HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-11-09 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Auditor-General's Report

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT

In committee.

(Continued from 8 November 2011.)

The CHAIR: We will now proceed to examination of the Auditor-General's Report in relation to the Treasurer, Minister for Workers' Rehabilitation, Minister for Defence Industries and Minister for Veterans' Affairs for a period of 30 minutes. I remind members that the committee is in its normal session, so any questions have to be asked by members on their feet, and all questions must be directly referenced to the Auditor-General's Report. I also remind members that it is an examination of the Auditor-General's Report, not general question time or estimates. The member for Davenport, do you have any questions?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Page 20 of the report deals with the Royal Adelaide Hospital and mentions that the budget details of the new RAH project are yet to be finalised. The minister has previously advised the house that the average payment will be $397 million. Can he update the house on exactly what that means in relation to the budget impacts being finalised?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: There is not much to add other than what has already been advised to the house. The $397 million is an average over the life of the project. The project does not actually come into the forward estimates until next year's budget, the 2015-16 financial year, so next year's budget will reflect the service payments for the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. They will be included in that. That 2015-16 will be for a half year's worth of service payments. Then, as we move into those financial years as the budget moves closer to the completion of the project when the government takes over control of the precinct, as we move closer to that date, those figures will be reflected in the budget.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: On the same page and same line, can you walk me through what it means by saying, 'DTF has advised that this payment', the $397 million average payment, 'will need to be recognised when the new hospital begins operating', and I understand that bit, 'noting that only part of this amount will be expensed as it includes cash payments associated with the lease liability'? Of the $397 million, how much of it, in actual fact, is going to be expensed and how much of it is not going to be expensed?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Of the $397 million, part of it is capital repayment, part of it is for the operating expenses of the hospital. The exact breakdown of those figures I do not have with me but I am quite happy to bring that back to the house.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: On page 18 of Part C, the report raises the issue of FTE reductions. The report says, 'The government indicated an initial target of 1,011 FTE reductions for 2010-11.' Then, on page 19, it reports that as at 30 June 2011, 381.1 FTE reductions were achieved. Can the Treasurer update us on the shortfall in that saving requirement, because that appears to be around 600 to 700 short as of 30 June 2010, according to those two figures.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I guess that I have a couple of things to say with regard to TVSPs and the reductions in FTEs. First, we have been quite successful in reducing the number of FTEs we have without having to offer voluntary separation packages. We have been able to reduce the number of positions simply by not refilling positions. Positions have become vacant just through natural attrition. We have actually put out less. We have actually not had to spend as much in TVSPs as we thought. There have been fewer TVSPs than we thought would be necessary to achieve the reductions.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: You have managed a cash saving there, have you?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, well, we have not had to spend as much, that is right, on TVSPs than we thought necessary in the budget. With regard to the total number of FTEs in the public sector and the cap, as the Auditor-General explains in the next paragraph, the total cap of FTEs for 30 June 2011 is 78,596, and the total FTEs, I think, of all agencies is 778,808; so, we are well under the FTE cap.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: On page 19 of that same part the second line talks about excluding executive reductions. If the Treasurer can bring back to the house how many executive reductions per agency have been achieved during that period, I would appreciate that.

In relation to Part C, page 18, the Auditor-General raises the issue of the government's commitment to the 'no forced redundancy' policy being abolished as at 2014. Can the Treasurer confirm that is still the government's policy, and, in confirming it, can he update the house on the level of severance pay that is likely to be established as a result? You said to the house previously that you were going away to negotiate that. I am just wondering whether you can update us on the level of severance?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I do not recall saying anything about severance pay. What I envisage happening as of 2014 is that people who have been redeployees for 12 months or longer would be able to be separated. The current award provides for such separation and separation payments; and the payments that they would get would be in accordance with the current award provisions, no more and no less.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: But it is still your policy to have the—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, absolutely.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I turn to the issue of long service leave for public servants, one of the savings measures, and Part C, page 28 raises that. The government announced that it was establishing a working group to look at a new incentive as a compensation measure, I guess is a way of putting it, for the loss of the long service leave. Can the Treasurer confirm that it is still the intention of the government to proceed with the long service leave cuts as proposed in the budget, and can he update the committee on what the nature of the incentives are that are being negotiated and what is the likely cost impact?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The abolition of the extra long service leave that was available to public sector workers has come into effect. It came into effect as at 1 July of this year, so it has already happened. The working group has been meeting with staff from my office and representatives from the union to discuss retention issues within the public sector and to investigate some sort of retention bonus within the public sector. Those discussions are continuing and should we arrive at some sort of retention bonus then, yes, that would have a budget impact, and it would depend on the quantum of that retention bonus.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Part A, page 28, talks about the Oracle project. I am wondering how Treasury missed the fact that the cabinet submission only costed five years of a 15-year contract and did not include the costs for the last 10 years of the contract, meaning that there was a touch under an $11 million error in the cabinet submission. I am wondering: has the Treasurer reviewed that and how did Treasury miss that, given that it is the central agency with regard to costings?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Normally, when any recurrent item is costed by Treasury before something goes to cabinet it is costed over the forward estimates, so the current financial year plus the forward estimates period, which makes five years. Beyond that forward estimates period, in a payment like this where it is recurrent costs, it is built into those forward projections of the budget. So, it is costed but does not appear in the budget papers. The only exception to that would be if it is expected that the costs of the project are going to ramp up beyond the forward estimates period. My advice is that was not the case. From reading the Auditor-General's Report, it has not been the case that there has been any significant lift or increase in the cost of the project beyond the forward estimates period; the costs remain fairly stable.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Page 28 of the Auditor-General's Report states that, the cabinet submission only included costs for a five-year contract and the two five-year extensions were not costed at all. I am wondering why the agency put in a submission which did not indicate the full cost of the contract. Surely, if they sign a contract they have an obligation to put the full cost of the contract to cabinet. Clearly, at this stage, they have not. The Auditor-General raises the issue that there is a $10.8 million error. So, is the Auditor-General right or is your agency submission right?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Beyond the initial five years they are options, and because they are options then health would have to return to cabinet to exercise those options to renew the contract.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So when the Auditor-General says on page 28, 'Consistent with the SPB approval the 15-year whole-of-life costs should have been included in the cabinet submission,' is he correct?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Ideally, yes, the Auditor-General is correct. That is something that should have been there, but it does not have any impact on the forward estimates because the initial five years of the contract were all contained within the forward estimates. If health took up the option to renew the contract then beyond the forward estimates would be adjusted and another cabinet submission would have to be brought back.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Treasurer, on the same line, isn't there a problem with that philosophy because if the options included an uplift in charges then your cabinet, through an incorrect cabinet submission supplied to you, could have locked a future cabinet into an unknown cost because there is nothing in the submission? That is the point the Auditor makes, so the reality is that even though it is an optional contract for audit, you have already accepted that the Auditor-General is right in his comment. Surely, now, you have to go back and change your procedure because, after one five-year contract, if there was something in the contract (an uplifting of costs to government) you are actually locking in a cost that cabinet is unaware of. That is the issue. So, surely you have to go through and change your process?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The Minister for Health would have to come back to cabinet with a new cabinet submission reflecting the increased costs. Then the cabinet, based upon them, would use the option to renew the contract and cabinet would make a decision based upon the costs contained in that—the new costs that were based on the extension of the contract. So cabinet would have all the information available to it, including if there was an increase in costs, which does not appear to be the case here. Cabinet would be able to make a decision based upon the information provided to it for the extension of the contract.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Page 65 in Part C mentions 147 FTE capped contingency. Can you explain to me whether that is a capped contingency just for health, or is it for the whole of government?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Where is it, on page 65, did you say?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Haven't you read it yet? It is on the third-to-last line. I will just tell the head of Treasury where it is:

A central contingency provision of 147 FTEs was established for 2010-11 (as part of the 2011-12 Budget deliberations)...

Is that for the whole of government or is that just for health? How is that costed in the budget in the contingency line, and at what cost per FTE?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, it is for health. The cost per FTE is approximately $75,000 per year.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Whole of government?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No, just for health.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Part C, page 57, the new RAH, towards the bottom of the page it states:

DTF currently estimates the value of the lease liability at $2.8 billion. This will add substantially to net debt from 2015-16. This liability is in addition to the estimate of $244.7 million of state investing expenditure...

Can you confirm that the total RAH lease liability will be over $3 billion (because you will need to add those two figures together), and when does the state pay this $244.7 million?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The $2.8 billion is the complete figure for the cost of the hospital. The $244.7 million is the state spend and is, for example, for things like new medical equipment that has to be purchased for the hospital. That is one example of the sorts of things we are talking about.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Volume 5, page 1572, talks about supplies and IT supplies. When did the Treasurer first become aware that his agency was implicated in having officers receiving kickbacks for cartridge purchases?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The short answer is that it is true, and I am aware, that there are records of Treasury having bought cartridges from the companies that have a history interstate of providing kickbacks. That is the information we have at the moment, and investigations are ongoing.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: When did you become aware? That was the question.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I will find the exact date, but it was relatively recently.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Part C, page 8, talks about the lotteries sale. Can you confirm whether legislation needs to be brought to the parliament to proceed with the government's policy of selling a licence, or whether that is strictly a cabinet-only decision?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: My advice at the moment is no, but they are currently looking at that. Certainly it is the case at the moment that it is not necessary to have legislation brought before the parliament.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Part C, page 13, lists everyone's favourite, the contingencies line. Can you advise what is the likely payment to Marathon as a result of the government's decision, and will it be coming out of one of those contingency lines?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: There is certainly no contingency for it, so if there were a payment to Marathon it would have to have an impact on the budget bottom line. I understand that some discussions with the Minister for Mineral Resources Development are being considered at the moment, but no decision as yet has been taken. The government is firmly of the view that strictly under law no compensation is payable.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: In part C, page 5, the revenues in the year 2014-15, according to the budget, kick up significantly to construct this $655 million projected surplus. The Auditor-General's Report refers to a large slab of revenues. Can you give me a breakdown of that revenue prediction, how much is GST (because the Auditor-General mentioned is it is a prediction on return to normal GST), and how much is from the new health agreement, and the breakdown of other components of that revenue item?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I am advised that all that information is available for the member for Davenport in the budget. The increase in revenue, as I understand it, is largely predicated upon South Australia having been adversely impacted by HFE because of the infrastructure payments we have been receiving from the commonwealth. So, we have lost GST grants to our state as those have equalised out. As time passes, we expect our share of GST will return. So, largely, they will be GST payments, I expect, but there is a full breakdown across the forward estimates in the budget papers.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Treasurer, if I could move onto Defence SA issues. I note that audit observes some minor issues in regard board appointments and the management of leave accounts. I might leave them for the moment because I recognise they are fairly minor and start instead on yesterday's announcement that Mr Fletcher would be heading up a new urban planning task force. Have separate remuneration and funding arrangements been made to support that position, or will that be funded out of Defence SA's budget and office space? If Mr Fletcher is absent to take on this new role will different arrangements be made within Defence SA for that?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Mr Fletcher is not receiving extra remuneration for undertaking those extra responsibilities. He is doing it as part of his current responsibilities and any support for those responsibilities will come out of the Department of Premier and Cabinet.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Moving to page 245 of audit's report and going over the remuneration levels, could you clarify those positions above $200,000; that is, what are the names of those positions and who is filling those positions? I note that there is one for $530,000 to $540,000, which I assume is Mr Fletcher. Curiously, I see that it was not shown last year as a position. I presume that is because it tipped over the $500,000. In terms of the top four there, could you tell us what the title of those positions are and who is filling them at the moment?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The titles are: General Manager of Business Development, General Manager of Project Delivery, and the fourth one we would have to take on notice; we will get back to you.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Looking at 'grants and subsidies' I notice on page 232 the figure of $1.909 million. Could the minister clarify to whom those grants are going and in particular how much of it is going to Defence Teeming Centre (DTC) projects?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: There is a breakdown at Note No. 8 on page 247. The Defence Teaming Centre received $475,000.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I have one final question then. I note on page 229, in regard to the Common User Facility, that there is an increase of $2 million reflecting increased operational costs. How is the business case standing up against operational costs now at the Common User Facility? Is it profitable? Is it running at an annual operating loss? What is the forward projection for the Common User Facility in terms of needing ongoing financial support from the government?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The reason for the increase in the operating costs is that it only started operations last financial year. That increase in operating costs reflects the fact that it only started operating last financial year. It is making an operating loss. Setting aside the initial capital costs of the project, we are closing the gap as we increase third party use of the Common User Facility. We expect to have that gap closed within the next three to five years, and we are also speaking to the commonwealth.

