Auditor-General's Report

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT

The Hon. G. PORTOLESI (Hartley—Minister for Education and Child Development) (16:22): 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 2012 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 ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): 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: We are examining the report of the Auditor-General. The person being examined is the Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Minister for Business Services and Consumers for a total of 30 minutes. Member for Bragg, you are the person asking the questions. I just remind members that they need to refer to a particular page in the report and questions should relate to the Auditor-General's Report not other matters which need to be asked elsewhere. The member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: I refer to Part B: Agency Audit Reports, Volume 1, of the Auditor-General's Report to 30 June 2012. At page 104 the Auditor-General commences his report to the parliament on the operations of the Attorney-General's Department. I commence by congratulating the Attorney for getting his financial accounts in on time this year so that at least at this point we can be dealing with the Auditor-General's opportunities, unlike on the last occasion when I think for the first full year of the Attorney-General's operation that did not occur.

I was disappointed to read this year (at page 106) a number of reports in respect of the Victims of Crime Fund. My first question relates to this fund, and in particular under the heading 'Alleged fraud against the Victims of Crime Fund (VOC Fund)'. The report commences:

The Acting Chief Executive was advised of an alleged fraud against the VOC Fund on 10 August 2012.

My first question is: is that correct, and if it is not correct what date was the Acting Chief Executive advised of the alleged fraud and on what day was it reported to the police?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I thank the honourable member for her question. I have sought advice about the matter and I am advised that there was some communication between the Crown Solicitor and the Attorney-General's Department on or about the 10^th. I do recall, and it may be of assistance to the honourable member, that upon becoming aware of this matter, or having it drawn to my attention, I made it clear that it was very important that the Auditor-General was advised. If my memory serves me correctly, either I or somebody from the department then wrote to the Treasurer, drawing this matter to the Treasurer's attention, because obviously it was a very serious matter.

I am not sure how much the honourable member knows about the background to this, but it was actually something that was detected by people in the Crown Solicitor's Office. A very vigilant individual in the Crown Solicitor's Office became suspicious upon working on a particular file. That suspicion was aroused by the fact that certain elements of this file appeared somewhat familiar. The individual then advised senior management of that. Senior management immediately started to make inquiries about that matter and I was alerted to the fact that they had this concern. SAPOL was brought into the matter straightaway, and the Auditor-General virtually straightaway as well.

As the Attorney, obviously I am very concerned that this has occurred. It is obviously something you would not like to have occur, particularly in relation to a fund such as this. I do not want to comment too much on the circumstances because the matters are still obviously before the courts, but I am satisfied, on the basis of briefings I have had, that staff in the Solicitor-General's Office and the Attorney-General's office were very prompt in dealing with the matter as soon as their suspicions were aroused. I believe that I was advised pretty promptly about the matter, as were SAPOL and the Auditor-General.

In as much as one can make anything positive out of what is something one would rather not have to be dealing with, I think we can say that the department acted in a very responsible and cooperative manner. In as much as you can say something good about something that you would rather not have happen, I am very pleased that the officers in the department acted with that sort of integrity once they became aware of the matter.

Ms CHAPMAN: The minister might be aware that the first public statement on this matter was via The Advertiser on 15 August this year. That article advised that the matter had been referred to the Auditor-General for investigation. As you pointed out in your previous answer, it was promptly attended to and is consistent with the Crown Solicitor's Office also advising the police. That published article, though, confirmed that it had been referred for the purpose of looking at the processes, obviously, and yet in this year's report the Auditor-General says that he is not undertaking any examination. As you will have read, the reason is this:

The matter is currently subject to investigation by the South Australia Police (SAPOL) and the amount alleged to have been misappropriated is yet to be quantified. SAPOL has taken possession of certain documentation for forensic examination. As such the VOC Fund's operations cannot be the subject of specific audit examination in the short-term.

He says, 'I haven't got any documents; I can't do anything,' in short, which is reasonable. Has there been any action taken by you or anyone in your department to facilitate the inquiry by the Auditor-General—leaving aside entirely, of course, whether the people currently charged are guilty or not of anything, obviously; we are not going to get into that. I think you would agree, Attorney, that the public statements on this suggested that there was going to be some reassurance, I suppose, that the Auditor-General's inquiry was underway, when clearly it is not, or certainly not at the time of publishing this report.

My first question is: what action has been taken to ensure that the Auditor-General can get on with its inquiry, i.e., production of the documents, provision of copies and whether there are other aspects that can be made available for the purposes of that inquiry? If not, when do you understand that this can take place?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I thank the honourable member for the question. I think the position is basically this: the Auditor-General—and, look, the Auditor-General can speak for himself, rather than—

Ms Chapman: He's not here, so you have to.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, okay, I will try and channel the Auditor-General for a moment, alright? If I were the Auditor-General, I think I would say to you, 'I'm going to leave this alone until the police have finished with it, and get hold of the bits and pieces.' That may or may not be the Auditor-General's view; that would be my view if I were the Auditor-General, because I would not want to be tripping over SAPOL, and I would not want to be interfering with what they are doing.

