HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2007-11-21 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Auditor-General's Report

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT

In committee.

(Continued from 20 November 2007. Page 1761.)

The CHAIR: We will now deal with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Housing, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability, Minister Assisting the Premier in Cabinet Business and Public Sector Management.

Ms CHAPMAN: I refer to the Auditor-General's Report, Volume II, pages 1114 and 1115, relating to Housing Trust assets. At 30 June 2007, the value of trust rental properties was $5.9 billion, which was an increase from the previous year, given the value of property market increases, notwithstanding the reduction of 3,385 properties which were sold or disposed of during the financial year. What was the total amount recovered from the sale after sale expenses with respect to the properties, and how much of this was applied to the reduction of debt due to the commonwealth?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will provide a bit of background information. I will have to come back with the precise details, but I will frame how the answer will emerge. It is always the case (and it was also the case under the member's government) that homes have had to be sold to meet the shortfall between the revenues and expenses that are incurred by the Housing Trust. So, there has been this gap for well over a decade. The selling of assets to cover that shortfall has been an ongoing process, and I will supply the answer with respect to the value of that whole process.

Then there is the separate question, which arose when we announced our Affordable Homes program, which was directed at the long-term viability of the trust; that is, the acceleration of the sales process so as to retire the debt that is left outstanding by the commonwealth for the purposes of stabilising our stock numbers. That program, of course, has only begun its operation: it is a 10-year proposition of debt retirement. However, as part of that whole viability exercise, the first element was to also retire our highest value debt. The highest value debt was, in fact, debt owed by SACHA, which I think was in the order of $18 million. That was the first cab off the rank, if you like. The answers, when they come back in detail, need to be understood in that context.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will await the further answer. Thank you for those details: I look forward to receiving them. At Volume II, page 431, the Auditor-General reports that, in June 2007, the Treasurer approved additional appropriation totalling $35 million to meet cash shortfalls. Some $20.3 million came from 'the Governor's appropriation fund'. What is this fund, who is responsible for it, how much is in it, and what are the qualifications for access to it?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That is just the fund where the total budget is delivered. So, it amounts to, if you like, the funds that are held in reserve for all government activities. It is the ordinary set of arrangements that is used for the holding of those funds that have been voted by the parliament for the use of the government for the general purposes of the budget, which obviously includes a contingency amount, which from time to time is applied to additional expenditure needs, such as the ones identified by the Department for Families and Communities.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, is it the case that, as this is the general reserve of government moneys, if it is an amount outside of the budget, an application is made to the Treasurer, he then approves such extra funding, and it is then paid out from that account?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: When we identify additional activity levels, as we did within the Department for Families and Communities, that then involves a discussion between the minister, the Treasurer, our agency and the officers of Treasury. Once they are satisfied that the appropriate extra needs have been identified, that is the decision that is taken and that is the fund from which it is taken.

Ms CHAPMAN: The other $15 million of the shortfall is described by the Auditor. He said, with regard to the transfer of $15 million, 'excess appropriation from DFC administered items to DFC'. Which programs were reduced in their funding allocation to effect this transfer?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No funding programs were cut. That particular set of administered items is a concessions item, which has built up a certain amount of cash reserves over a period of time. So, there was money available for us to be able to allocate from that fund to be applied to those purposes. There were no cuts to any programs associated with that transfer.

Ms CHAPMAN: Do I understand it, then, that these were funds that had accumulated as a result of a budget allocation for the benefit of persons who are entitled to concessions; that fund had not been applied and, therefore, this was transferred? Is that the position?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think the rate of growth of the concessions budget exceeded the actual entitlement of the people to concessions. So, everyone who was entitled to a concession got their concession: it is just that the particular contingency, I suppose, that was set aside for the growth of that program was not needed, so it was able to be used and applied to the particular purposes that it was applied to.

Ms CHAPMAN: If there is $15 million in funding that had not been allocated for concessions, has there been a review by the department of this year's budget to bring that into line with the amount of concession funds that are allocated? That is, have they readjusted the budget for this year, or is there still this big surplus sitting in the concessions column?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, it has. The rate of growth of that program has been revised to be in line with what is now understood to be the expected rate of growth of the concession holders.