The CHAIR: Thank you, Treasurer and members opposite. I would now like to proceed to the examination of the Auditor-General's Report in relation to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation; the Minister for Water and the River Murray; and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation for 30 minutes.

I remind members that the committee is in its normal session, so any questions have to be asked by members on their feet and all questions must be directly referenced to the Auditor-General's Report. I remind members that it is an examination of the Auditor-General's Report, not estimates, the budget process or question time.

Mr WILLIAMS: Minister, I will start off with the Auditor-General's Report Part B, Volume 4, SA Water Corporation, on page 1,339. With regard to the North South Interconnection System Project (NSISP), the Auditor-General's Report has made a number of comments, including the following:

inadequate documentation to support waivers of competitive tender processes and assessment of proposals. Examples were noted where waivers were approved at the same time services were provided and where there was insufficient documentation supporting the reasons a public tender should be waived.

Can you comment on that? The explanation the Auditor-General provides further down the page says that 'SA Water provided a response which indicated that:' and it goes on with some supposed explanations. I find them rather insufficient, to be quite honest, and I was hoping you might be able to explain to the committee exactly what has been going on in SA Water with regard to the north-south interconnector.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I thank the honourable member for his question. I am not surprised, as I thought this might be the first cab off the rank, but it is something that, to a very great extent, I as minister and the SA Water board are not necessarily very pleased about with respect to the audit report. You may make your own views—as you will anyway—about whether or not the work within the Auditor-General's Report sufficiently explains it or whether SA Water has sufficiently explained it.

The concerns of the Auditor-General were raised with SA Water in April 2011 and with SA Water's audit committee in June 2011, and SA Water, as you identified, provided an initial response. That included amongst other things the significant and far-reaching nature of the concerns raised by stakeholders on the NISP and, of course, I acknowledge the presence of the member for Bragg, who played a very big role certainly in heightening the awareness of stakeholders with respect to the very important north-south interconnector project.

To cut a long story short for the member for MacKillop, there were causes of the breakdowns of internal controls within SA Water. Part of that, of course, is a project that commenced with (and has continued to grapple with) tight project time frames, but also I acknowledge the serious nature of the concerns raised by the Auditor-General and the fact that the audit committee was activated as soon as it was alerted to it by the Auditor-General.

The audit committee required further explanation from management and also commissioned an internal audit review of procurement in general—and that is scheduled to be tabled, I am told, at the December 2011 audit committee meeting—and the procurement on the NISP in particular.

The findings of the internal audit review noted that several procurement controls did not appear to be operating effectively and in particular requirements to comply with the organisation-wide procurement templates, to prepare and approve a procurement plan and offer a valuation plan, to obtain approval in accordance with SA Water's delegations of financial and procurement authority and to obtain approval for contract execution and contract variations prior to work commencing.

SA Water, of course, acknowledged the findings of the Auditor-General's Report and has developed and continues to develop and implement a range of strategies to address the findings of the Auditor-General's Report and its own internal audit findings. I could go through further actions that have been taken on this particular matter and particular steps that have been taken by SA Water to do this, and I am happy to go through that if another question is asked, if indeed the member for MacKillop wants me to.

I would summarise it by saying that SA Water and I, as minister, acknowledge that in this instance the standard of procurement practices has been lower than the high standard SA Water expects and the standard that I expect as the minister responsible for SA Water and, of course, those high standards have been demonstrated in other large projects including, for example, the Adelaide desalination plant.

Further, during the reviews of the project by internal audit, SA Water did not identify any evidence that would indicate—and I think this is a very important point—that those involved with this particular procurement process had any malicious intention to deceive, to subvert, to frustrate or breach policy.

I finish off by saying that I think from SA Water's perspective it has been handled well upon the notification of the Auditor-General. Of course we accept what the Auditor-General has said, and SA Water will continue to deal with that to make sure that circumstances like this do not happen again. I am advised that the project continues to be on time and under budget.

Mr WILLIAMS: I want to ask some more questions on the same matter, because the Auditor-General points out on page 1340 that he has commented on SA Water's procurement controls in his previous annual reports, and it seems that the same mistakes are still being made. He goes on to say:

These issues have again been evident in the audit review of the NSISP [the same project] procurement during 2010-11.

I have two questions. On the previous page, 1339, one of the dot points says:

reasons for significant increases and extensions in contract values. Examples were noted where contracts had increased as much as six to ten times the original contract amount.