But, I can assure you that, as far as I am concerned, the Auditor-General will have and does have the full cooperation of the Attorney-General's Department and the Crown Solicitor's Office in relation to this matter. If the Auditor-General makes any request of us for assistance or whatever, then I am sure we would be only too happy to accommodate that. I think we need to just bear in mind that there is no suggestion in the passage to which you have referred us that it has anything to do with us saying to the Auditor-General, 'Don't go any further'—

Ms Chapman: No.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —it is actually the Auditor-General, of his own motion, determining he did not want to proceed. I am sure if he was saying that on the basis that the Attorney-General's Department, or crown law, or anybody was being slightly recalcitrant about cooperating with him, I am sure that would be written there too, but it is not.

We are happy to cooperate, and have at all times been happy to cooperate, but we do not control the Auditor-General's time frame, and we do not control the exercise of the Auditor-General's discretion about whether the Auditor-General wishes to intrude into a matter that is the subject of an active police investigation or an active court matter; that is really something for them. To be perfectly frank, I am not even sure if there are protocols between the Auditor-General's office and SAPOL about these things. I just do not know, because it is not part of my responsibility.

Ms CHAPMAN: As the first law officer of the state, Attorney, let me put this to you—I am assuming you have read the rest of the paragraphs that have been outlined by the Auditor-General, in which—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: I have read exactly what you're asking me to read; exactly what you—

Ms CHAPMAN: Let me ask you this: have you read, under the item 'Alleged fraud against the Victims of Crime Fund (VOC Fund)', which is around point 6 on page 106, down to point 4 on page 107, which is about eight paragraphs?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will read it now to make sure I am fully acquainted with everything you are going to ask me.

Ms CHAPMAN: The Attorney will see that the department is effectively hamstrung in being able to undertake any investigation. They have reported to us here in this report to the parliament that the department—that is, your department—is apparently cooperating with the police in their inquiries but, whilst they will monitor the developments on that, they are not in a position to be able to provide any audit statement here to the parliament at present. So, here we are in October. We have got no assurance from them because they are effectively hamstrung from doing anything. We have got your or your department's statement to the media that the Auditor-General has been advised on this matter and it is with the police—

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Maybe seized of it but obviously not doing anything—and we have a Victims of Crime Fund still operating. So, what have you done, Attorney, to make sure, firstly, that the problem has been quarantined or that there is no other problem happening with the Victims of Crime Fund at present?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I thank the honourable member for her question. First of all, what have we done? We have actually cooperated with the police, we have informed the Auditor-General, we have basically turned our pockets inside out and said to them all, 'Whatever you want, you have our cooperation.' That is point No. 1. Point No. 2 is: the Auditor-General's Report itself, in one of the paragraphs that you took me to on page 106, refers to the fact that the Auditor-General anticipates fully dealing with this matter in the 2012-13 audit report, so it is not as if it is going to be left and never tackled.

Also, I am advised that there was some reasonable confidence that the fraud could be reliably isolated to the Victims of Crime Fund itself. Because of the particular modus operandi, I think, of the alleged perpetrators, it would not be much value to them doing that elsewhere. I do not want to go into particulars because that probably would not be wise.

In order to provide further assurance however, the Auditor-General and the Attorney-General's Department undertook to review other administered areas that may be at risk of fraudulent activity. I think it is important to note there that that does not mean exactly the same fraudulent activity: they are areas where some sort of fraud might be perpetrated.

The review was undertaken by the department's internal auditors, which are PricewaterhouseCoopers, and provided comfort over the controls in operation in these other areas. As part of this process, I am advised certain recommendations were made to further improve controls, which are now being considered by the relevant areas.

PricewaterhouseCoopers has also undertaken a review of the interim controls implemented by the Crown Solicitor's Office as a response to the alleged fraud. The Crown Solicitor's Office is considering these draft findings. It is intended that a more detailed review of the control environment will be conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers once the police investigation has been concluded.

I just want to put something else on the record here because I think it is important. At one point, early in the investigation, the whole of the victims of crime process almost ground to a complete halt, and it did so because the department was being prudent in trying to manage the risk which, at that point, was less well understood that it is now. At that point, there was, as I said, a virtual grinding to a halt of payments under that fund in order to ascertain whether each individual file was free of this sort of problem.