Ms CHAPMAN: In Volume II, page 433, the 2006-07 employee benefit expenses increased by $95 million. How much of this was for the increased employee benefits for the current workforce, and how much was for extra employees?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We will supply those answers to you, but the big change, you will notice in the figures, will be the transfer of employees that were formerly in the incorporated health units, which are the disability organisations and are now counted as part of the departmental employee expenses.

Ms CHAPMAN: This may have been published in the report that you tabled yesterday, minister, but at Volume II, page 433 is reference to the employee expenses again. How many full-time equivalent employees are there in the Department for Families and Communities as at 30 June 2007, and how many as at 30 June 2006?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will take that on notice and supply those figures.

Ms CHAPMAN: I refer now to Volume II, page 431, and this relates to accommodation for children in care. My question is: how much was budgeted for in the 2006-07 year for the accommodation costs and supervision costs of children in motels, apartments and temporary accommodation, and how much was spent?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We do have some figures around the Families SA budget and also the budget in relation to alternative care, but we will have to take that answer on notice to supply the part of the information that is being sought. However, it is worth pointing out that emergency care has been the growth area that has placed pressure on the budget. Some of those pressures have been unbudgeted by their very nature because of the rise in the number of children coming into care. But we will certainly set out the nature of the various components of the alternative care budget as against the actual outcome.

Ms CHAPMAN: I refer to Volume II, page 450, funding for non-government organisations. I thank the minister, because this week I received the 77-page document giving last year's list. So, I ask the minister this: $90.47 million was allocated to other non-government organisations in grants and subsidies. Will the minister identify to which organisations this money was paid, and how much to each organisation? I indicate I am happy to take it on notice.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think the question that led to the answer that we gave recently arose out of an estimates question which concerned two financial years. We can certainly do that again but it will be very similar—it will be a similar group of organisations, maybe plus or minus a few. If the member insists, we can do it again, but it is likely to be a very similar group. We will check this, but it may be that we have in fact provided you with the relevant list for 2006-07, because the questioning in estimates committee I think covered those two years. We will check that to make sure we are not doubling up.

Ms CHAPMAN: Also at Volume II, page 450, how much in grant or subsidy moneys was paid to SA Unions, and for what purpose?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It should be in the list that was provided to you. I think I am now told it does cover the 2006-07 financial year. So, if it is in that list, those details will be available.

Ms CHAPMAN: Could the minister then answer the second part of the question, which was: for what purpose?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am presently not aware that they are on that list. It is a very extensive list that was provided some time ago and it is simply a matter for you to check it. I am almost certain that the list also identified the purpose for which the grants were given, so that should be apparent from the material that was provided.

Ms CHAPMAN: Assuming for the moment that they are on the list, and we will identify the amount and purposes you have suggested, my question is: was the grant funding available by tender, or was there some other process of administration of that grant? And, if so, what was it?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think we are in a pretty hypothetical world now. I am not entirely certain they are on the list, but I can give you a general remark about the various grant programs. In relation to the nature of the various programs that are funded through grants, unless they are historical in nature such as with Minda Incorporated (with which we have had a relationship for decades), their one-off small grants tend to be grants recommended by independent boards, in some cases without a reference to me and in some cases I am obliged to approve them. That is the usual process. It is usually an expression of interest. People put forward propositions, those propositions are evaluated by an independent board and recommendations are made to me. I rarely, if ever, interfere with recommendations that are made.

Ms CHAPMAN: I refer to Volume II, page 452. Of the $17.750 million funds unexpended at 30 June 2007, which programs have not yet spent those funds or any portion thereof, and, if so, how much?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Because they are funding commitments all these moneys will be spent; it is just that they have not been spent in the relevant financial year. The range of explanations includes things such as the Home Community Care Program where the process of going backwards and forwards between the commonwealth and the state for the purpose of approvals means they often span a financial year so, while the funds are committed and people know they have been successful in achieving a grant under that program, we are not able to communicate with them because the process of approval with the commonwealth has meant it has become too late in the financial year for that to be arranged.

There is a whole range of other programs we might have established, such as the SRF fire safety program. We might have established an entitlement and the relevant SRF may not have been in a position to have implemented or lodged its claim for reimbursement of the installed fire safety equipment within the confines of the financial year; so the commitment remains, but it has to be carried forward. Approval was sought and obtained from Treasury to carry forward those commitments. That is why it is both unexpended but also a commitment.