When I read that, I found that rather startling. Minister, can you tell the committee how much money we are talking about? Is this a $100 contract, a $10,000 contract, or is it a half a million dollar contract? What contracts are involved; and what was the dollar amount where contracts have increased as much as six to ten times the original contract amount; and what impact has this had on the total budget of this project, which I think is some $403 million?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I thank the honourable member for his question and I note the section to which he refers and I have that here. We are talking about components within the funding envelope that related to consultancy work. Also, the time frames needed to complete the project, and the incorporation into the project of a higher level of consultation than what might have been envisaged to start off with, in respect to engaging the community.

You know yourself, Mr Chairman, as does the member for MacKillop, that we initially engaged a consultant to do the community engagement. I thought it was an unsatisfactory arrangement, for a variety of reasons, and created a situation where SA Water had to take it back over, which questions why we were not doing it in the first place, but that is another question for another day.

We took over that particular process, met our contractual arrangements with that particular organisation and took it over ourselves, to the extent that we are now getting letters of congratulations from the community who were up in arms at certain stages because of assertions of secrecy and doing things behind doors.

We are now building state of the art pumping stations that fit heritage designs within the areas in which they are located, and I think it has been a very good process. A lot of those particular costs to which you refer were costs incurred as a result of the extension of, or the upgrading if you like, of the consultation process, and the extension of that consultation process to ensure that we got community support for what is a very important piece of infrastructure for this state.

Mr WILLIAMS: This is a very important piece of infrastructure for the state and when it was originally announced—I think it was in December 2007—I recall that the press release costed it at $304 million. When it was reannounced as a project—I think it was following the announcement to double the size of the desal plant, and I think that was the day after the federal budget in 2008—it became $403 million, so there was a $100 million change. Those dates might be wrong, I think the time frame was a little bit longer than that. But there was certainly a $100 million change in the cost of this project.

Minister, I am somewhat concerned that the Auditor-General is suggesting that some of the problems associated with this have been caused by 'tight deadlines'. Is it a fact that the tight deadlines caused that escalation in cost from the original announcement of $300 million to the now budget that seems to be something like $400 million? Is that the price at which the project will be delivered? Again, and I will repeat the question that I asked a moment ago, these contracts that the Auditor-General refers to, and you have just talked about, have increased about six to ten times the original contracted amount. What amounts are we talking about there?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am not going to talk about the dates that the member for MacKillop spoke about in case I get it wrong. I will just assume on this occasion that the member for MacKillop is right in respect of the dates that he said so that I do not have to come back and correct the record. To add to the previous answer, and I probably should have added this, some of the costs incurred were about the variations in designs and the creation of new designs and options for the pumping station, amongst other things.

When the project was first envisaged—in fact, it goes a long way back—it was always SA Water's position that Adelaide needed appropriate connectedness between the northern section of their operations and the southern section of their operations so that we could have water flow between them in the most efficient way and go to where it is needed.

One of the early options was a single pipeline, a new piece of infrastructure, and early and preliminary costs I am told could have even been as high as $1 billion for that stand-alone new piece of infrastructure. As a result of that, determinations were made to, where practical, use the existing infrastructure. There is some amazingly good work going on that I cannot speak about in detail, because I am not technical in nature—things such as re-sheathing. These types of things are a credit to the technology being undertaken by SA Water to complete its projects.

I know the member for MacKillop has been to the desalination plant and seen the quality of the work going on down there and, of course, the quality of the work in respect to the interconnection is going to be of an equally high standard. The first project was for a stand-alone pipeline worth $1 billion. What I am told is that $400 million has been consistently the figure that has been used in budget forward estimates for the interconnecting project—and that is how I will keep referring to it.

As I said earlier in response to one of the earlier questions, I am pleased to report to you, Mr Chairman, and the committee that we are on schedule and under budget at this point in time for this particular project. Everything that has been done to date within the project, including the designs, options and the like, is of course built in within the $403 million that has been allocated for this particular project. The ten times increase, as I mentioned earlier—if I did not, I will rephrase it—was for a consultancy that has an outturn of less than $2 million. That was the tenfold increase to which the Auditor-General referred.

Mr WILLIAMS: Let me clarify that, minister. Are you telling us that there was a contract awarded that was less than $2 million but the Auditor-General is suggesting—I am not sure whether he is talking budget—that the original allowance for this was only $200,000? Am I correct in that assumption?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am told that it was encompassed within what was a budget that was provided of $38 million, and that was a component of that. We always expected to spend that $38 million, but that was a component of that.

Mr WILLIAMS: I must say, minister, I am still not satisfied with your answer; because the Auditor-General is saying that the contract had an increased value by a factor of 10 and you are saying that it was $2 million. I am assuming that originally it was expected that the contract would be $200,000, but you have actually spent $2 million. It is no wonder the Auditor-General has highlighted it and it is no wonder it jumped off the page when I read it. But I will move on.

The Hon. P. CAICA: No, I will answer it because I do not want to move on while the member for MacKillop is confused, and I hope I will not confuse him any more. It was essentially a project that we expected would be $200,000. It did have a 10 times increase for an out turn of $2 million, but, as I understand it, that also incorporated a component which was the second phase that was then brought in because of the consultation that was required. So, it does fit to what I was saying. In essence, you are right to say that it was a 10 times increase on $200,000, but funding for that particular aspect of the project was brought back into this. So, that '10 times' was money that was already going to be expended on that particular project.

Mr WILLIAMS: I thank the minister for his answer. Minister, it would certainly help me and, I am sure, the committee if you were able to provide a bit more background to that and what other elements were brought into that contract to account for that incredible increase in the cost. I will be happy for you to take that on notice because there are some other matters I would like to address.

I move on, Mr Chairman, to page 1034 and the Adelaide desalination project. I believe that we still have not achieved first water. We still have some issues there with a project that has been delayed. I think that the original time to achieve first water was supposed to be December last year; then we learned that it was going to be pushed out to March-April, and then out to July. We still, as I understand it, have not achieved first water.