Can I say that that caused some distress in the community because there were many people who had applications for compensation from the fund who were being confronted with time lines which were not really acceptable and were not time lines which were due to any failure on their part. They were time lines that were due to the fact that the department was being as prudent as it possibly could about this fund. I just think it is important that members in the house understand that this is not the sort of fund where you can reasonably just shut it down, close it completely and wait for some audit in never-never land. You have to appreciate that the people who are attaining funds out of this are victims and it was really important for us to get the fund back on an even keel, and I am pleased to say that the department has done a very good job of that, and the fund is now functioning well.

I am advised that the department has a very high degree of confidence that the particular problem that they were confronting here has been isolated and the controls that are in place at the present are adequate to deal with the risk of more of this type of event being discovered.

Ms CHAPMAN: Unfortunately, that does not fill me with confidence, Attorney, because on page 113 under 'Fraud management', the Auditor-General also reports about that management review. This is not a new issue. Essentially, this had been identified some time ago as a problem in relation to not having a policy of management. Whilst you say that a review has been undertaken, as the Auditor-General points out, the fraud policy was scheduled for review in December 2011 and a draft was considered by the audit and risk management early in 2012. It was incorporated into an amended policy.

The updated policy was approved by the chief executive after the audit visit in May 2012. This is all from the year before. A reminder to all policy responsible officers will be sent to ensure that review dates are more closely adhered to in the future. The fraud policy will be revised to clearly stipulate that an incident will be included on the fraud incident register after a matter has been fully investigated and approved. That is when it identified that it even had previous incidents—not necessarily resulting in prosecutions, but incidents—in which there had been a failure to implement even whatever policy they had before. So, it does not fill me with confidence your telling me that they have done a review. The Auditor-General tells us that, Attorney. We still do not know whether this policy has been implemented. If it has, apart from having identified by August that there was a serious problem of fraud, your department has not even acted on the request of the Auditor-General from the previous year.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There is a lot in that remark. First of all, there is the financial year and the calendar year and, as we all know, they are not the same. But in the financial year to which this report refers, and in the calendar year that we are presently in, I am advised that in May the department did make the approved changes. It did not run for the whole of the financial year but by May, which is still in this calendar year, I am advised the changes were brought in which is reflected in that particular passage on page 113.

Ms CHAPMAN: So if you have a policy in place as at May 2012, what is it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, thank you for that question. I am advised that the document is in the nature of a policy document which I assume would fit into a compendium of policy documents which every officer reads every evening before they retire, but this is one I am pretty sure they would have been reading because it has been kind of current in the department. I reckon a lot of their minds would have been sharpened up on this one. The short answer is that it is a policy document. It is included amongst the policy documents and it forms part of the policy framework of the workplace. It is what people are supposed to do.

Ms CHAPMAN: Attorney, surely you can come into this house, after what has been exposed in your department, and assure this parliament that it has its policy in place, that the senior people who are in charge of money have read it, that they understand what is in it, what its key features are, and that it is being implemented. It does not fill us with confidence to have answers from you, dismissive as they are, some smart alec response, about how people in your department would have read this nightly. I expect a serious answer to a serious question.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will give you a serious answer. You are asking me whether each and every person in the department has read this. Obviously, I do not know. I can ask individual officers whether they have read it, but my understanding is that this policy was worked through. It has been embraced by the department, it is now the departmental policy. I do not have information about whether particular officers or public servants have given special attention to this, but I do know—and I am confident about this—that the officers whose responsibility is the financial management of the Attorney-General's Department are well aware of it.

Ms CHAPMAN: What has happened in the office that runs the claims in relation to the Victims of Crime Fund that is different now to what it was before May 2012? What action is being taken to ensure that a person who is in charge of processing and approving the claims is not able to do it again—whoever it was who was responsible for this—and defraud the Victims of Crime Fund that now operates. Can you tell us in this place whether that action is being complied with and whether it is protecting the over $100 million now in that fund?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think I might have said before that the PricewaterhouseCoopers review of the interim controls has been implemented by the Crown Solicitor's Office as a response to that. The Crown Solicitor's Office is presently working on those draft findings.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is there a second sign-off on the approval of these claims?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: You are asking me about particular issues about the actual procedure that was in or was not in. I would have to take that particular question on notice because I do not want to make up an answer without knowing the answer.

Ms Chapman: Then take this on notice.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will take that on notice. I do not want to say too much about exactly what went on here because it is a criminal matter presently before the courts, but the allegations involve a very particular modus operandi. I am very confident that officers of the department in that area are very alert to that particular type of behaviour being repeated. If somebody devised a completely different mechanism for attempting to defraud the fund, ideally the controls we put in place would identify that quickly.