Ms CHAPMAN: Volume II, page 584, relates to HomeStart. Of the loans and advances increased to $39 million in the year to 2007, $1.6 million was allocated under the new breakthrough loan facility. To how many home loans does this apply and what is the budget for this facility for the 2007-08 year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We do not have that information, but I can tell the honourable member what I have been told from my briefings. The breakthrough loan is a very successful product which is greatly sought after and which is certainly likely to become an important product for HomeStart Finance. Members will recall that when it was announced it did receive criticism in some quarters, but it was quickly followed by the Adelaide Bank choosing to offer it as a financial product. We are confident it is a quality product that will be taken up. I will provide details to the honourable member about the allocation of funding to it.

Ms CHAPMAN: I refer to Volume II, page 973, the SA Community Housing Authority. Debt retirement funding of $17.7 million was paid to the authority by the South Australian Housing Trust to retire debt as part of the Housing SA financial viability review. In answer to a previous question, the minister indicated there was an $80 million debt to them that he saw as a priority. Are there any funds still owing to this authority and, if so, how is it proposed they will be paid? Will they be paid by instalment and be paid off this year, or what is required?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I can provide a more detailed answer, but I think additional debt may be owed by SACHA to the government. At the point of the retirement of the higher value debt, it was more sensible to ensure that was first retired because that is having the greatest impact on the repayment obligations. The picture in total is that a large share of the debt is owed to the commonwealth and a relatively small share is owed by the South Australian Community Housing Authority; that is the picture of the debt, if you like.

We will be prioritising the highest value debt in terms of interest rate in the viability statement. The notion of paying down the commonwealth debt is a 10-year proposition and, obviously, it would not be financially prudent to pay off the lowest interest debt first. Ultimately, the idea is to pay down that debt such that there is a sustainable balance between our revenue and expenses.

Mrs REDMOND: I want to explore a couple of things appearing in Volume II. I am trying to get my head around the net result of the takeover of IDSC, ILC and Julia Farr. I refer to Volume II, page 457, the net revenues from the restructure. It talks about the boards being dissolved and the assets and liabilities being transferred. It shows an increase in net assets due to transfers into the department of $39.7 million.

My first question is: just what is included within the assets and liabilities? For instance, is the cost of the ongoing employment of staff who may have transferred, and so on, incorporated in that? I am trying to get my head around what this says, and I cannot find any specific heading other than that one to indicate what is the net outcome for the department in that takeover—whether it is negative, positive or revenue-neutral.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: This section is really about real assets. So it is about the property; it is not about the liabilities attached to the employees, which are found in the other section concerning employee salaries and expenses. It is things like buildings, offices, housing, all forms of real estate and, in the case of ILC, equipment and other property and chattels.

Mrs REDMOND: Is the minister able to inform me whether there has been some sort of statement somewhere regarding what will be the ultimate outcome in terms of whether, by the time you take into account not just the structural assets and so on but also the costs of transfer of employees, taking over those entities is cost neutral, negative or positive to the government?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is a status quo outcome in terms of the finances. It is really a change in all those assets and liabilities from one entity to another.

Mrs REDMOND: There is a reference on page 448 (within the department generally—I could not find it broken down for disability in particular) to the number of employees on various pay rates. From a quick look (and it is only the employees in the $100,000-plus band at the top of that page), it seems to me that we go from 68 in total for last year to 129 this year—which is almost double. There are also quite significant increases at the top end of that band as well as a very significant increase at the bottom end. I would like to know, first, what is the explanation for that level of increase, that almost doubling of people on over $100,000; and, secondly, specifically why there is such an increase in the $190,000 plus area.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The Auditor General's Report identifies 129 employees who are earning over $100,000—an increase of 61 from 2005-06. However, on further investigation DFC has discovered that there was an overstatement of the disclosure of the number of employees earning over $100,000. This resulted from an error in the calculation of the total remuneration received by some employees who transferred from the former IDSC. That occurred as a result of the grossing up of the value of the salary sacrifice amount available to former IDSC employees, and meant that for 16 employees their total remuneration, inclusive of superannuation, tipped them over $100,000.

Therefore, the correct number of employees with remuneration over $100,000 is 113, an increase of 45. The reason for that growth includes staff who are employed at high levels of the Administrative Officer range, and who are in the old State Pension Superannuation Scheme (which closed in 1985), falling into the first few salary bands. In addition, staff may act at higher levels during the course of the year, thus increasing their salaries for that year.

