved additional expenditure of $908,000 for ministerial staff on 22 June.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Treasurer, Minister for Workers Rehabilitation, Minister for Defence Industries, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (15:27): I'm a bit surprised that the member for Davenport would be asking questions not to do with my time in the office of Treasurer but asking questions that really would have been better asked of the previous treasurer.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Treasurer.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: This is not a briefing or note from Treasury that I was privy to. I am more than happy to have a look at it and come back with an answer, but I do know always to be a bit careful when the opposition rather selectively quotes—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: Madam Speaker, surely it is disorderly for a minister, in answering a question, to suggest that the opposition is making it up—surely?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for MacKillop, order! I think the Treasurer has finished his answer. The member for Davenport.

Mrs REDMOND: Madam Speaker, can I have a point of clarification on that, please? I don't understand why the fact that the minister has finished his answer somehow makes the objectionable behaviour any less objectionable.

The SPEAKER: Well, I don't think that it was particularly objectionable. He was saying that he would verify the answer; he perhaps couched it in the wrong terms. However, we will move on, but the Treasurer will be careful in future about how he—

Mr WILLIAMS: Madam Speaker—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: —I don't believe that that's what the minister did say, and I don't think that is what he was attempting to say. Can I ask you to verify what he did say with the Hansard after question time, and I would ask if you could bring a ruling back to the house because this has become a habit of ministers.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I am happy to do that if it means so much, unless the minister wants to withdraw the comment. What I heard, I did not find that it was particularly bad. He was saying that he was going to verify what was said. However, I will look at the Hansard afterwards, and I will come back to the house.