Auditor-General's Report

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT

In committee.

(Continued from 31 October 2013.)

The CHAIR: We have the Minister for Transport Services, Minister Assisting the Minister for the Arts. If I could remind members, when they ask their questions, to refer to the page number in the Auditor-General's Report. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Ms CHAPMAN: I refer to the Report of the Auditor-General for the year ending 30 June 2013, Part B, Agency Audit Reports, Volume 4, and I start at pages 1150 to 1152. The subject matter, for the benefit of the minister in the planning, transport and infrastructure portfolio, is bus contract payments. Minister, in April this year you announced that some routes would be transferred from Transfield to Torrens Transit. At the time, minister, you stated that changes would cost approximately $2 million per year through increased payments to Torrens Transit. When the state budget was published in June the cost per year of the changes had increased to $8 million. At budget estimates later that month I asked you some questions and you said:

The cost is—as I said at the time—$2 million and it remains $2 million at this time for those particular eight routes. As I understand it, the rest of the moneys to which you are referring are not actually moneys that have been spent. These are contingency moneys that are there. You seem to be implying that somehow I said we were going to spend X amount and in fact we are going to spend Y amount. That is just not the case.

Well, minister, you have had an opportunity to read now what the Auditor-General has said, and clearly there have been changes that were implemented prior to answering that question. My question to you, minister, is: at the time that you as minister claimed that the rest of the $8 million was a contingency had those changes already been agreed that would result in the expenditure beyond $2 million?

The Hon. C.C. FOX: Thank you, member for Bragg. The contract variations that specifically related to the transfer of routes as approved by cabinet have not been exceeded. The contract variations provided for in the May 2013 service changes included the increased cost of moving routes from Light-City buses to Torrens Transit, as approved by cabinet on 22 April 2013, as well as the cost for regular service alterations that had previously been funded within the PTSD budget. As a consequence, there is no requirement to provide further advice to cabinet.

Ms CHAPMAN: Well, that might be the case, minister, but my question was about this. As is clearly now identified, the contractor performance standards for those new routes had changed, effective from 9 May 2013 as you point out, and had been signed two months later under the contracts to do it, but at the time of estimates you knew what they were. It is confirmed now by the time line that there were other routes that had been identified for the purposes of that extra expenditure, which was later then disclosed as $8 million. There was no such thing as a contingency.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: The funding that we have released specifically related to the routes that transferred from Transfield to Torrens Transit on 12 May. The net costs of those transfers was approximately $2 million, as advised at the time. I reiterate that the contract variations provided for in the May 2013 service changes included the increased cost of moving routes from Light-City Buses to Torrens Transit as approved by cabinet on 22 April 2013, as well as the cost for regular service alterations that had previously been funded for in the PTSD budget.

Ms CHAPMAN: Has all of the $8 million been spent?

The Hon. C.C. FOX: No.

Ms CHAPMAN: How much is left?

The Hon. C.C. FOX: The answer there is approximately $6 million, but I can get a more specific answer back to you.

Ms CHAPMAN: The author goes on to say at page 1151 that 'the total value of the contract variations...with the bus contractors was significantly higher' than the budget that was advised. You have referred to that in your earlier prepared statement. My question is: who approved the total increased payments to the contractors?

The Hon. C.C. FOX: The changes were approved by cabinet.

Ms CHAPMAN: Why was cabinet then not advised of the correct increased cost?

The Hon. C.C. FOX: I do apologise. Could you reiterate that question? I think I may have misunderstood you.

Ms CHAPMAN: The Auditor-General tells us that the value of the contract variations with the bus contractors was significantly higher than cabinet was advised—you have referred to that—and my question is: why was cabinet not advised of the correct increased cost in the first place?

The Hon. C.C. FOX: Cabinet was advised, as I said previously, of the anticipated cost of $2 million. However, negotiations are still ongoing to ensure that the services provided for the north-south corridor meet our community's expectations and, indeed, those of the department.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, the Auditor-General is wrong, is that right, in his statement in his report that cabinet was not advised of the accuracy of the increase of the expenditure, that the bus contractors were significantly higher than what cabinet was advised?

The Hon. C.C. FOX: I think this goes back to the first answer that I gave you, which was that the contract variations that specifically related to the routes as approved by cabinet were not exceeded, and that is my and the department's response to that point that was made by the Auditor-General.

Ms CHAPMAN: Well, if that was, at the time, the information you had and you conveyed that to them and that was all that you had. Now that, in fact, it has been disclosed, the total increased cost of the changes and what they are, have you advised the cabinet of what that is and what is the total increased cost?

The Hon. C.C. FOX: At this point we have negotiated $2 million, as I initially stated. There has been no exceeding of those particular moneys, as I stated before, and the negotiations are ongoing, as I stated before. I am not quite sure what you are implying there, but that is the case and I have actually said that once or twice already.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, we have a situation, minister, where you say $2 million is the total amount, that there has not been any exceeding of that, you still have $6 million in the bank, therefore there is nothing else to tell the cabinet. That is your position, and anything in the Auditor-General's Report does not undermine that. So, my next question then is: did the changes (this is the changes to the routes) result in an increased payment to Transfield for the routes which they continue to operate?

The Hon. C.C. FOX: Sorry; could you ask the question again?

Ms CHAPMAN: Did the changes that you made under the new contracts result in increased payments to Transfield for the routes which they continue to operate? I will make it simple: when you changed the routes you gave some of the routes to a different operator and you let Transfield keep some of the ones that they had. My question is: are you paying any more to Transfield to do those routes that they are continuing to do?

The Hon. C.C. FOX: As I said previously, we are still in negotiations and that answer does not change.

Ms CHAPMAN: You may be in negotiations—I am not quite sure what for—but the routes have changed. You have told us the routes have changed. There are some routes that are continuing to operate with Transfield, and that has been going on now since May 2013. I assume they are being paid.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: For the routes that they are continuing to operate, are they being paid more and, if so, how much?