I think it is worthwhile mentioning that this was actually detected by the department itself. This was not something where SAPOL came in and found this terrible thing. I think that is the most telling aspect of the whole thing. Officers of the department identified this thing for themselves before anyone else had a clue what was going on and made the appropriate reports to the police and Auditor-General, which I think demonstrates that there is a strong culture of doing the right thing in the department.

Ms CHAPMAN: What is the current balance of the fund?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that it is $109 million.

Ms CHAPMAN: There is also reference to this fund on page 121. Can the Attorney confirm that only $836,000 was actually recovered from offenders of victims of crime during the subject year?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am afraid I know nothing more that I can assist the honourable member with other than that statement on page 121, and, yes, it does say that that was $836,000.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is it fair to say that, in relation to the $34 million in the Victims of Crime Fund levies incurred, at least $33 million of that remains uncollected debt?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: If that is what it says, I am certainly in no position to argue with it. I am not sure what page that is on—122, yes. I certainly would not argue with what the Auditor says about those matters.

Ms CHAPMAN: Why was there a $3 million decline from $10 million to $3 million in the revenues from the SA government from the previous financial year?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that that was a decrease in appropriation to the fund. I am advised that that had something to do with one-off funding in the previous year for children in state care matters.

Ms CHAPMAN: On the Crown Solicitor's Office, how much was spent on contracting of private sector legal advice over the last financial year and how did that compare with the previous year?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think that is one we will have to take on notice.

The CHAIR: The time allocated for the examination of the Auditor-General's Report in relation to the Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, and Minister for Business Services and Consumers has expired. I now call on the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, and Minister for Housing and Urban Development for a time of 30 minutes. Member for Bragg, you speak on behalf of the opposition?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, I do. I refer to items of transport and infrastructure in particular. I will say that in this committee we were advised that minister Rankine, when she comes to deal with her portfolios, advised that we were to ask this minister any questions in relation to road safety. I can tell the committee I will not be asking this minister anything to do with road safety; it is not within his area of responsibility, and I will be taking it up with minister Rankine. But I just report to this committee that that was the direction from minister Rankine's office. If she doesn't know anything about road safety I am not going to be bothering this minister with it.

On transport and infrastructure at page 1239, on the Gawler rail funding, I would like to ask you, minister, in respect of the $42.5 million that was received, when—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: What page are you on?

Ms CHAPMAN: Page 1239; it is paragraph 48. When did the state government—that is, the date—receive the $42.5 million for the Gawler rail project that is held in the former AusLink advance account? When did the state government receive it?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I did not actually hear what you said, sorry.

Ms CHAPMAN: When—that is, what date—did the state government receive the $42.5 million, which is referred to as being held in the former AusLink advance account?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I understand it was in the last financial year. I do not have a specific date. It is not the sort of information that people ask us for very often, but I am sure we can find the specific date.

Ms CHAPMAN: This was an existing project, minister. The federal budget was announced on 8 May. The state budget, for all of us, was on 31 May. Can you confirm whether this money had been paid to the state government before or after the announcement of the state budget?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Again, I will check the specific date. I am struggling to see what the relevance is, but if that is what you want to know, I will check the date.

Ms CHAPMAN: The report suggests on page 1239 that in June 2012 the Treasurer approved a change in the purpose of the AusLink advance account to include commonwealth funding received for specific projects. That is, after your state budget has been published, there is a Treasurer's approval to change that. Was the money in this account all the time, or was it in another account? If so, what was it?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I will have to check when this money was received, but all that that refers to is that when the name of an account is changed we need Treasury to approve it. It is not a matter of enormous substantial difference; it is simply the change of the name of an account.

Ms CHAPMAN: No, with respect, it says a change in the purpose of that account, not the name of the account. Presumably he has granted approval for that fund now, as of June 2012, to be able to be the holder of commonwealth funding received for specific purposes. That is what he has approved.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Well, if you know, I'll leave it to you.

Ms CHAPMAN: So my question to you is whether it was in any previous account, or whether it had been in there without approval.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Given that I do not know when it was transferred, it is a bit hard to say. Can I say, the member for Bragg apparently understands it all. She is telling me, so I might just leave it to her. You want to know when some money was transferred to us; we will find out. You want to know if it was in this account first or second; I will find out for you. I am struggling terribly to understand the relevance of it and I will just see if there is anything else I can help you with. We will check the dates, but I am told it was in an AusLink account and transferred to that account. I do not know why the accountants want to do these things, but that is what happened.

Ms CHAPMAN: I was not clear about that, minister. It was in an AusLink account and transferred to this account: is that what you are saying?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Again, I know you are not going to agree because you have already said what your view is. It was simply the change of the name of the AusLink account to this named account. That is all. That is because, of course, AusLink is not around any more.