For the purposes of this reporting requirement, some staff earn over $100,000 due to access to a car for home to office travel by virtue of their position as a district/regional manager. Former IDSC staff had the ability to salary sacrifice as part of the ATO transitional grant arrangement and, as a consequence, the fringe benefit tax payable is included in the total remuneration.

Therefore, the revised growth of 45 staff earning over $100,000 can be summarised as follows:

(a) an increase of 31 staff comprising administrative staff who, through normal annual increments, have ticked over into the $100,000 range and above as well as staff who transferred from the former disability health units. Essentially, there has been no fundamental change in the number of higher paid employees except for counting ordinary enterprise bargaining arrangements; and

(b) an increase of 14 executives comprising:

four who can be attributed to transfers from former disability health units;

six executives who were employed in 2005-06 for part of the year, because DFC was completing its structure in the aftermath of the split from DHS. As these people were employed for part of the year and their salary was below $100,000 in that year, they were not included in the 2005-06 count;

one executive was transferred from DPC upon transfer of a function from that department to DFC;

one executive legal position has been created from the split of shared legal services with health. This is, effectively, a transfer of function;

one executive returned from an extensive period of leave without pay pursuant to arrangements agreed with the former DHS back in 2005-06; and

one new position in the child protection directorate.

So, fundamentally, there was really only one new position created during this year in that $100,000 range.

Mrs REDMOND: I was struggling to hear some of the minister's answers, but from what he said I take it that a fair proportion of those who have gone from the 27 we had in the $100,000-$110,000 range last year up to the 50 in that band this year simply slipped in because of an incremental increase in their salaries, or because they were previously miscounted but now have a car or superannuation or something that is counted and that puts them into that range. However, from what the minister said I also took it that there was an increase of four people at the executive level who came in because of the takeover of IDSC, ILC and Julie Farr. Is that the case?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is not quite like that. Of the 31 staff comprising the administrative staff some came over from the former disability health units. So it was staff already earning over $100,000 who came over from the disability health units. Of the increase of 14 executives, a further four are attributed to transfer from former disability health units. I have not as yet got the breakdown of those people who just ticked up because of enterprise bargaining agreements and those who were transferred from former disability health units, but it comprises part of that 31.

Mrs REDMOND: On page 449 there is a reference to grants, subsidies and client payments and recurrent funding to disability health services, which has significantly gone down. I take it from the explanation over the page that there is a significant saving because you are no longer funding ILC and IDSC, and that $55,000 will, in fact, disappear next year. Is it the case that, in fact, the $133 million from last year will disappear and just stay within the department from now on?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes; that is right. It is incorrect to call it a saving, but you are fundamentally correct. Next year the remaining amount will be the Julia Farr figure, which will be removed from those figures. You will also see a corresponding change in the grants program, which had to formally reflect how we paid them.


The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I move:

That the sitting of the house be extended beyond 1pm.

Motion carried.


The CHAIR: I call upon the Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Volunteers, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister Assisting in Early Childhood Development.

Mr PISONI: My questions relate to the Office of Consumer and Business Affairs. I refer to Volume I, pages 128 to 129—Audit findings and comments. In regard to the Residential Tenancies Fund, can the minister advise of instances of late payment of bonds paid into the funds by landlords and agents not investigated by the Commissioner? What were the discretion and delegating uncertainties in regard to the issuing of expiation notices under section 62 of the Residential Tenancies Act?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I assume that, in the first part of the question, you refer to the Residential Tenancies Tribunal. Is that right?

Mr PISONI: And the Retail Shop Leases Fund.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: The Commissioner has accepted the advice of the Auditor-General, and has changed the retail shop leases bonds to a four week rent—I think that a problem with that has been identified—rather than charge monthly. It relation to late payments of bonds investigated and infringement notices issues, OCBA has sought the advice of crown law. OCBA, like any prosecuting authority, has discretion at law about whether or not it issues an infringement notice. I am advised that, in 2006-07, 27 expiation notices, 163 written warnings to landlords and 38 verbal warnings were issued.