I would like an update on that and when we expect to get first water. Even more importantly, minister, I raise the issue of the $228 million of funding from the federal government, which was used, I think, to justify the decision to double the size of the desal plant. There has been an ongoing argument between the South Australian government and the federal government about the quid pro quo for that money, namely, the reduction in the reliance on the River Murray for our critical water needs here in Adelaide.

It has always been my belief that the federal government at least had an expectation that SA Water's licence would be reduced to deliver that quid pro quo for that money. I know that there has been argy-bargy back and forwards. Can you update the committee on that? Is there still an expectation that there will be a reduction in that licence, or have you won that argument and is the money now free to flow to the project on completion?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I thank the honourable member for his question. Of course, these are very good questions—they may be not necessarily be connected to the Auditor-General's Report, but I will answer them nonetheless.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: No, it's all right, Mitch. What I can report to you is that we are actually operating now at twice the requirements for first water. First water was signed off on 21 October. I knew that occurred, but I am told now that we are operating at two times what is the requirement to meet the contractual arrangements or the arrangements for what stipulates 'first water'. I can see that you are very pleased about that, and so are we.

You talk about the argy-bargy and the argument between the commonwealth government and the state government, which has hardly been anything in comparison to the argy-bargy that has been provided by the opposition as to a 50-gigalitre capacity versus a 100-gigalitre capacity. We stand by the very sound decision that was made by this government for all the right reasons to say that a 100-gigalitre capacity desalination plant is going to ensure water security for South Australians from the time it starts operating effectively and well into the future.

In relation to the contribution of the commonwealth government, we knew that stage 1—when it was a 50-gigalitre plant—was provided with $100 million. When that very sound decision was made by the government to increase it from a 50-gigalitre capacity to a 100-gigalitre capacity, we entered into an arrangement with the commonwealth whereby the commonwealth committed to provide $228 million for that component, or that increase, in the capacity of the desalination plant. We are very pleased that they did.

One of the initiatives that was reached, a landing spot between the commonwealth and the state government, was that the contribution would reduce the state's reliance on the River Murray. It is safe to say that the opposition has interpreted that as it sees fit, but the commonwealth and the state government has reached what is an appropriate spot on that. What that essentially means is that it will have no impact, which is a good arrangement for South Australia. The $228 million will have no impact on the existing licence held by SA Water.

It is also safe to say that the commitment that was made in the provision of that money was that by reducing our reliance we would not come back and call for more water as it relates to SA Water's licence, and that is a good thing. If you transpose that against what has occurred to the Murray-Darling Basin over a significant period of time, where water has been allocated willy-nilly by upstream states, what we have done is reach a suitable arrangement that suits the state government and the commonwealth and, in turn, provides the water security that this state requires.

Mr Chairman, you would know yourself that scientists are telling us that the drought that we had, the millennium drought, is a glimpse into the future, where droughts will become more intense and more frequent. To that extent, the 100-gigalitre capacity desal plant and the decision to increase the size was a sound decision when it was made and will prove to be a sound decision in the future.

Mr WILLIAMS: We will continue to agree to disagree on that, I am sure, minister. At the bottom of page 1345, and I am somewhat confused by this, under the heading, 'Other comprehensive income', it states:

Other comprehensive income of $598 million ($820 million)—

which I am assuming is the figure from the previous year—

is attributable mainly to the revaluation of assets.

Can you explain to me how the revaluation of assets has contributed most of the $598 million in income?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I acknowledge the confusion that the member for MacKillop has with this particular sentence. I am no accountant, but I suppose there are plenty here today and I will not be disparaging towards accountants because they do a very good job, but this is—are you an accountant, Mr Chairman? There you go; and a very good one, I expect, too. What I will say is that this is an accounting process and what happens is it relates to, as much as anything else, revaluation, if you like, of assets, but also inflation and, importantly, the replacement value. Then, as part of an accounting method, that is calculated as comprehensive income. I do not know why they do that, but that is the world of accountants in which we live and it is an accounting method. Perhaps the Chairman of Committees might be able to explain it to us, but it takes into account inflation, revaluation and those issues that I raise there. For the life of me, I do not really understand it either.

Mr WILLIAMS: I did study some accounting at university level and you have not helped me one little bit, I can tell you that. I am still at a loss. Maybe you would be kind enough to have somebody in SA Water with some financial expertise provide the committee with a considered opinion. I understand the issue of revaluation and that it significantly changes the value of the SA Water asset, but I fail to understand how, through revaluation, you get an increase in income of over half a billion dollars. I fail to understand the connection between asset value and income. I will move on because there are a couple of important things—

The Hon. P. CAICA: Just before you do, if you do not mind. You are asking for feedback and I am presuming that if you are asking for something then I have to give a commitment to do that. So, I will give a commitment to get back to the committee on that particular issue, and the previous one where you asked for more information. I just wanted that on the record so that it is there. It appears on the balance sheet as income, as I understand it.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you, minister. Sorry, I was expecting that you would oblige the committee with that. On page 1349—I will read this out so the committee understands what I am talking about—it says:

The financial ownership framework gearing ratio range was 15-25 percent with a long-term target of 20 percent.

This is the gearing ratio of borrowings to the asset value. The Auditor-General goes on to say:

Up to 2008 the debt/asset ratio was below the long-term target predominantly due to the value of assets increasing significantly due to revaluation. However, from 2010, due to borrowings to fund capital works (discussed above), the ratio exceeded the long-term target. It is noted this was envisaged by the annual performance statement debt/asset ratio target, which established a target of 28.5 percent.

On my reading of that, again I am confused, because in the first line it says, 'The financial ownership framework gearing ratio range was 15-25 percent'. It has been that ever since 2006 when the treasurer made these arrangements that the debt/asset ratio would be within that zone. Now, all of a sudden, in this year's A-G's report, we see that the target for the current year was blown out to 28.5 per cent.

I am pleased to note, on the previous page (1347), that even though the target was 28.5 per cent the actual result came in at 25.1 per cent—almost within the range. I assume that is because SA Water exceeded its planned profit before tax by $92 million. I assume that is what has given us that result.

My question is: has the target moved or was a decision taken, notwithstanding the target range of between 15 and 25 per cent, to exceed that target out to 28.5 per cent? Who took that decision and what justification sat behind that decision?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I thank the member for MacKillop for his multi-pronged question but I will—

The CHAIR: It was multi-pronged, you are quite right.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes. He was assuming that no-one had read this. You did not have to read it out, Mitch, but it doesn't matter. In essence, as I understand it (and I have previously raised this with the former treasurer and the current Treasurer) the increase to 28.5 per cent that is identified in this document, the Auditor-General's Report, was really about borrowing for the capital program. The major component of the capital program, of course, is the desalination plant.

Also, given the fact that it had been sitting for such a period of time at 25 per cent, through this borrowing we were going to exceed what had been custom and practice. However, as agreed by Treasury (of course, they are the people who we discussed this with and who agreed with what it was that we needed to do in respect to the borrowings), it was understood that it would go up to 28.5 per cent which I understand is still well within acceptable prudential limits.

I am also advised that an impact on this, if you like, was the delays to the desal plant. As a consequence of that we did not have to borrow at that particular time, so we could borrow later. I am advised that that had an impact on this as well, but in essence it was agreed to with Treasury.

Mr WILLIAMS: Was it a cabinet decision or was it done mainly by SA Water to shift that target?

The Hon. P. CAICA: Essentially, the decision to build a desal plant was a decision of—

Mr WILLIAMS: You concede that now—from 25 per cent to 28 per cent—but did that go to cabinet?

The Hon. P. CAICA: What occurred was that the decision to build a desalination plant—I know you said, 'No, no, no'—was a decision of cabinet and that was the most major component of the requirement to borrow for our capital program. As a consequence of that, that then had an impact to 28.5 per cent (which is still within prudential limits) whether or not that actual detail went to cabinet. It was done through a budget process for all aspects, so indirectly you could say that, yes, cabinet was a very important part of that process because the budget process incorporated all that information.

The CHAIR: That ends the examination of the Auditor-General's Report in relation to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, the Minister for Water and the River Murray, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation. Thank you, minister. We will now proceed to the examination of the Auditor-General's Report in relation to the Minister for Manufacturing, Innovation and Trade, the Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, the Minister for Small Business for 30 minutes.

I remind members that the committee is in normal session, so questions have to be asked by members on their feet, and all questions must be directly referenced to the Auditor-General's Report. I also remind members that it is an examination of the Auditor-General's Report, not estimates or question time.

Ms CHAPMAN: My question relates to mining. I cannot remember what page it is on, because I was just after a prompt.

The CHAIR: It is the member's responsibility to cite a page.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is it?

The CHAIR: It is.

Ms CHAPMAN: Page 931 sounds familiar. There is a contingency provision in the budget for mining, and my question is: is any provision for a settlement with Marathon Resources to come out of that contingency fund or is that to come out of a separate Treasury fund? This question has been raised with the Treasurer today and he said it was your issue.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The government said quite clearly, after it took the decision, supported by the opposition, to ban mining in Arkaroola, that we would look at a compensation package for Marathon, not because they were entitled to one but because we felt it was the right thing to do by the industry in general. The government is under no obligation whatsoever to pay Marathon a cent; they did not have a licence to mine, nor did they have any expectation in terms of any regulatory approval for a mine. They had a licence to explore, and that exploration licence carried with it no automatic right to mine. Indeed, this exploration licence had no automatic right of renewal. In terms of the compensation package, I will take that on notice, but there will be a clearer answer made very soon.

Ms CHAPMAN: Perhaps you misunderstood, minister. My question was not asking how much it is, nor even that you have negotiated it, because we were advised by the Treasurer that you are still in negotiation. My question is: is there provision for it in your contingency amount, or is there some other source upon which any funds that are negotiated will be deducted?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It depends entirely on the amount.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Minister, is any branch of your department involved in the photocopier cartridge issue? Have any invoices turned up in your department or its extended tentacles linked to that entire issue of alleged payments associated with cartridge purchases?

The CHAIR: What page are you referring to in the Auditor-General's Report?

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Page 1424, the header page, that talks about the assessment of controls, the important control measure.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The agency undertook a review of toner cartridge purchases in 2011 for the financial years 2006-07 to 2011-12. I am advised there appear to be no unusual purchases during this time frame.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: So the answer is no?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The answer is that I am advised there appear to be no unusual purchases during this time frame. However, if there are, there is a process in place. I understand the possibility of fraudulent purchases of toner cartridges was raised in August 2011. I am advised that a review of e-procurement was undertaken at that time, covering all of these trading names, that is, The Company, Mycom Australia, Laser Specific, Reliance, Premium Office Supplies and Elite Imaging.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Sorry, minister, I might be having trouble hearing. I think you said there were no purchases?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No. I am advised that the agency undertook a review of toner cartridge purchases in 2011 for the financial years 2006-07 right through to the financial year 2011-12. I am advised there appear to be no unusual purchases during this time.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Page 1424 of the Auditor-General's Report talks about financial assistance grants paid to organisations to develop the state's economy. Can the minister tell us whether he has had the money invested in Tiger airlines returned, as he assured the house he would do? If the money has not been returned, how much money are we after and when will it be returned?

The CHAIR: What page are you referring to, member for Waite?

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Page 1424 refers to audit's attention to financial assistance grants paid to organisations to develop the state's economy. It is at the bottom of the page. If you go onto page 1426 you will see 'Grants and subsidies $17 million' on the table.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that the matter is now with SAFA, and the amount we are pursuing from Tiger Airways is $2.25 million. The amount that we have recouped I will get for you on notice.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Do you remain absolutely adamant that all of that money will be returned, or are you now concerned that all of that money will not be returned?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that SAFA is an organisation that has a fine track record of recouping money that is owed to the government. I have full confidence in them, but ultimately I will keep the house fully informed of any updates as they come along. The matter is with SAFA, and I have confidence in them.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Moving to pages 1425 and 1426, the auditor makes observations in regard to financial assistance grants. In particular, he refers to the process of auditing backlogs in overdue obligations. Can the minister tell the committee what action he has taken to improve reporting to the chief executive and continual follow-up of these outstanding obligations, because they are still considerable?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that the department has a full-time resource now working on this. As of 30 June 2011, I am advised that the department has reduced the number of obligations outstanding to 44, of which 13 are greater than 60 days, and it continues to follow up all outstanding obligations. I am advised further that the 13 obligations greater than 60 days relate to four progress reports. One of those projects has since been terminated, with a repayment invoice being issued to the guarantee.

I am also advised that several of the reports relate to review of performance, which is currently in the draft negotiations, with the review consultant to finalise. I am also advised of one final report that relates to a regional project that is currently under negotiation, with the business unit to finalise. I am also advised of one acquittal, which relates to a sponsorship of the university.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Apart from those investments that you have just outlined to the house, are there any other grants or loans that are doubtful or at risk and about which you have concerns, in terms of either recovery of those amounts or failure to comply with the terms of the grant or loan?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: On advice, I will have to take that on notice. Generally, the department would monitor these, and I can get back to the member very quickly with an answer. We just do not have that information with us here right now.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: In the same volume, Part B, Volume 4, page 1,427, I note that the auditor observes that there was decreased spending of '$7 million in travel, advertising, contractors and other expenses due mainly to reductions in overseas and marketing and migration programs'. I am just wondering why we would be reducing such a significant amount of money from our overseas marketing and migration programs and what the impact has been on industry outcomes in the state as a result of that cutback in spending.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that these all form part of the Sustainable Budget Commission's recommendations. However, as the member would have heard today in my answer in question time, the state's exports are now leading the nation, with our farmers doing an exceptional job increasing our exports of barley and wheat products. Our miners and manufactured goods are doing exceptionally well. In terms of a comparative rate to the rest of the nation, South Australia is doing exceptionally well, but these are savings that the government made from the Sustainable Budget Commission report.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I take that point, minister, but skilled migration remains a very important obstacle to industry growth in this state—something that the government has made considerable commentary upon—so I am just wondering why we would cut our skilled migration programs, because I am assuming that the $7 million has predominantly come out of programs rather than salaries. That might not be right. Is the $7 million inclusive of the positions that you cut back last year, or is it actual programs for migration and overseas marketing that have been cut?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that the new department no longer has responsibility for skilled migration. That now rests with the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: On the same page, 1427, the Auditor-General observes a decrease of $2 million in grants and subsidies reflecting slower than anticipated implementation of some grant programs intended to develop business in the Riverland and industries in this state. Could the minister tell us why these grant moneys were not put out there into the Riverland and other industries in this state? Why were we unable to get that money working?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that the question you are talking about now relates to the Riverland Sustainable Futures Fund, which is the responsibility of minister Gago.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Yes, minister, that's fine; it may now be the responsibility of Ms Gago, but when this budget year ended on 30 June 2011 it was your responsibility, so I am looking to inform the committee as to what the impact may have been in the Riverland or the state as a result of a failure to get this $2 million of grants out there. Can you at least answer that part of the question?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I can, and I refer to my first answer: it has always been the responsibility of the regional development minister. Minister Gago, I am advised, has always administered that grant.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I note that the Auditor-General informs us that full-time equivalent staff fell from 193 at 30 June 2010 to 121 at 30 June 2011, but there has now been a significant restructuring and a lot of new people have come into your department. Can you tell the committee whether these cuts that you made last year will be sustained or whether what has occurred with this reorganisation is in effect a recognition that you cut too far and you have now, if you like, put extra positions back? Can you just tell us how this information from the Auditor-General relates to your restructuring and the growth in the department?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Mr Chairman, with the utmost respect to the member and the parliament, the restructure happened post financial year, so it really does not relate to the Auditor-General's Report. However, I will say this: the reductions we made to the former department are something that the government stands by. We know it was difficult and we know that it was a very dramatic change, but I think the department performed exceptionally well, and I do not believe that we cut too far at all.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Thank you. Page 1442 outlines remuneration levels within the department. I note that there are two employees receiving in excess of $330,000, one employee receiving $310,000 or more and one receiving $290,000 or more.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: It is on page 1442—$290,000 and more. Regarding those top four people in your department, could you tell us what appointments relate to those positions?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that regarding the two people who are in the top bracket, it was a combination of targeted superannuation packages plus their salary, so that has pushed them into the top bracket. In terms of who they are, I am advised that they have left the department and are no longer employed. Are you asking for their names?

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: No, just appointments.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Including TVSP, the figures were over $300,000 in that bracket. They have received targeted separation packages, and the combination of the package and their salary has pushed them into that bracket.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Moving onto overseas representative officers, which is dealt with on page 1444, I note the figure of $798,000 in operating expenses for China and $573,000 in operating expenses for India. Could you tell us whether have you replaced Mr Ken Xhu, who was the head of our commission in China, and what is happening with our China office? What salary is being paid to whoever has replaced Mr Xhu? Similarly, could you confirm the salary arrangements in this year for Mr A.K. Tareen in our India office?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised Mr A.K. Tareen's salary is unchanged since the last time I reported it to parliament. I am also advised that on 30 June this year the contract of our trade representative in China expired and has not been renewed. There is continuity in the office, and the department has begun a process of replacement. I was in China a day and a half ago with our two staff there, Miss Renee Dong and Miss Fion Jia, and they are excellent employees and a credit to this state.

Mr Geoff Knight, Chief Executive of the new Department of Manufacturing, Innovation and Trade is there, and the process is in place and being managed by Mr Stephen Annells. If the shadow minister would like a further briefing on the process of the replacement of Mr Ken Xhu in China, and the intricacies that go with that in dealing with the Chinese government in terms of government to government relationships, which are quite intricate and quite detailed, I am happy to give him a briefing at any time.

Ms CHAPMAN: At Volume 3, page 993, back to mining, and I am talking about the top of the page on royalties. Mineral production has gone up and petroleum production has gone down. That includes the money you get from Santos, is that right?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised: yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: My question is: given the current litigation in the Supreme Court with Santos, could you advise what funds have been spent in the 2010-11 year on the legal cost of those proceedings and whether there is any amount budgeted in this year, 2011-12?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Could you point to the reference in the Auditor-General's Report?

Ms CHAPMAN: Royalties, on the income.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You are linking royalties to a legal action?

Ms CHAPMAN: To income, and to the current litigation the government has with Santos and its effect, ultimately, on the income. My question is: how much, so far, has your department spent on that litigation in the 2011 year and is there any budgeted amount for that: or, alternatively, is that in a contingency allocation?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The advice is that I do not have any information on that bizarre line of questioning. I would expect that would probably be a question better put to the Attorney-General and the Crown Solicitor's office.

Ms CHAPMAN: Can I put this to you, minister: in the event that you are a party to those proceedings—you may not know, but if you are—could you take that on notice and provide that information to the committee?

The CHAIR: The second part of the question is about the 2011-12 year. That is either for the budget or question time, not the Auditor-General's Report.

Ms CHAPMAN: Can I just clarify one thing, Mr Chairman, because I will be around a few more of these, and that is: are you saying—

The CHAIR: And that does not mean you are right.

Ms CHAPMAN: Are you saying that there can be no questions for anything in relation to finance post 30 June 2011? The reason I seek clarification of that is that many items have been identified by the Auditor-General as continuing discussions, identifying projects that are for remedying errors or defects in the process. Of course, there are many events that have occurred since 30 June 2011 which are within the direct ambit of the report.

The CHAIR: And you will have an opportunity to ask those questions in other forums. I have been pretty lenient, but this forum deals—

Ms CHAPMAN: So, are you saying that in this forum I cannot ask any question about any event post 30 June 2011, even if the Auditor-General says there are ongoing discussions or a process in his report up to the date, which of course, is October 2011?

The CHAIR: No, if the report is on it, I would probably allow it; but, given that the other matter was speculative, you will have to use another forum.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you. I will await your answer with interest, minister.

Mr WILLIAMS: I draw the committee's attention to page 975 of the Auditor-General's Report, the Extractive Areas Rehabilitation Fund. Considering the time, I have two questions and will ask them together. I recall when we changed the act to change the way this was collected and the rate of collection. I was informed in the discussions I had with the then minister that part of the money would go to compliance and the employment of some additional compliance officers.

The last information I had is not totally up-to-date; something might have happened in the last six months. The information I had was that no more compliance officers had been employed within the extractives area notwithstanding that a considerable amount of money had been paid supposedly for that purpose.

The other part of the question relates to the fact that we did change the way in which the money was collected for the fund because the fund was getting to the point where it was not going to be able to continue to operate. I am pleased to see that the balance of the fund is now, as at 30 June, back up to a bit over $14.5 million.

In the 2010 year the expenditure exceeded the income (only by a handful of dollars; that is not an issue), but in the most recent year (2011) the expenditure is considerably less than the incoming factor; it is less than half of the income. Is it government policy to continue to build that fund, and, if so, to what level, or is it government policy that the fund should be expended as the money is coming in?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that it is a demand-based fund; so, as people have demands on the fund, the fund grows.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that there is no target to grow the fund to any particular level. There is no budget figure.

Mr WILLIAMS: Are there no extra compliance officers to be employed in that area?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am not aware of that, but I will check and get back to the honourable member.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I would like to ask a question on small business, if I may?

The CHAIR: You may.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I refer to page 1,445. Minister, there are very few references in the Auditor-General's Report about the Small Business Commissioner, but $270,000 came from contingency funds for the establishment cost as part of that commissioner's role. Minister, can you confirm whether that includes payments made to Professor Frank Zumbo and, if so, how much?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that the budget allocation towards the establishment of the Small Business Commissioner—which was successfully passed in this house in no small part thanks to the Deputy Speaker and with no thanks to the shadow minister—was $270,000 (or $0.27 million). As per the auditor's financial statements, I am advised that the following costs were incurred in 2010-11: employee expenses, $200,555; consultancy, $50,0000.

I am not aware whether that total amount has gone to Professor Zumbo. If it has, every cent has been well earnt. Professor Zumbo has been an excellent consultant for the state government. He is a leader in his field. He is called on by many levels, including, I understand, the federal opposition to give advice. He is someone who is held in high regard by the industry.

I hope and I pray that this is in no way an attempt by anyone to smear the good reputation of Professor Zumbo, because he is an expert in his field, and the government is more than happy to pay a consulting fee that matches his expertise.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I certainly made no effort to slur a good name but just to ascertain what costs were involved.

The CHAIR: That ends the period available to examine the Auditor-General's Report in relation to the Minister for Manufacturing, Innovation and Trade, the Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy and the Minister for Small Business.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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