The Hon. C.C. FOX: I am advised that some additional payments have been made of approximately $236,000 per month. That is inclusive of all of those routes. That is not per route. That is an interim payment, which is subject to those particular routes meeting their benchmarks.

Ms CHAPMAN: To conclude on that matter then, minister, what is being continued to be negotiated?

The Hon. C.C. FOX: I am advised that what is under negotiation includes timetabling, the repositioning and layover time for the buses that service the remaining routes.

Ms CHAPMAN: The Auditor-General confirms on page 1151 that cabinet had approved the contract variation. We understand that that has now happened and, as you have explained, that is operating under the new regime. However, regarding this approval by cabinet, he specifically states:

...however the total value of the variations agreed and executed with the contractors was significantly higher than the value approved by Cabinet.

Can you explain to the committee why that is the case when you keep telling us, as you have before now, that there appears to be no substance in that? The Auditor-General is very specific in saying that cabinet had not been told the whole truth. I would like some assurance, and I am sure other members of the committee would, that cabinet now knows all of it, knows the full extent, given that even if there was no change in the monetary amount later, they had granted approval on information that was inaccurate.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: So what is your actual question?

Ms CHAPMAN: My question is, I think that some assurance has to be given to the committee—and I ask you to do this—that this accurate information, on which the cabinet had relied to make its earlier decision, has been remedied, that is that real information, that is the significantly higher than the value approved by cabinet, has been disclosed to cabinet and that they are now fully aware of what the full amount is.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: As I advised previously, the contract variations that specifically related to the transfer of routes as approved by cabinet have not been exceeded, and the cabinet was advised of the correct sum of money. I see that you have asked this question a number of times now and I do not think I can make the answer any clearer for you.

Ms CHAPMAN: Can you explain to the committee what you think the Auditor-General then means by saying—he is reporting to us as a parliament and this committee in particular—that that information was not accurate in what was given to the cabinet? If that is not the case, then I would ask you to confirm that the Auditor-General has got it completely wrong. You could say, 'No, that is not right; in fact the position was absolute that the total value of the variations that was agreed and executed was exactly as I gave to cabinet.' If that is the case, then let us hear it. If it is not, then I would just like to know when you told cabinet or when you ensured that the department provide that information to cabinet.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: I think you have suddenly included another question into your initial question related to the responsibility of the Auditor-General's comments. I am not responsible for the Auditor-General's comments. I am advised by the department that we did not exceed that particular sum. I am responsible for what I say and for what the department says, but I am not responsible for what the Auditor-General says.

Ms CHAPMAN: So let us go back to page 1150, which shows that the contract variations were not signed at the time that the routes were transferred between the contractors. In fact, there is a two-month delay. Obviously, the Auditor-General was sufficiently concerned about that to note it. Indeed, you might remember that when you took over the responsibility as Minister for Transport Services contracts had been signed several months before you took over, and under your watch contracts were initiated and started without even the KPIs being in place. This is not something new. I would like you to explain to the committee how it is that in these multi-million dollar contracts you can start operating, changing the rules and operating under the new rules without even having the contract signed?

The Hon. C.C. FOX: First of all, I would like to correct you on one particular matter. The contracts were initiated and started some two or three weeks before I was made the Minister for Transport Services. I am just correcting you on that particular timetable.

Ms CHAPMAN: Did Patrick Conlon sign them?

The Hon. C.C. FOX: I am not Patrick Conlon.

Ms CHAPMAN: No, exactly. That is why I let you off the hook on signing it.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: Where possible, the Public Transport Services Division endeavours to ensure that any scheduled contract variations are executed prior to a service change taking effect. In this instance, the required variation to kilometres and hours had been verified by PTSD and accepted in principle by the contractor to enable service changes to commence as scheduled. Formal acceptance was not provided by the contractor responsible for delivery until such time as they were able to confirm through actual operation.

Ms CHAPMAN: That all sounds beautiful, minister. In an ideal world, we would all like to make sure that things are done, that every effort is made, and that contacts are signed, and so on, but that did not happen. You can espouse to the committee what you think is the ideal world, and I would agree with you, but in this instance it did not happen that way.

Two months—two months! What explanation can you give to the committee to explain why it took two months to sign this contract after the negotiations, after the in-principle agreement—two months after they had even started operating under the new regime—before you even signed the contract to undertake the new terms?

The Hon. C.C. FOX: Member for Bragg, can I just confirm whether you are talking about the service changes in May 2012 or the introduction of the initial contracts in October 2011?

Ms CHAPMAN: I am talking about the changes this year.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: Are you talking about 2013?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, 2013. At the bottom of page 1150, you will see there that the Auditor-General obviously makes comment about this.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: Yes, absolutely.

Ms CHAPMAN: Two months after.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: Thank you, member for Bragg, and thank you for that clarification. We were ready to sign on that particular occasion. The contractors wanted to run the service to actually see what was going to happen, which I think was quite reasonable, given the state that they had taken over those timetables, those contracts, in. They wanted to actually know what the reality would be in their running of those services.

Ms CHAPMAN: We have a situation, minister—

The Hon. C.C. FOX: Sorry, may I just say that previously you referred to that all being in a perfect world. These are not 'perfect world' determinations; this is actually what occurred.

Ms CHAPMAN: I know it is not perfect, that is for sure. What has happened is that you have changed the routes, for reasons which are now well known. You have allowed Transfield to continue some routes; you have transferred some of those that Transfield had across to Torrens. You have them all running around under the new routes. You are paying Transfield more money (in fact, $236,000 a month, I think you told us) for their existing routes—more than what you were paying them before—and yet no-one had even signed up.

Minister, as a committee, we receive this information from the Auditor-General on the basis that there are multimillions of dollars spent by governments every year. You are responsible for multimillion-dollar contracts, and we have buses running around by providers which you have determined should not be able to continue even some of the routes they had under a contract; you are paying them more, and you do not even have them signed up.

So, can you explain to the committee why it took another two months even to sign up, apart from checking that they could actually drive their bus from one section to another, which you say was necessary to do to show that they could do it, or some such other KPI?

The Hon. C.C. FOX: There are a number of points made in there that are just not questions, so I am not going to comment on your, I guess, debate. One thing I would point out is this: the choices of routes that were taken away initially from Transfield were taken away on the basis of their running of that particular route. That did not mean that the other ones they were running were running unsuccessfully. In fact, in their north-east routes, they had had significant improvements, but there were some routes on the north-south corridor that were not running well.

It was not an overall decision. It was not saying, 'This company lock, stock and barrel is no good.' It was a decision that said, 'You have consistently, over 18 months, not managed well on certain routes.' However, on the north-east routes, they had actually been improving quite significantly, so I would like to make that clear. In relation to your other points, is there one specific question that you are asking?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes; I am happy to make it clear. Now that you have excluded that there is any contingency requirement to test them—because you have already acknowledged that, in your assessment, they were doing the other routes quite okay, so you are able to continue to contract them to continue do that at an increased price—why was it necessary to delay even a day after they had commenced the routes? You had already made this assessment. They were doing a good job on those. You had agreed in principle. Why wouldn't you sign up the documents and not leave the exposure and criticism ultimately by the Auditor-General, let alone the exposure of the taxpayer, in these circumstances?

The CHAIR: You can answer this; this is the last question.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The CHAIR: Your time is up.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: But I can answer this question?

The CHAIR: You can answer this question.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: Thank you. The routes that you are discussing were transferred from Transfield to Torrens; that is correct, isn't it? You are talking about the routes that were transferred from Transfield to Torrens?

Ms Chapman: No—the others.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: As I just said, member for Bragg, the routes in question were transferred from Transfield to Torrens. Torrens were not prepared to sign up to those contracts until they had actually had an opportunity to run the conditions and to see how it would run for them. It is probably worth making the point that they have since signed those contracts.

The CHAIR: That concludes the time for the Minister for Transport Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Arts. I thank the minister, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the committee. We now go to the Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, Minster for Social Housing, Minister for Disabilities, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers. I remind members to reference the Auditor-General's Report when they ask their questions.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to the Auditor-General's Report, Part B, Volume 1, page 260. Can the minister tell the house what performance management principles have been undertaken to ensure that NGO performance management is consistent across the department? On page 260 it says final reporting and formal approval of the risk-based approach to performance management is not finalised yet and the project is expected to be completed and reported to management for approval in December this year.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I thank the member for his question. I can advise, as the member said, that the Auditor-General has previously reported that the extent and evidence of non-government organisation performance management has varied across the department and that we have been required to look at performance management principles. I can advise the committee that progress has been made in the design and implementation of a risk-based approach to performance management. For example, the Homelessness Strategy Unit piloted the use of this approach and supporting tools during 2012-13. That trial is continuing and will progress in 2013-14.

The first phase of that project was completed in January 2013. The department's risk management and internal audit branches have been involved in the development of the project to ensure that it is aligned with the department's risk management policy. Importantly, this project is now part of the department's regional service integration program as part of the funding of sector engagement projects. The findings of the current trial will be consolidated into a report which will go to my executive team later this year. I will be happy to provide further information when it becomes available.

Dr McFETRIDGE: So, that is on target for approval in December?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: As far as I am advised.

Dr McFETRIDGE: In the same reference, Auditor-General's Report, Part B, Volume 1, page 260, what work has currently been planned by the department in relation to individualised funding for Disability Care Australia? In the third dot point on page 260, it says:

the Department has considered the impacts individualised funding and Disability Care Australia will have and further work...

Can the minister tell us what the impacts are and how he is going to mitigate those impacts?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The answer to that question is that it is in relation to costing factors. We are in a competitive market so we will have to compete with all the other providers of disability services in the market with individualised funding. The department relies on a range of indicators, communications and workflows to ensure that the agreed services are provided to clients. We need a better system to ensure that we are able to cost the services that we provide more accurately, because that is what we will be seeking in reimbursement from the commonwealth through that program.

During this period we have had discussions with our clients to work out the best way to assess the service that they have been receiving because, as you can imagine, previously it has been block grant funding and, therefore, they have not paid much attention to what they are getting, and how many hours, etc., and we now have to do that. Because of the number of transactions involved, we have provided a sample test which was introduced in the previous financial year, and this involves obtaining time summaries from service providers and ensuring they agree with the charged hours and the provider invoice or activity statement.

Sampling is based on a random selection and weighted towards those providers holding a large proportion of the overall contract base. I can further advise that the sampling has been successful in terms of reinforcing with providers that these independent checks do take place and that all the evidence provided by suppliers has reinforced the department's view that the providers are properly organising their workers to attend and deliver the actual services.

Based on the findings for 2012-13, the department will consider other methods of sampling, including clients with high cost volume contracts. Individual contracts with families and carers provide opportunities to help target where the sampling of payments may take place. I can also advise that the continuing implementation of the department's request contract reconciliation system provides great opportunities to flag possible concerns that staff may have about service delivery, including client complaints.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I assume from that answer, minister, that you are continuing down the path of Disability SA being a service provider, unlike New South Wales.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That is correct, and that is the same answer I gave to you during estimates. We are a firm believer in that, and there are a number of reasons why we do that. As long as our costing is fair, it should not be a problem, but there are a number of cases where, if we were not there in the marketplace, there would be clients who would actually receive no services.

One reason is the lack of any other provider in the area and, secondly, we actually provide some competition, so our service maintains the standards of the other people we compete with as well. So, there are very good reasons why we are in the marketplace, and we will continue to do so under this government.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Can the minister tell the committee in what areas not provided by NGOs will Disability SA have to provide the services?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I will not provide an explicit example but, in a general sense, there are some regional areas that are not serviced by a number of providers, just because of a lack of staff and an ability to actually attract people to those areas. So, regional areas will probably be the worst hit, but also, for those types of services that require a high level of care, the actual cost involved is quite high and the service providers cannot provide them at those costs. The reality is, by having a supplier like Disability SA across the sector, we can do some cross-subsidies, and those services will be provided.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Thank you. We will go to page 261. Why did the Auditor-General require another review and specific costing models for grants, subsidies and client payment issues raised with the department? I think, in those dot points at the top of page 261, he is talking about the following matters needing improved controls.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: If I am reading your question correctly, member for Morphett, my understanding is that it deals with the issue of making sure that our provider panel is actually reviewed on a regular basis and making sure that they meet the criteria to be an approved disability service provider. As you are aware, we actually provide services from the list of pre-accredited—for want of a better word—provider panels. My understanding is that the concerns he has raised are to make sure that the service providers on that panel are reviewed regularly to make sure they meet the standards and the criteria required to be on the panel.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Thank you, minister. On that same page:

Audit recommended that the Department continue to improve procedures to ensure a consistent structured approach to recording, analysing and communicating client feedback.

I think you have just said something about that, but can you just give the committee details of what the department is considering when they say that:

the Department will consider methods of sampling transactions including clients with high cost/volume contracts for further testing.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: There are two aspects to that. As you can imagine, in the audit process, you do not actually check every transaction. The idea is you make a risk assessment. As I mentioned, the department will consider other methods to ensure that we look at those clients with high cost/volume contracts, because there is a high risk involved there and, secondly, we are going to increase the amount of feedback we get directly from the clients as well—they are the two things we are doing.

Dr McFETRIDGE: On that same reference, minister, the department states at dot point 3:

...the Department will investigate opportunities to enhance recording capabilities to help capture events or communications that increase the risk that services were not provided.

What is the incidence of services not being provided and have clients paid for services?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am advised that that may be the case in some situations, because we do rely on advice and information given by the clients. There may be situations where the client is not clear on exactly what service they are receiving or how it should be received. As I said, we are going to improve that area of client feedback, particularly in the area of non-generic service delivery, so that they have an appreciation of what they should be receiving and that they receive it.

Dr McFETRIDGE: So there is no real method? Perhaps you could tell the committee if there is a method in place where service providers are being audited and crosschecked—it may not be by intent, but it may have been overlooked, but some services may not be delivered that were supposed to be delivered—so that we are getting value for money and clients are getting the services they need.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: All I can add is that we are going to increase the level of sampling obviously to reduce the risk of that not occurring. Secondly, we going to improve the quality of the feedback we get from clients. There is not much more that I can add to that because of the tens of thousands, literally, of transactions. All you can do to ensure that people get what we are paying for on their behalf is sampling. Sampling is important because if a service provider knows there is a high chance they are going to be audited or checked there will be less likelihood that the service will not be provided; but on the point you have made, it may not be deliberate but purely inadvertent. A reasonable sample will also pick that up.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Thank you, minister. I would be very surprised if any of the providers that we have met in our time would be doing anything deliberately mischievous. I think they are the highest quality in South Australia; we are very lucky. I refer to page 263 in the same volume—Part B, Volume 1—concessions of CASIS. 'It is a matter of concern that the system is not yet operational', the Auditor-General states on page 263. Actual expenditure to 30 June 2013 was $3.71 million, and I think the initial cost was something like $600,000, and there is a further $780,000 required. Can you tell the committee where we are at, where we are going, how much more it is going to cost, and why it has cost so much?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Thank you for the question. Like yourself, it is one of those projects I have been keeping my eye on to make sure that it does deliver. I am confident that, once completed, the system will provide value for money for taxpayers; but not only that, it will also provide value for money for the people who receive concessions. You have to remember that we provide about 200,000 concessions a year, and one of our aims is to make sure that those people who are eligible receive the concession and those who are not do not.

I am advised that the figure you have stipulated is correct, and we anticipate that will be the last payment for this project. To the other part of the question, we have probably now reached at least 95 per cent of reconciliation of matching the data. We are confident that some of the figures being bandied around in a certain publication about the overpayments is incorrect, based on figures we have actually matched and those which are not matched.

The only unmatched ones, I am advised, are the ones that deal with energy retailers, and that is a bit complicated. We have a number of situations where people have been granted concession prior to getting approval from us. We are going through that process to match that data at the moment. In fact, the letters have recently gone out and we anticipate that that should be finalised as previously indicated to the house.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Are you trying to claw back any overpayments and would you like to put on the record how much has been overpaid?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: As previously advised to your colleague in this place on a number of occasions, no, I cannot give an exact figure. But given that we have matched the data for 95 per cent of our client base, even if the 5 per cent is completely wrong it is nowhere near that figure which has been bandied around. Rather than mislead you, once I get that figure and once we have finished that 5 per cent and we have run the system, I would be happy to advise the house of the actual figure. It is nowhere near the $50 million, $60 million, or $200 million figures which have been growing in a particular publication.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Did you say there are about 200,000 concessions this year. So 5 per cent would be 10,000 concessions that are out there to be questioned, to be recovered and investigated. What is the value of those?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: With 200,000 concessions you have to remember that some people might be eligible for multiple concessions; somebody might be eligible for a council concession, an energy concession, a water concession—a whole range of concessions. In fact there are fewer individuals than that 10 per cent. In some cases you are quite right—one person may only receive one concession, but in most of our examples that I am aware of it is unusual not to have multiple concessions. If somebody is on the pension there are a whole range of concessions that they are entitled to. I am still confident to advise the house that the figures being bandied about are not correct.

Dr McFETRIDGE: It would be nice to know what the correct figure is, but that is obviously unknown as yet.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: As soon as I know I will let you know.

Dr McFETRIDGE: What steps are being taken, then, to recover that from both the energy providers and in some cases individual clients who have perhaps mistakenly—I will not say fraudulently—claimed the concessions?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Certainly there is no evidence to suggest that there has been any fraudulence. Some of the problems that have arisen for example include someone being recorded as Bob Smith on one system and another retailer might record the person as Robert Smith. They are the same person and eligible for concessions. So we need to make sure that matches up. You may think that that person may not be eligible, but until we have made a match we do not know that.

What I can say is that we cannot write off any debt; we need the Treasurer's permission to do that. What we would do is make a judgment as to the cost involved in recovery. That is one thing. Secondly, in the case of energy retailers where they have provided a concession before approval, that is something which we need to look at, because they do not have the prior approval to provide the concession.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Just to finish up on this one for now, minister, last year's report mentioned the proposed operation of CASIS, and it has been mentioned in a number of audits. There have been ministers before you so I am not blaming you, but how did we get to this situation where it has gone from $600,000 to a bit over $4.5 million?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It is like most IT projects where you start off with an idea and as you get into it you think, 'We could add this little bit to it; we can do this as well; and the system can do that bit.' So the actual scope of the project has increased. I am not suggesting that there have not been some cost increases as well, but the scope of it has increased.

As the government introduces new concessions—rather than be a separate system—we have decided to bring those concessions in sometime. For example, I think the energy and heating concessions started since this project commenced, as did the medical helium one, for example. So there are a number of concessions, and the idea of this system is to make sure that if any concessions are introduced they can be tapped into the new system. It is not desirable that it has taken this long, I accept that, but I am confident that by developing it in the way that we have we can have a flexible system which will cope with any new concessions which may come on the scene by a future government.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I was not going to go there. Through you, Mr Chairman, page 264, same reference, the Auditor is there looking at payments to energy retailers that have been undertaken.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Say that again, sorry?

Dr McFETRIDGE: Page 264. We are looking at payments to energy retailers that have been withheld. Has the government withheld any payments to energy retailers and if so how much? What further action is the government considering against energy retailers to ensure that reconciliation files are provided within the correct time frame?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: As I mentioned in my earlier answer, one of the problems which we encountered is that some energy retailers have provided the client with a concession prior to getting approval from us as to the provider's concession. So, until we can match up that that person is eligible and verify that that person is eligible, those concessions are withheld until that occurs. All we are doing there is making sure that we are safeguarding taxpayers' money and that only people who are eligible get the concession. I think that sometimes retailers might be quite active in the marketplace in trying to get new clients, so we have to make sure that we do not hand out money to people who are not eligible.

Dr McFETRIDGE: So, you are not actually having to hold back hundreds of thousands of dollars from energy retailers?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am advised not. There are amounts we have withheld but not the sort of figures you have just suggested. I can get that for you.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Moving on to page 265 of the same volume, Client trust funds, 'The major issues arising from the audit included', and there are a number of dot points there. Has the department or the minister been able to address the issues arising from the audit and can you tell the committee exactly what you have done? Perhaps there is an example in dot point 1:

instances were identified where payments requested by NGOs were not authorised by Department staff. Audit recommended that all payments for client trusts should be appropriately authorised and arrangements between NGOs and client trusts clarified.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I thank the member for Morphett for his question. As the member has indicated, the Auditor-General has identified a number of areas where client trust payment processes, security and segregation of duties could be improved, and that is acknowledged. What I can advise is that, from 1 October 2013, payments from client trust accounts have been approved by the department's officers with the appropriate level of authority. Secondly, client trust accounts payable officers have been advised to only process forms approved by the department's officers, and that the client trust request form has been amended to facilitate this change and procedures have been updated accordingly. All affected non-government organisations have been advised of the changes in procedures.

Protecting access to client network drives and/or files: the department will review the client trust payment process to determine if increased security can be put in place. This includes ways to restrict access and file passwords to provide additional safeguards over and above the management controls and reconciliations currently in place. Segregating duties and updating policies: the department has advised that it has reviewed the segregation of duties and has updated procedures to address issues raised by the Auditor-General. The department also plans to restrict administrator access to only two senior officers. This will be done in conjunction with the upgrade of the client trust accounting system.

Dr McFETRIDGE: On that same issue, same page, same reference, dot point 5:

the Department will review access to EFT and client files to determine if additional security measures can be implemented.

I know you mentioned something about it there before, but who has been accessing the electronic fund transfers and client files and why has that been allowed to develop, because, as the Auditor said before, there are major issues arising from Audit?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am advised that it has not been accessed, but the Auditor-General raised it as an issue of potential risk and, therefore, we have acted to close that risk off.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to page 285, same reference. Note 2.10 states:

During 2012-13 the Department was required to transfer $14.3 million for concessions which is an administered item.

How much of the money transferred as part of these concession payments was to ineligible customers and paid to energy retailers? We are back with cases for a minute.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Is this another way of asking what we have actually paid people who may be ineligible for payments? If that is the case, my answer has to be the same as earlier. I think the question is the same but asked differently.

Dr McFETRIDGE: The same but different. Thank you, minister. I refer to Auditor-General's Report Part B, Volume 5, page 1572. It states:

sales of Trust properties were undertaken by Renewal SA without reference to a current market valuation, as required by the Trust's house and vacant land sales guidelines

What was the difference between the real value and the sales price of properties that were sold before the response was put in place? I note the response under the first dot point.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: As I said, sales processes are set based on independent market valuation. The Housing SA policy requires a valuation not to be less than 120 days old. Renewal SA is responsible for managing the sale of a number of properties on behalf of Housing SA. Of all the sales, six were identified by the Auditor-General where Renewal SA was found to have used market valuations which were greater than 120 days. In fact, the valuations used ranged from 122 days to 231 days.

In the case we have been in for the last financial year—a falling market—this means an older valuation is actually higher than the one set more recently and, therefore, results in higher sales being achieved. That said, that practice has ceased. I do not know the figure, but it is not a case of losing money.

Dr McFETRIDGE: So, minister, you can assure the committee that all transactions undertaken by Renewal SA now will be trying to obtain the best market price?

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I missed that comment. In relation to the question, yes, that practice has ceased. Given that the policy is to have valuations of six months and under, that is designed to get the best possible valuation to approximate the market value at the time. That is correct.