Mr PISONI: Are you saying that all late payments were investigated?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: What I am saying is that they were looked at and there was a decision made in some instances not to issue the notice as is their right. In other circumstances, expiation notices were issued or warning letters were sent to people who had breached that. It is about some degree of discretion. You would know that with the police, if you are pulled over for committing a traffic offence, you are not necessarily given an expiation notice. In some instances, the police use their discretion to issue a warning, and it is the same circumstance in relation to late lodgements of bonds to the Residential Tenancies Tribunal.

Mr PISONI: Where is the income from? As to expiation notices and financial statements, I refer to page 179 and the cash flow statement for the year ending 30 June 2007. It is not immediately apparent where it has come from, or does it go elsewhere then into the fund?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Expiations are dealt with via SAPOL.

Mr PISONI: I refer to Volume I, page 159 and Administered Programs, Program 2, Consumer and Business Affairs. In this program, reference is made to the Agents Indemnity Fund, Second-hand Vehicles Compensation Fund, the Co-operatives Liquidation Account and the Companies Liquidation Account. Can the minister advise whether these funds and accounts are reported on by the Auditor-General and, if so, whether details might be found in the report?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Only the Residential Tenancies Fund appears in this year's Auditor-General's Report. Are you asking whether they are subject to audit?

Mr PISONI: Yes.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Agents Indemnity Fund, Second-hand Vehicle Dealers Fund and Retail Shop Leases Fund are all subject to audit by the Auditor-General.

Mr PISONI: But they do not appear in the Auditor-General's Report, did you say?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Yes, that is correct. My understanding is that the Auditor-General does not audit everything every year.

Mr PISONI: So, this is a year when they have not been done?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Sorry. He does not include everything in his report.

Mr PISONI: What are the balances of these funds and accounts?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I have that in my folder here somewhere, but I am told that the Agents Indemnity Fund has a balance of $50.6 million and Second-hand Motor Vehicles Fund has a balance of $3.8 million.

Mr PISONI: I refer to Volume I, page 129 and purchasing cards. Audit communicated the view that the department does not ensure that all claims submitted for reimbursement for ministerial purchasing cards are supported by documentation as required by TI 13.12, including identification of the purpose of the expenditure. I am wondering if the minister might like to comment on that.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I am happy to do that. I also refer you to page 128, where the Auditor-General says:

In my opinion, the controls exercised by the Attorney-General's department in relation to the receipt, expenditure and investment of money, the acquisition and disposal of property and the incurring of liabilities are sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that the financial transactions of the Attorney-General's Department have been conducted properly and in accordance with law.

I also point out that the Attorney-General's Department does not have responsibility for the operation of my office, therefore I do not have a purchasing card issued by the Attorney-General's Department.

Mr PISONI: I refer to page 129 under the heading 'Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner'. The Auditor goes on to note:

...although the Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner had made progress in understanding the nature and extent of work required, compliance audits had not yet commenced.

Can you give us an update on whether they have since been commenced, and the progress?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: If you read the entirety of that section, you will see that that is in relation to the gambling operations of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner. Those questions should be directed to my colleague the Minister for Gambling.

Mr PISONI: Is it the case that that has no relationship whatsoever with the Liquor Licensing Act or liquor licensing responsibilities?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: My understanding is that there is no reference in here to liquor licensing. It is my understanding that that relates to gambling operations.

Mr PENGILLY: I have a few questions on the activities of the Local Government Finance Authority. I preface my questions by saying that I am very comfortable with where this authority is. It does an extremely good job and it acts in the best interests of the local government sector of the economy. On page 661, above the heading 'Qualified Auditor's Opinion' the following is stated:

Profit before Income Tax Equivalents by $250,000

Income Tax Equivalent Expense by $75,000

Net Profit after Income Tax Equivalents by $175,000

I do not know whether this is part of the audit process, but I am curious as to why those figures have been bared back. Can you give me any more explanation?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: The Auditor-General provided a qualified audit opinion in relation to those issues. I stress that it is not about the payment of the grant. Indeed, the Local Government Finance Authority Act empowers the authority to apply surplus funds for the benefit of local government, as the member would know.

The issue, as the Auditor sees it, is the opinion that the grant should have been reflected as an expense item in the income statement and not as a distribution from retained profits in the statement of changes in equity. By not including it in the income statement, expenses are understated, which impacts by underestimating profit before income tax equivalents, income tax equivalent expenses and net profit after tax equivalents—if the member can follow all of that. Nevertheless, I have asked the Office for State/Local Government Relations to raise these issues with the LGA and the LGFA to determine how such payments would be treated in the future to satisfy the Auditor-General's opinion.