Ms CHAPMAN: So I assume, then, from that answer, that it has always been the same account: this has been a name change. Is that your position on this?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: That is what I have been told, and I am quite happy to believe them. Frankly, if this is the biggest issue you have found, we can all go now, I think.

Ms CHAPMAN: Do I assume that the minister is going to be walking out of a committee inquiry? I hope not. So, it is in the same account. Can the minister explain to the committee why $41 million has been advised to The Australian on 2 September as the funds that were paid in advance for the Gawler upgrade, when the Auditor-General clearly identifies $42.5 million?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I do not recall that but can I say: I do not think what appears in the media is an appropriate part of this. Frankly, I will go and find out why a media report says 41 and this says 42. I am quite happy to do that, but I am sure you will find there is nothing untoward happening.

Ms CHAPMAN: Consistent with that, on 16 October this year, at the Senate estimates, Mr Mrdak answered a question and said:

My understanding is that $41 million is already with the South Australian government this year and $35 million is due to be paid next financial year on the project. That balance has been expended.

So I will get back to the $41 million. Is that the $41 million which is part of this $42.5 million, or not?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Now you have gone from The Australian newspaper to Senate estimates. Can I suggest you direct your questions to the Auditor-General's Report, because that is what we are here for? I am not at all certain about what—

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order. Apart from the minister not wanting to answer the question—

The CHAIR: No, he was not saying that.

Ms CHAPMAN: What I am going to explain is that at page 1240 the Gawler upgrade, the Auditor-General tells us, is $42.49 million; and they are the questions I am asking the minister.

The CHAIR: The point the minister was making was that he is neither responsible for what The Australian publishes nor is he responsible for any questions and answers in the Senate. He is actually responding to the Auditor-General's comments. Can you please direct your questions regarding the Auditor-General's Report?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I will continue with the answer as given. I do not know what Mr Mrdak said in the Senate. I have no reason to doubt that the member for Bragg is quoting Mr Mrdak correctly, but I do not know what he said and I cannot assist the member for Bragg with this. What I can do, if the member for Bragg believes there is an inconsistency between reports elsewhere and the Auditor-General's Report, is try to find out if that is the case and why. But I assure the member for Bragg that I am certain that we will find there is nothing here for anyone to get too concerned about.

Ms CHAPMAN: We will await that with interest. Do separate funding agreements exist for the Gawler electrification and the Gawler upgrade?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: My staff advise me that they would not be confident to say either way. They know there was a big package, of course, for Gawler, but they would have to check to see how that is detailed.

Ms CHAPMAN: Have all acquittals been provided to the commonwealth for the Gawler rail projects?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I am sorry. I am just struggling to understand where in the Auditor-General's Report it raises the acquittals to the commonwealth.

Ms CHAPMAN: We have this money left.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I understand that you want to ask me about acquittals for the commonwealth, but it does not appear in the Auditor-General's Report. I am happy to provide that information because I am a very decent fellow and I will always try to help, but I am struggling to understand what relevance it has to this Auditor-General's Report. I will ask these people to find it out, but I do not know where we are going.

Ms CHAPMAN: That's not surprising. If the state government cannot demonstrate that the electrification of the Gawler line will be completed within a certain time frame, will that commonwealth funding have to be returned?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: This has really gone, Mr Chairman, far enough. These are not questions about the Auditor-General's Report which is a look back at the activities of the previous financial year. The member for Bragg is looking forward to what may or may not happen with the commonwealth. I suggest that if the member for Bragg wants to ask me a question at question time she has ample opportunity, but this is an examination of the Auditor-General's Report. I have officers here to provide information on the Auditor-General's Report and not on extraneous matters.

I invite the member for Bragg to ask a question tomorrow at question time, and I will be happy to provide whatever briefing we can on these matters because that is what we do. It is not really a good use of the people who are here to talk about the Auditor-General's Report.

Ms CHAPMAN: That is good coming from the minister who so far has not answered any questions even about what date he opened an account, but, anyway. What state funding was used for the Gawler electrification project before it was cancelled? What is the total amount?

The CHAIR: Whereabouts in the report does that appear?

Ms CHAPMAN: There are a number of references for the electrification program.

The CHAIR: Just find me one.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I just point out that this information was in fact provided earlier. The question was asked in some other forum by the minister and we provided that information. Now, given that it does not appear to be in any way relevant to what we have in front of us, and naturally we do not have that with us, we will look at it again.

Can I say, so that the member for Bragg understands, that the processes for acquittals with the commonwealth are not timed at the same time we do this. They come subsequently. In fact, some of them will still be being done for the previous financial year, as I understand it. Again, if the member for Bragg wants to get into extraneous matters I would love to get a question at question time sometime. There is ample opportunity.