The CHAIR: That concludes the Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, Minister for Social Housing, Minister for Disabilities, Minister for Youth and Minister for Volunteers. I thank the minister, the shadow minister, the committee and also the minister's advisers. We now go to the Minister for Tourism and Minister for Recreation and Sport.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will be questioning the minister with respect to some tourism matters, particularly. I am referring to the Auditor-General's Annual Report to 30 June 2013, Part B: Agency Audit Reports, Volume 5 in particular, and firstly on the South Australian Visitor and Travel Centre which is highlighted—that is the most positive way I can describe it—in the report by the Auditor-General on the procurement and contract management of this centre.

Having found some fundamental errors in the process, I note that at page 1809, at paragraph 23(a), it appears that there is a continuation of the lease for the current visitor information premises. My question is: notwithstanding the now exposed tawdry circumstances surrounding the lack of completion even of forms for conflict of interest, can the minister confirm whether the government has renewed the lease on the current visitor information centre premises; if so, what is the duration and the total cost of the renewal lease? Paragraph 23(a) gives it for all the properties.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Sorry, what page was it?

Ms CHAPMAN: Page 1809 in the financials gives a summary of all the contractual commitments. I think the explanatory note talks about a number of different leases and warehouses, but I am asking specifically for the amount of the cost for the visitor information centre premises.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: The lease on the current visitor information centre on North Terrace goes through to 30 June next year.

Ms CHAPMAN: What is the annual rent for this financial year?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: The figure is around $50,000. I do not have the exact figure, but I am happy to bring that back for you.

Ms CHAPMAN: At this point, has the government provided any renewal of lease or introduced any new lease to any other premises? It has not extended the current lease. Has it secured any other premises to apply from 1 July?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: No, we have not at this stage.

Ms CHAPMAN: I refer to paragraph 5 on page 1804. This is employee benefits and expenses. My question is, is the South Australian Tourism Commission paying Mr Rik Morris; if so, how much is Mr Morris being paid?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: We are not paying for Rik Morris out of the South Australian Tourism Commission at the moment. He is on secondment with the Premier's office and would be paid out of that budget line.

Ms CHAPMAN: When is he due to return to your department?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: He is with the Premier's office until the election next March.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am still at page 1804, which relates to advertising and promotion. Today, minister, you actually told us in question time that the Barossa advertising campaign was some $6 million, and indeed you have a new Adelaide campaign of $6 million scheduled to be undertaken, to be screened next year. We have heard some of that information during the course of question time. As I understand it, the $6 million is to cover both advertising in South Australia and interstate. Can you give us a breakdown of the amount of money that is to be spent in the advertising campaign for interstate coverage?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: We are examining the Auditor-General's Report, so the facts of how much we would spend interstate and intrastate in an advertising campaign where the ad has not yet been made is irrelevant in these circumstances.

Ms CHAPMAN: For the purposes of your advertising campaign in this financial year, has there been any disclosure to the Auditor-General of your intention to bring forward moneys budgeted for the 2014-15 financial year to prepare for a budget for that campaign in this financial year? Have you had any correspondence with the Auditor-General about that proposal?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: No; Mr Chair, this has nothing to do with this Auditor-General's Report.

The CHAIR: No, I do not think it does either.

Ms CHAPMAN: Did you use any money for the Barossa campaign—

The CHAIR: Which page number are we up to?

Ms CHAPMAN: We are talking about the advertising and promotion campaign, which is—

The CHAIR: Right; on 1804, still?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes. This is the $6 million Barossa campaign of which the minister gave us details during question time, so I will not need to repeat those, but was any money spent from this financial year for that campaign?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: The Auditor-General's Report would be dealing with the previous year where the ad was around Kangaroo Island, and where the expenditure was around the same (around $6 million). It is not something that has been brought into question by the Auditor-General, so if you want to continue along these lines, probably the best place is in question time tomorrow.

Ms CHAPMAN: I might write him a letter. My question then is: of that campaign, there was some money spent in the 2012-13 year, I take it. Of what is disclosed here, some of that was spent on the Barossa campaign; is that correct?

Members interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: I have just asked a simple question: of all these expenses here—these millions of dollars—was any of this money spent on the $6 million Barossa campaign?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: There would have been some of the amount.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The CHAIR: You have to sit down now.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: What happens is: when you do an advertising campaign, you go out and you do some research. You find out what it is the market is looking for, and then you do some scoping work where you actually work out what it is that you want this ad to present to the market where you are taking it. So, some money gets spent on that sort of research work. Then, you get into giving an advertising company and a director the brief, and then you get into doing a storyboard about what the ad is going to look like.

You then go out and look for the actors that are going to be in the ad, then you have to look for locations for the shooting of the ad. You have to hire the cinematographers and the sound recorders; so, yes, there is some money expended there. Then, you have to pay for the production of the ad, and post-production expenses are quite high when you are going for a really high-quality ad like the Kangaroo Island ad or the Barossa ad.

Given that we launched the Barossa ad in June 2013, there would have been some money spent on the expenditure, but where the really big spend comes is in buying the TV slots across Australia to put that ad to air. So, part of the $6 million is to design, develop and produce the ad, and then the rest of the money is spent in buying the TV slots to actually put that ad to air and in cinemas as well.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you for that explanation. My question is and was: did you use any of the money from this current year's budget to fund that? I think you have explained that you prepared it with all of those steps up to June and that it may well be that there is some money spent then for the actual advertising and promotion of it in the advertising bite that was purchased in this financial year. Let me ask you the reverse: how much of the $6 million of the Barossa fund was spent in the 2012-13 year, which is in this lot?

The CHAIR: I must remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that there is no specific reference to what you are asking. I know you are using that general catchall of advertising and promotion, but there is no specific reference to the Barossa campaign.

Ms CHAPMAN: Exactly. It just says all of their campaigns—that's why I am asking for a breakdown.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: The Auditor-General's got no concern with it.

Ms CHAPMAN: So what? Wake up, Patrick, or go back to work across the road, or do something useful but don't interrupt.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Do you have any other thing to offer? Anything at all?

Ms CHAPMAN: Stop interrupting.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: How is your property on Kangaroo Island—

Ms CHAPMAN: Mr Chairman, just throw him out, will you?

The CHAIR: Order! I'm not going to throw anyone out. I will just ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to be specific to the Auditor-General's comments.

Ms CHAPMAN: Correct, and the minister has actually given a very detailed answer under paragraph 6, which is advertising and promotion of all the different things that are made up. He has told us today that he spent $6 million on the Barossa campaign, which is in each of those categories, and I am simply asking him: how much of that was spent on the Barossa campaign?

The CHAIR: And I am simply saying that the Auditor-General has not made any reference to it.

Ms CHAPMAN: He has mentioned the total amount spent by the government.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Point of order. Can I ask whether the member is disputing your ruling, because if she is, she should know enough about the standing orders to do it in the proper way.

The CHAIR: I will ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to move on.

Ms CHAPMAN: At paragraph 10, page 1805, you will see sponsorship revenue, minister. Can you explain the reduction that was received in the 2013 year?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: It is a fairly small reduction, and it could be around the timing of when sponsorship money comes in. It could be different one year to the next year.

Ms CHAPMAN: At paragraph 25 on page 1810 is the reference to each of the board members and what they are now receiving. Could you provide a breakdown of the amount paid to each of the board members? It is under paragraph 25—the particulars of the money are on the second page of that. The names are on one page and the numbers are on the next page, down the bottom.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Can you just ask the question again?

Ms CHAPMAN: On page 1810 is the reference to the amount in brackets for eight of the members there in 2013 and then one, so quite likely the one is the chairman or someone who is being paid more anyway. I would like to know how much he or she is being paid, and then all the remaining board members who are enumerated on the page before: I am assuming that they are all receiving a similar amount, but that may not be the case.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: The chair does get paid more than the other committee members, but all these figures are in the annual report.

Ms CHAPMAN: Similarly, sir, with respect, the amount that is paid within the bracket is in the annual report. What is here now is the bracket, and what I am asking for is the breakdown of how much the chairman is being paid. I see what the bracket is. It is somewhere between $20,000 and $29,999.

An honourable member interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, he's right. If you have not got it, I am happy for you to take it on notice, but I would like some answers.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I will bring you back the answer but I am sure it is on the record in the Government Gazette or somewhere.

Ms CHAPMAN: I have been through the government boards, minister, which identifies as at 30 June, and that identifies some payments, but I do not know whether that is the full payments that are within here or not, so that is what I am asking. The next matter is in relation to Mr David O'Loughlin, whom I note, at least in the public arena, is leaving the department as of March next year.

The CHAIR: Which page number is this?

Ms CHAPMAN: This is in relation to salaries.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Someone who is leaving next year; in a couple of years you could ask about that.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Yes, I think this is last year.

Ms CHAPMAN: I think there are two other senior executives who have left in the last two years, some of which is covered during the course of the period under audit, which is the 2013 year.

The CHAIR: Which page number is it please?

Ms CHAPMAN: I will just find it for you.

The CHAIR: It is not unbelievable; it is the correct protocol to reference the Auditor-General's—

Ms CHAPMAN: I understand that, and I think, Mr Chairman, you will agree that I have identified each paragraph. I gave you the paragraph for employee benefit expenses before and I will just find it again. 'Interpretation and analysis of the financial report, Highlights of the financial report' page 1788, for example, 'Employee benefit expenses'. How much paid out in the financial year that we are subject to, was monies paid to senior executive employees who have left in the subject year? I am only aware of a Mr Tommy Pavic and Mr Ian Darbyshire but they may not have been in that financial year. I am asking for any payments made out for these two.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: We had a few people resign. That is what happens in the workforce and we don't actually hold people as captives. People are allowed to move on to different places. They would have been paid the entitlements that they are entitled to.

Ms CHAPMAN: How much of the $10.4 million in the 2013 year was paid to any of these two or any other executives who have left the department in that financial year? It is pretty simple.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Their salary arrangements are private.

Ms CHAPMAN: I missed that, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIR: Can you repeat that please?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Their salary arrangements are private.

Ms CHAPMAN: You're joking. You're saying to this committee that the salary payments of executives of the department are private and that you are not going to disclose this to this committee?

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

Ms CHAPMAN: Are you serious, minister? Are you absolutely serious? The chief executives, all of these executives—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: You didn't ask about the chief executives; you asked about any staff.

The CHAIR: Order!

Ms CHAPMAN: Are you absolutely serious?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: You can yell at me all you like, I am serious.

Ms CHAPMAN: So you are not going to tell the committee how much you have paid out to these people in that financial year, if any?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I will stand up and answer the question when you sit down. That is how it works here. It is down, up, down, up.

Ms CHAPMAN: You're still sitting on your backside.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Because you didn't sit down. You should know the rules after eight years.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Remuneration of these employees is a private matter; however, the band of the salary that they are paid is reported.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is it in the report?

The CHAIR: Is reported.

Ms CHAPMAN: I see—where?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: It is published in the annual report. See, you haven't sat down again.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Why don't you ask a question about the Auditor-General's Report?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Yes, it's in the annual report.

The CHAIR: Deputy Leader of the Opposition, any more questions? We are now changing over to rec and sport. The member for MacKillop.

Mr WILLIAMS: I refer the minister to pages 1164 through to 1166 where the Auditor-General is quite scathing on the process of procurement of the State Aquatic Centre. Amongst other things, I note that the Auditor-General had this to say:

The Department sought and received Cabinet approval to fundamentally change the procurement and project delivery approach which transferred the risks from the PPP proponents to the State. The significance of this risk transfer was not adequately analysed in the Cabinet submissions.

Can the minister explain to the committee why the government proceeded with a PPP—which I have always understood was about protecting the taxpayer from risks—when, under the process they went through, they apparently transferred the risk back to the taxpayer?

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Why did the cabinet make a submission—is that what you are asking? Why did the cabinet make a submission?

Mr WILLIAMS: I'm asking this bloke.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: The procurement process was not run by the Office for Recreation and Sport: it was run by the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

Mr Williams: You are left with all the inherent problems.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Is that a supplementary?

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes. The Auditor-General goes on to say:

The Department's management of the remediation works and oversight of the operations of the [State Aquatic Centre] by the Office of Recreation and Sport, which is now a part of the Department, will be the focus of ongoing audit review.

So, the Office of Recreation and Sport is left to pick up the pieces and the problems caused by the sloppy procurement process by whoever was responsible.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I think you are looking towards future reviews. We are actually looking at this year's Auditor-General's Report, and the Office of Recreation and Sport came up with a clean bill of health in the Auditor-General's Report. I must say the aquatic centre, when it comes to delivering for the recreation and sport sector here in South Australia, is doing a great job. I will also add that it is doing a great job for the tourism sector, as we host national and international competitions down there.

The CHAIR: Hold on. Point of order?

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes, point of order, sir. I just heard you telling one of my colleagues earlier that this was about the Auditor-General's Report. The Auditor-General has been very, very scathing of this project.

The CHAIR: Tell me what your point of order is.

Mr WILLIAMS: The minister is not answering the question and he is not talking about what the Auditor-General talked about. He is talking about some other sort of outcome which has got nothing to do with what the Auditor-General said.

The CHAIR: There is no point of order. The minister has the call.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Just to continue my remarks, it is an outstanding facility.

Mr Williams: That has got nothing to do with the Auditor-General's Report.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: But neither has what might be in a future Auditor-General's Report. We are actually looking at this year's Auditor-General's Report.

Mr Williams: Absolutely; that's what I'm—

The CHAIR: Order! The minister has the call.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: The point is you were saying that, in future reports, they will be taking a close look at it.

Mr Williams: He has already taken a close look at it in this report—

The CHAIR: Order!

Mr Williams: —and it is now your responsibility.

The CHAIR: Order! Minister.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I would really appreciate it if you stopped the member for MacKillop's continual interruptions. I am being very polite and listening to his questions. I just think, if he could just afford the same courtesy to me on this side, that would be a good thing. What I am saying—

Mr Williams: If you could address the matters—

The CHAIR: Order! The minister is on his feet and has the call.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: —is the Auditor-General has given the Office for Recreation and Sport a clean bill of health.

Ms CHAPMAN: Minister, in this year's budget, your department has the management of the aquatic centre, and you have appointed the YMCA as the operators of that. Last year—that is, in the 2011-12 year—there was a very significant contribution to supplement the income. That was explained by the previous minister as being necessary to get it on track, get it started. This year's budget disclosed that $2.462 million was paid by your department towards the operating cost; that was less than the previous year, I might say.

If it is going so well, why is it necessary for your department to continue to subsidise the operational cost each year? If it is significantly improved and you are able to tell us that you have not made any provision for the 2013-14 year by way of any subsidy, I would be pleased to hear it. There is nothing illegal about these multimillion-dollar subsidies for the operational costs, by your department, but you are telling the committee that this is working very well, etc.

The CHAIR: Is this the same reference number, the Auditor-General reference number?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes; he is managing it.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: There is a subsidy paid by the government to the YMCA so that it can be accessible to all members of the community. If you did this on a purely commercial basis, the cost would be much higher, but we want people to be able to use the pool. As things settle down and management works on different things, we expect that subsidy will reduce.

Some of the benefits that come from this pool include health benefits to local people with diabetes, psychological benefits for people with problems, and there is a local Vietnam vets group that uses the pool for all sorts of reasons we do not necessarily associate with a swimming pool and people just doing laps for training or kids going down slides. The pool is a wonderful asset for South Australia, and a subsidy is paid so that all the community can benefit from it.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am simply asking how much it is. No-one is disputing, minister, that this is a magnificent piece of infrastructure—so is the Burnside swimming pool, but you do not subsidise that. I make the point, though, that here we are talking about the Aquatic Centre for which you have ongoing management, and you are subsidising it. I think there is also a half a million dollars a year that you contribute for maintenance. If it is going so well and you say notwithstanding that we still have to keep subsidising it, how much are you continuing to subsidise it for this year, if that is the case, and do you anticipate that will continue?

We ended up in court—people had not been paid, so people went broke—and all sorts of other things. The sad thing about that legacy is that there were good expectations of patronage for this facility and that within two years of its operation it was going to be a viable entity in its own right. That has not happened. I am not saying that it is a bad facility; I just make the point that we are still paying for it, as taxpayers, at the rate of millions of dollars a year.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I do not think there is anything in the Auditor-General's Report that says it was going to be a viable entity within two years.

Mr WILLIAMS: Minister, I draw your attention to page 1233 and specifically to the receipts into the Sport and Recreation Fund for the financial year 2012. It says here that the receipts were $2.042 million. Can you explain that number, given that the law stipulates that $3.5 million per year should be paid into that fund?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Is it the recreation and sport fund or the Sport and Recreation Fund?

Mr WILLIAMS: The Sport and Recreation Fund.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Thank you for clarifying that. The sum of $3.5 million is expended from that fund every year.

Mr WILLIAMS: No, it seems from that figure that only $2.042 million was paid into the fund from the gambling taxes. Under the law, $3.5 million per year should be paid in. It looks like the fund is being short-changed to the tune of almost $1.5 million in that financial year. Is there some explanation for that?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I can give an explanation for that. This one reflects the fact that the Office for Recreation and Sport was only in the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure for seven months of the 12-month period, having moved over from another department.

The CHAIR: I would like to thank the minister, the shadow minister, the committee and also the advisers. The committee has further considered the Auditor-General's Report 2012-13 and completed its examination of ministers on matters contained therein.