Mr PENGILLY: Given the issues raised in the press in the last couple of days about credit cards within the public sector, is the minister able to give me any advice on how many credit cards operate within the Office for State/Local Government Relations, to what extent they are used, whether there are any outstanding liabilities and any further information on that?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: My understanding is that only three credit cards are issued in the Office for State/Local Government Relations.

Mr PENGILLY: Obviously, the executive officer would be one.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: And the two directors.

Mr PENGILLY: There are no issues at all surrounding those credit cards?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: All are operated in conjunction with PIRSA policy.

Mr PENGILLY: Operating lease commitments in this document total $547,000—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: What page is the member referring to?

Mr PENGILLY: That is a jolly good question. It is between pages 660 and 667. Is the minister able to provide a breakdown of the components on motor vehicle leases and non-cancellable photocopier leases? To what extent have moneys been expended on those items?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Is the member relating this to the LGFA?

Mr PENGILLY: No, to the local government office.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Where is that? It is not on those pages; that is all LGFA.

Mr PENGILLY: Pages 660 to 667 are, indeed, all LGFA, but I just wanted to expand further into the Office for State/Local Government Relations. I am sorry, I cannot give the minister the page number (I am a bit like her; I could not find it). Can the minister give me any information about vehicle leases, and so on?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: That information could be provided in relation to the overall PIRSA budget process, but today we are looking at the Auditor-General's Report.

Mr PENGILLY: That is the issue. It is difficult to find these things, because they are all buried away in PIRSA, and trying to extrapolate them down to a particular office—in this case, a small office such as the local government office—is somewhat difficult.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: If the member likes, I will take that question on notice, or he could lodge a question on notice and deal with it in that way. Is this the member's first Auditor-General's Report questioning?

Mr PENGILLY: Absolutely. You have to be gentle on me, minister!

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I am being gentle. I am trying to be as kind as I possibly can and give the member the best direction—

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I was always kind to you, Mark, was I not? You should not laugh. This is not budget estimates, it is the Auditor-General's Report, and the member needs to be looking at what is in the report. That is the basis of his questions.

Mr PENGILLY: As I said, one of the issues is that things get buried away in PIRSA and it is hard to pull them out with respect to smaller offices, particularly. It is similar to the southern suburbs, which is about a two-liner, and one really cannot glean anything from it.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: We are not burying anything. As I said, we are happy to take the question on notice and obtain that information.

Mr PENGILLY: I am not suggesting that the minister is trying to bury it away.

Mr PISONI: I refer to page 159, program 12, Office for Volunteers, provision of services. There is a line at the end of that paragraph about initiating programs for the support and promotion of volunteering. Can the minister give some examples of those programs and also outline what input the Office for Volunteers had in drawing up the agreement of understanding with SA Unions?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Bless you, David. You are just so flogging a dead horse.

An honourable member interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: And we do not need your rudeness in the chamber. We are getting along perfectly well, thank you, asking and answering questions. We do not need your interjections and bringing that undignified tone to the chamber, quite frankly.

As I think I have explained previously, the agreement between Volunteering SA (which is an independent non-government organisation) and SA Unions was negotiated between those two agencies. I had the pleasure of going along and seeing the formalisation of that, but we were not involved in developing that agreement. However, I was very pleased at the fact that SA Unions was prepared to acknowledge the importance of the volunteer sector in our community.

As I am sure you would know, historically there has probably been some friction between some union organisations and volunteers and friction around volunteers taking overpaid work. But this was a monumental shift, I think, in understanding how our community operates. The simple fact of the matter is our unions here in South Australia rely very heavily on the participation of volunteers to keep them operational in the workplace. It was a recognition of that and it was a statement of respect. So I think that was a very good initiative.

So, if the question was around initiating programs that support and promote volunteering, thinking that that is what we did, the member is wrong. But there is a whole range of terrific programs and initiatives that we have under way in the volunteer sector and I am happy to outline those. One of them was as a result of the fires in Port Lincoln, and we now have developed an emergency response system. It was a collaboration between the Department of Families and Communities, which provided the funding, and the Office for Volunteers.