Ms CHAPMAN: Mr Chairman, if the minister has even read this report—I do not know whether or not he has—there is reference on page 1184 in respect of the income, going over onto page 1185 relating to the commonwealth revenues and identification there of $146 million for the Gawler line electrification resleepering. Further down in respect of the revenue (on page 1186), we have explanations as to why there are certain changes in the financial accounts, including the funding that has gone towards the Gawler rail line project.

This is a major piece of infrastructure which has been going on for sometime. It is the subject of the financial year that we are talking about. It even continues into this financial year because there is money still sitting in an account to be spent. My simple question is: how much of the money so far that has been spent on this project is from the state government? That's all. It is pretty simple. The whole financial accounts are here.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I would agree that some things are pretty simple; I will not take it further than that.

The CHAIR: The member is asking the question: how much of state funding was spent during that financial year?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The member for Bragg believes that I should have foreseen that she would want to know that, even though there is no real issue about that raised by the Auditor-General. I took the view that we would be here talking about the issues the Auditor-General has raised and that might be of some relevance to the member for Bragg, but instead the member for Bragg wants to go behind some numbers in there that have caused no concern to the Auditor-General and somehow cut them up. As I said, I am happy to seek to provide that information.

As I understand it from an earlier question, the difference between the $42.9 million that was referred to and the $41 million that people have talked about is that the $41 million is what was unspent of the $42.9 million. There was some $1.5 million spent, so there is no inconsistency. It has been merely reported in that way. I am very happy to provide this information to the member for Bragg but, again, it does not seem to be particularly relevant to the matters that have been raised by the Auditor-General.

Ms CHAPMAN: I refer to page 1182 in respect of the South Australian Aquatic and Leisure Centre. The question to the minister is: what is the current status of the legal action between the department and Candetti Constructions in respect of the aquatic centre?

The CHAIR: What was your question?

Ms CHAPMAN: What is the current legal status?

The CHAIR: Where is that in the Auditor-General's Report? Are you asking for the legal status as at 30 June? 30 June is the cut-off for the Auditor-General's Report.

Ms CHAPMAN: To be clear about this—

The CHAIR: If you want to question about something today, that is for question time.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will ask what it was at 30 June and I will ask what it is at present.

The CHAIR: No, the present is ruled out.

Ms CHAPMAN: If you rule it out—

The CHAIR: I will.

Ms CHAPMAN: —I will dissent from your ruling.

The CHAIR: You can do that. Please do that. I am more than happy for you to do that.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will wait for the minister's first answer.

The CHAIR: Okay. At 30 June, minister.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Again, I am not an unreasonable fellow. I am quite happy to get an update on what the state of that is, if there is in fact any legal action afoot, but it is not—

Ms Chapman: It says there is. It says it there.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Yes. Again, I am trying to make this simple. This is looking back at the previous financial year. You have asked what is occurring now. I believe the date today is 30 October, if I can assist the member for Bragg with that. What the status is some four months after the end of the financial year is not something we have brought the details of because we did not expect to be asked it. I am quite happy to find the details. We have absolutely nothing to hide, but it does seem to be a terrible waste of time on an Auditor-General's examination.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will remind the minister, who has been here for 20 years or so—he ought to have read 100 of these reports by now—that in fact these reports are prepared after the financial year in respect of the financial year, and they report on a number of things, including what has happened since. Several times just on that page, for example, in respect to the Adelaide Oval redevelopment it identifies what has been happening since and that the report has been tabled on 30 August 2012, etc. So, clearly in the Auditor-General's Report he is telling the parliament what they are doing, what they have failed to do, what they have stuffed up or whatever during that year, and then he gives a summary of what the events are following that period. In particular, in respect of the state aquatic centre, he says that the Auditor is aware that the department is in dispute.

The CHAIR: Your question is what, member for Bragg?

Ms CHAPMAN: My simple question, which I think the minister has said he will take on notice, is an update of the legal proceedings between those two parties.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Just so we are absolutely clear because of all this smart-alecky stuff, as I read it it says 'in dispute'.

Ms Chapman: Yes.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: How do you get legal proceedings out of 'in dispute', because I am in dispute with you but it is not a legal proceeding.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: We are not. So, I am in dispute with you, but let me say that I have no trouble updating—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: If you are going to get up and make long speeches instead of questions, do not be offended if I do that too. All that I would say is that you must be terribly disappointed with the clean bill of health given to the departments by the Auditor-General because you will not go near a question about the Auditor-General's Report. Please, I invite you to in the 10 minutes you have left.

Ms CHAPMAN: I hate to disappoint the minister, but on page 1166 the minister obviously overlooked to read this in his whole portfolio: in fact, he got a qualified opinion from the Auditor. Sorry, minister, but the Auditor clearly was not happy—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Let's talk about that!

Ms CHAPMAN: —with your department's operations—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Let's talk about that!

The CHAIR: Minister, could you—

Ms CHAPMAN: —and hence we have quite a lot of concerns that he has raised. My next question, however, is at page 30, 'Deposits lodged with the Treasurer', and in particular—

The CHAIR: Page 30?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, in relation to the boat fund levy.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Page 30?

The CHAIR: That's what she said.

Ms CHAPMAN: Statement G.

The CHAIR: You will have to wait a second while I find page 30.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you.

The CHAIR: I assume that is in Volume 1, or the overview?

Ms CHAPMAN: I will just find my page of it. It is 'Deposits lodged with the Treasurer', and I will just find the volume, because I only have my printout here. I am talking about the Recreational Boating Facilities Fund on page 30. I will just show you the statement.

The CHAIR: No, you find it in the report for me, please.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will show you here, Mr Chairman: page 30—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: No, I am not talking your statement. Statement G, continued under 'Deposits lodged with the Treasurer—Balances as at 30 June 2012'.

The CHAIR: Member for Bragg, the minister will not answer this question unless you find for me a reference in the report—a reference I can actually—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

The CHAIR: Minister—

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, but different book.

The CHAIR: Minister, could you just please—

Ms CHAPMAN: You've got the wrong book, minister.

The CHAIR: Which volume?

Ms CHAPMAN: I do not have that in front of me; I have just said that to you.

The CHAIR: No, where in the report is it? It is not on page 30, because I have looked through page 30, so it must be some other page.

Ms CHAPMAN: Again, Mr Chairman, with respect, you are looking at the wrong volume; I just explained that I have the photocopy—

The CHAIR: I might be looking at the wrong volume; can you point out the right volume for me then, member for Bragg? That is your duty.

Ms CHAPMAN: You poor boys; you have the whole department here—you have the head of the department here, you have all these advisers—

The CHAIR: No; it is your job, sorry.

Ms CHAPMAN: —and you cannot tell me—

The CHAIR: No, don't shift responsibility—

Ms CHAPMAN: —that the minister cannot even find—

The CHAIR: Member for Bragg—

Ms CHAPMAN: I am telling you, under the title of 'Deposits lodged with the Treasurer', of all of the funds—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: In which volume?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, he knows where it is; of course he does.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: In which volume? I cannot find it.

Ms CHAPMAN: I have not got the volume number; that is what I just said to you. It is at page 30 of the Treasurer's funds that are held on your behalf. You have got all these advisers sitting there and you cannot find—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

The CHAIR: Minister—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I will not have the advisers insulted because the member has invented a page number. I have page 30 in front of me, and it does not have it, and I will not have the advisers insulted.

The CHAIR: Member for Bragg, you can either specifically identify the item or go to the next question.

Ms CHAPMAN: My question is in relation to the Recreational—

The CHAIR: Hold on, we are covering old ground.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I am happy to try to answer, but it would be helpful if I could be referred to it somewhere.

The CHAIR: The minister will have to refer to it in his answer, so unless you can actually work out where it is coming from, it is not going to be very helpful.

Ms CHAPMAN: I have just had some help; it is Volume 6.

The CHAIR: Volume 6; thank you. That is very helpful.

Ms CHAPMAN: My first question is—

The CHAIR: No; hold on.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Just in defence of the people she has been insulting, Volume 6 starts at page 1837.

Ms CHAPMAN: It is Statement G.

The CHAIR: Okay, it is Volume 6, it is the statements at the end of the report—

Ms CHAPMAN: Correct.

The CHAIR: —Statement G, I think you referred to?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, page 30. Hooray! Have we found it? Have you found it, minister?

The CHAIR: We are almost on the same page.

Ms CHAPMAN: Can I help? Can I approach—

The CHAIR: No!

Ms CHAPMAN: Can I approach the minister?

The CHAIR: Hold on—minister—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is absolutely outrageous and insulting—

The CHAIR: Minister—

Ms CHAPMAN: Can you find it?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: —you were wrong. Mr Chairman, I refer to—

The CHAIR: Minister, resume your seat or you will be leaving the chamber.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you. My question is—

The CHAIR: The member for Bragg, you will stick to the rules lest you leave the chamber as well.

Ms CHAPMAN: My question is, Mr Chairman, in respect of the Recreational Boating Facilities Fund. Do you have that there? It is about point 6 on the page.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: I've got it; once you could actually find it, it was very easy for us.

Ms CHAPMAN: Okay, well, you are on the page, or off the page, or whatever?

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: It is an appendix.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, that's right: page 30. So you have got the right page? Okay, good. You will see there that, as at 30 June 2012, it had $12,267,387 in it. You are in charge of it, let me tell you—I assure you of that.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Do you have any questions or just insults?

Ms CHAPMAN: Are you familiar with the fund?

The CHAIR: The member for Bragg, just stick to the question. Your question is?

Ms CHAPMAN: Right, my question is: during the 2011-12 year, did you receive any recommendations from the Boating Facility Advisory Committee that you did not approve?

The CHAIR: Sorry, has the Auditor-General raised that in any part of his report?

Ms CHAPMAN: No, I am asking about the fund.

The CHAIR: No.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: All of that farce was about the member for Bragg asking a question that she would more appropriately—

The CHAIR: Ask a question.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: If I might go so far as to say that, had she at some point screwed her courage to the sticking point at question time and asked the question, I would have been happy to seek an answer. But she goes to a fund and then asks a question about recommendations that may or may not have been approved, which have nothing to do with anything the Auditor-General said. Can I say that I do not recall not approving any recommendations from the fund—I do not recall it. That does not mean it may not have happened and, can I say, it was not something we prepared for this, because, frankly, this is a specious, extraneous issue to drag in because there is a column that has $12 million in it. I mean, it is just a joke.

Ms CHAPMAN: My next question is: what is the total value of payments made from this fund in the 2011-12 year?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I will have to check that for the member for Bragg. Again, like I said, if the Auditor-General had raised some issues about payments from the fund, we might have been alerted to an issue around it. As it is, if the member for Bragg wishes to look at those matters contained in the appendix—not on page 30 but in Statement G—she will see that there are a large number of funds, and I do not believe anyone is going to be able to tell her payments out of those funds off the top of their head unless, in some way, they have been alerted to an issue by the Auditor-General. We have not. I am quite happy, again, to provide these things, but the member for Bragg could get these quite easily by asking for a briefing, or asking a question. It has got nothing to do with this.

Ms CHAPMAN: My final question then is: what is the total revenue collected under the Recreational Boating Facilities Fund levy in the 2011-12 year?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I will find that out for the member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will return to the aquatic centre, which is at page 1182. One of the tenderers, minister, for the aquatic centre was unsuccessful and was contracted by the department to fix the defects in the construction prior to the Australian Swimming Championships earlier this year. What was the total value of that work in the 2011-12 year and has any further rectification of work been required?

The CHAIR: Where is it in the report?

Ms CHAPMAN: Page 1182—goodness me.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Reference it? There are pages of it.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: We will check that. Just so we understand, what occurred is that there was a dispute between us and the original contractor. That dispute was, from the contractor's perspective, that they should be paid more and, from our perspective, that the contractor should not.

The member for Bragg would be aware that that contractor then, unfortunately, was involved in further difficulties and, in particular, from memory, was in administration at around this period of time. Given the dispute and given the circumstances of the contractor, we then gave it to someone else to rectify what we thought were the difficulties. I cannot tell you off the top of my head what we paid, but it was seen to be the only thing we could reasonably do in the circumstances. I think it is regrettable when any business goes into administration.

I am getting some signals on what the money is, but what I will say is that whilst it was a difficulty, the aquatic centre has proved to be an absolutely outstanding success. It is a great place to visit. I have had my kids there. Making the rectifications, incurring costs and having the dispute later with the contractor was the wise thing to do, and I think we should take a little pride in how Adelaide was received as the host of those championships. It was a very good outcome. It is very close to my electorate and it is in the Mitchell electorate. It is a very popular venue. I am told that the rectification works are somewhere in the space of $2 million to $3 million but I will get a more accurate figure for you.

Ms CHAPMAN: I won't be following any—

The CHAIR: The time has expired.

Ms CHAPMAN: One more question.

The CHAIR: No.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will not be asking about the swimming habits of the minister's children, which is very interesting.

The CHAIR: No. The time has expired.

Ms CHAPMAN: Having taken—

The CHAIR: The time has expired.

Ms CHAPMAN: Having taken up time with that, is there any chance I can have a further question?

The CHAIR: It will depend on the question you ask. If it is directly related to the Auditor-General's Report and you are not fishing somewhere else, then I will let you ask the question.

Ms CHAPMAN: Having discussed the first part which was at page 1182, at the bottom of the paragraph you will see, minister, on the bottom of that page he talks about how there is going to be a follow-up contract for financial management issues. So, we will see whether or not your comments are accurate. He says there that he is going to have a further supplementary report to parliament on this.

The CHAIR: And your question is?

Ms CHAPMAN: Before that he says—

The CHAIR: No, your question is? Do you have a question, member for Bragg?

Ms CHAPMAN: He says, 'It is expected that any findings arising from the review will be formally discussed and communicated to the department in the latter part of 2012.' My question is: has your department been advised of that?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No, we haven't. I thank the member for Bragg for this very special time we have spent here.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.