So we now have a comprehensive response system so that we can have a volunteer response to emergencies throughout South Australia when they occur. It was trialled in the Riverland when they had those dreadful storms earlier in the year. They have ironed out some hiccups with the system and expanded it. So that was one really good initiative—it makes sure that volunteers from all walks of life, when they go into a disaster area, go where they are needed, are safe, and people know where they are. That is one initiative.

Another initiative has provided funds for non-government organisations to access some grants to develop promotional material in partnership with students from Flinders University. This has been taken up very readily by volunteer organisations: they saw it as an excellent initiative. We have engaged the students at the screen studies section of Flinders University and they have developed training DVDs for organisations, promotional material, and information they can take out when recruiting volunteers—just really good messages about the organisations themselves which those organisations would not be able to pay for.

Another initiative underway is the provision of seed funding for local councils so they can establish volunteer resource centres throughout South Australia. That is likely to result in an additional 13 volunteer resource centres being established across South Australia. The first one we did under this model was with the Town of Gawler, as a result of an initiative of the member for Light when he was mayor of Gawler council. He said to the state government, 'You have signed a partnership with volunteers across South Australia.'

I think this was a first in Australia where a government had negotiated an agreement with the volunteer sector, which had 29 peak organisations sign onto it. That was about not only shared principles and values but also a range of commitments to action by both the state government and the volunteer sector and those issues towards which we would work collaboratively.

The member for Light, when mayor of Gawler, said, 'The Town of Gawler is heavily reliant on its volunteers. We would like to do a similar thing. Can you help us work through that?' We provided that assistance to the Town of Gawler and, again, it was my privilege in May this year to attend a function in order to sign the Gawler Charter with the Mayor of Gawler (Brian Sambell).

In addition, we provided a small amount of seed funding to establish its volunteer resource centre. That $10,000 was a small amount of money, but we were able to provide an additional small grant of $5,000 recently when we had community cabinet in Gawler; which means the council is getting the same amount of money as other councils that have put up their hand and said that they would like to establish these resource centres.

They are just a few but there are many more. There are free police checks for those who work with vulnerable people, free training for volunteers across South Australia and transport tickets for volunteers who work in our public hospitals. There is a range of wonderful initiatives but, alas, we were not involved in the signing of the memorandum of understanding between Volunteering SA (an independent organisation) and SA unions.

Ms CHAPMAN: I now ask questions of the minister in her capacity as Minister for the Status of Women. I thank the minister for providing me yesterday with a response to a question I asked during estimates. One of the targets that the government set was for the overall representation of women on state government boards and committees to rise from 32 per cent (as at 1 December 2001) to 43 per cent; and that that would continue. I am referring to Strategic Plan target 5.1.

To the minister's credit, she has increased the percentage of women on government boards and committees in her department, as have a number of her colleagues, but she advises that the way in which to deal with the auditing to ensure that this occurs is to do three things. First, the minister is providing vacancy alerts, which are sent to ministers identifying upcoming board vacancies so that they know what is coming up, secondly, there is the provision of information about suitable women candidates from the Premier's Women's Directory; and, thirdly, specific searches for board candidates for both government and non-government boards are conducted by the Office for Women, particularly in areas where there is an existing skill gap. That is excellent, minister.

I notice in the list (which has been provided to me) that as at 1 July 2007 minister Weatherill's percentage has gone down, minister Gago's percentage of women on boards and committees has gone down, minister Caica's has gone down, minister Maywald's has gone down, the Attorney-General's has gone down, minister Holloway's has gone down, and minister Zollo's has gone down.

Minister, in scrutinising this important issue, which is one of the major targets for the representation of women on boards and committees, what are you doing about the fact that in eight months eight of your colleagues have reduced the percentage of women on their boards and committees?

The CHAIR: Member for Bragg, your question did not include a report reference number. It did not sound to me like a question for this session.

Ms Chapman: Protect her if you like.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: It was a bit of grandstanding—

Ms Chapman: You don't have to answer it.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I am happy to answer questions—

The CHAIR: Order! The question is not in order.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: —but you come in here and you are rude and offensive and you grandstand.

Ms Chapman: Don't answer it: I will tell the press you don't want to answer it.

The CHAIR: Order! The minister is not required to answer that question. That concludes the examination of the Auditor-General's Report.

[Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00]

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT