HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-11-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 22 November 2011.)

The CHAIR: The Auditor-General's Report 2010-11, for the Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, Minister for Science and Information Economy, and Minister for Recreation and Sport. I understand minister Koutsantonis is looking after that in a second. Member for Goyder, can you indicate which area you wish to go to first?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Recreation and Sport, Mr Chairman, and the report that was submitted to the parliament yesterday. That is basically the question area I will come from. I wonder if I may just ask the acting minister a question initially. Given that there has been some notice given to the fact that minister Kenyon was expected to appear before the parliament today to answer questions about the Auditor-General's Report, why is he not here; and if he was not going to be here this week, why was it not scheduled so that he could have answered questions a fortnight ago?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will answer that with a question. Why did you approve the pair?

Mr GRIFFITHS: They are completely different issues.

The CHAIR: What was the question again, please?

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The CHAIR: I will hear it from the member for Goyder.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The minister put words in my mouth which I correct: why is the member for Newland not actually here? The schedule has been known for some time. If there was a need to create a change to ensure that the minister was here to answer the questions, why was that change not handled within government ranks to ensure the minister would be here?

The CHAIR: I do not think that this a question which this minister is required to respond to.

Mr Pisoni: He's acting minister.

The CHAIR: No. Do you wish to address the report or not, member for Goyder? If you do not wish to, I am happy to move to the next one.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Most certainly, but I hope the actual questioning ensures that the minister is able to provide answers to it.

The CHAIR: Yes, and if he does not know—

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am sure that, with the advisers next to him, he will stand up and actually give us the details.

The CHAIR: And if he does not provide answers, he will take them on notice and give them to you in writing.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Bragg, I do not need your assistance today, thank you.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Mr Chairman, I will refer initially to questions that are focused within pages 3 to 5 of the supplementary report that was tabled yesterday, and these questions are to do with the South Australian Aquatic and Leisure Centre. The report identifies that a contract for the management of the Aquatic and Leisure Centre (which is a $104 million asset) was not signed prior to the private operator (being the YMCA) commencing operation and maintenance of the centre in April 2011.

My understanding is that minister Kenyon told the parliament on 10 March that the YMCA had been selected to operate the centre; therefore, why did 3½ months pass before a formal contract for the service was signed—a period in which the Auditor-General has identified left the government open to financial and operational risk?

The CHAIR: We will allow you some latitude at the end.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I was going to say, Mr Chair, if you were in cricket, you would be timed out by now.

The CHAIR: I am a fair person; I am fair with members who are fair.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will take that on notice—I am only joking.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am only joking. Look, I am advised that the draft operation and maintenance agreement that was negotiated with the YMCA required negotiation between the YMCA and the operators—I hope I have that part correct. So, the delay between March and June did not mean that the operators were not operating effectively. The draft agreement was being hammered out with the YMCA. I do not quite understand the purpose of the question. Are you saying that there was no operator between March and June?

Mr GRIFFITHS: No. Mr Acting Minister, my understanding is that the contract was finally signed on 29 June. Minister Kenyon announced on 10 March that the YMCA was going to be the preferred contractor that would do this.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So then why the delay between the signature and the announcement?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Indeed; and the fact that there was a major swimming event there in, I think, April (the Australian Age Swimming Championships). The Auditor-General identifies that there is a potential risk here—that is not my concern, this is the independent umpire who has judged that there is a risk here—and that is why it is entirely valid that questions are posed about why there was such a lengthy time delay. If cabinet made the decision on 9 or 10 March to appoint a contractor, why the delay?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that they needed time to hammer out a few further details with the YMCA. The YMCA were looking for more certainty, from what I understand, about the draft operating plans, so the government and the YMCA took further time to go through it all. I am not quite sure what the issue was, but there was an operating management plan in place, but it was a draft one, and it was finalised in June. I will further add that, during that temporary period, before the 29 June, the YMCA fulfilled all its obligations.

Mr GRIFFITHS: As I understand it, the contract was for five years and four months from the original decision that was made, with a potential rollover period of another five years following the completion of that time. Was there a specific audit of any kind undertaken for that interim period until the end of June to measure if the performance expectations of the government in signing the contract for the management of the facility were met?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that under the performance risk management operations the YMCA tendered a mobilisation plan and budget. These were reviewed against the establishment tasks and costs of the Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre (MSAC). The mobilisation budget was found to be commensurate with the MSAC establishment costs. The YMCA, in operator negotiation workshops in February 2011, agreed to work to this budget. The mobilisation budget was $1.452 million.

The mobilisation period was managed by the Office for Recreation and Sport with support from the YMCA. Performance monitoring during mobilisation included Office for Recreation and Sport staff at the site, weekly YMCA and Office for Rec and Sport meetings, monthly YMCA management and financial reports, and actions and decisions in accordance with the draft operation and management agreement and mobilisation conditions. I understand that it came in, in that period, $125,000 under budget. Further, I am advised that no payment was made until 29 June.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I was going to ask that, actually.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There you go. We are saving time for you as well.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Well done. Are you saying it was under budget for the period to 29 June? However, if no payments are made, how does that work?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There was a budgeted amount and they came in under, I am advised.

Mr GRIFFITHS: So, payments were not made until after 29 June, but payments were made after that date for services undertaken before 29 June?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that that is correct and that that was agreed.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Can we focus on the $125,000 now? Who benefited from that? Was that a saving made to government or did that money go into some form of sinking fund? Who benefited from it?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Happily, I am advised, that money was returned to Treasury.

Mr GRIFFITHS: This is the same area: can the minister confirm what the value of the contract will be from 1 July then, per year, and what the conditions are, in case there are any inflationary costs attached to it?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that for a period of five years the total value is $6.45 million.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Is that $6.45 million broken down into identical payments each year, or is there a base amount and then a CPI or some inflationary factor built in over following years?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that that reduces over a period of five years so they are not equal payments, but in the interests of clarity I undertake to get back to you with a more detailed answer.

Mr GRIFFITHS: If I may ask some questions about what I presume to be performance indicators that are within the contract, can you give us some detail about what the expectation of the government is for those performance indicators—just a brief outline of what factors make it up?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that there are a number of performance indicators—things like making sure there is water in the pools and everything is working. No; I am making light of it. I undertake to get to the member a more detailed answer about the key performance indicators.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I will now go to the Office for Recreation and Sport and some outstanding acquittals, and questions about grant programs that are there. I note that the Auditor's report highlights the fact that at various times during the audit process, pre-end of financial year and post-financial year, that there was a significant level of grants that were either overdue or acquittal information had not been received or assessed. That was coming down as we got later into the year. What processes have been put in place to ensure that that level of accounting that needs to take place to ensure that the grants have all been expended appropriately is being approved in a timely manner to ensure that, firstly, the moneys are out there quicker; but, secondly, that it has been expended in the way that the grants demanded?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The Auditor-General's Report to Parliament 2010-11 states that at the time of the audit there was $1.1 million of outstanding acquittals, with $590,000 over 120 days. At 30 June the outstanding acquittals are reduced to $299,000, and over $100,000 over 120 days. The audit recommended scope for improvement in follow-up documentation and reporting of acquitted funds; implementing sign-off procedures and follow-up of outstanding acquittals at the end of each month; and that reports be amended to include received, but not assessed, acquittals.

The key issues were that the Auditor acknowledged the work done by the Office for Recreation and Sport to reduce outstanding acquittals, and I congratulate the department on their outstanding efforts to get those acquittals. The management of timely grant acquittals is core activity at the Office for Recreation and Sport. The grant function process is continually reviewed and audit comments have been considered in these improvements, so I understand the department is taking the Auditor-General's comments very, very seriously.

The changing dollar amounts of outstanding acquittals reflect the cyclical nature of the Office for Recreation and Sport's grant programs, particularly funding programs, cycles and agreement end-dates. Many grant recipients are small clubs and organisations which are run by our thousands of volunteers who have changing roles and responsibilities. Basically, they are run by mums and dads who are time-poor.

This often complicates the process of receiving timely grant acquittal documentation. Outstanding acquittal reports are provided to the Office for Recreation and Sport management on a monthly basis, capturing all outstanding acquittals, including acquittals received but not yet processed. Appropriate action and resourcing is taken as required. The acquittal reports are signed off by the managing fund services on a monthly basis prior to being used for EMT reporting, I am advised.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I refer to page 47 of the same supplementary report, and subsidies and grants by the Office for Recreation and Sport. It notes that from the 2010-11 financial year the grant payments made increased by approximately $6.5 million. It is far from me to criticise the fact that there is more money going out there to community rec and sport, but can the minister give a breakdown of why the significant increase occurred and what areas that was in?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that, in last year's budget, the government allocated a further $5 million for these grants programs to go to recreational clubs and communities that help our young people stay fit and active, like the two members sitting opposite. I can see how fit and active you both are. I encourage you to get involved in your local—

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No problem. Okay, sure. You're talking about metres, right?

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Okay, no problem. You're quick, are you?

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Okay. The government thinks that this is a very good program. We are very proud of it. We hope that as many sports communities take advantage of this. I encourage the two members opposite to get involved in their local clubs (as I know the member for Goyder does) and to get them applying for these grants, get their clubrooms upgraded and get the facilities they need to keep our young people fit and healthy.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Very true, and we are supportive on this side for every one of our community groups that seek these grants. I have a final question on rec and sport, though, about the Active Club Program. How long has it been since the funding for that program has been increased?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will get a more detailed answer for the member and get back to him in the quickest possible time.

Mr PISONI: I would like to move now to DFEEST. I imagine that the minister will need to get back to me on this question—

Mr Griffiths: You might wait for the advisers.

Mr PISONI: Yes, well, he will probably have to get back to me, so—

The CHAIR: Member for Unley, take a seat. I suggest that you stick to the questions. No pre-commentary to the questions, okay?

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The CHAIR: No. You actually added comments to that which were not necessary, and you know you did.

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The CHAIR: Ask the question and do not put the comment in there. The member for Unley.

Mr PISONI: As I said, you will need to bring an answer back because this is a fairly detailed question. I refer to page 57 of Volume 2. Are you able to provide for each department or agency reporting to the minister how many surplus employees there are as of 30 June 2011, and for each surplus employee what is the title or classification of that employee and/or the total cost of that employee?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that a new TVSP and an enhanced redeployment scheme opened on 1 November 2010. The cumulative total of excess employees from July 2010 until the end of June 2011 is 137 FTEs. I am advised that that is now lower, but I will endeavour to get a detailed answer and get back to the house with a more thorough response.

Mr PISONI: I refer to page 554, TVSPs. Again, I am hoping for a detailed answer, so I imagine that you may have to come back to me. We saw over $18 million spent last year on TVSPs. This year, it is $3.6 million-odd. Can you give me a breakdown of how many positions that was and the ASO level of each position?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that, in 2009, we reached a target of 152 FTEs. I am advised that, in 2010-11, the target was 124 FTEs, and 81 was achieved.

Mr PISONI: So, you are behind on target by how many over those two years?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that, in 2010-11, we were behind by 43, but the department has achieved those savings through other measures.

Mr PISONI: Will you bring back the breakdown of the ASO levels?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes.

Mr PISONI: I refer to page 537, Grants and subsidies. Again, I imagine that you will need to bring this back. I am not an unreasonable man. If I could have the list of recipients of those grants and subsidies for 2010-11.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I do not have to take it on notice. I am advised—

Mr PISONI: I am happy for you to insert it in Hansard without reading it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is unparliamentary; you should know that.

Mr PISONI: You could seek leave.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No; it is not statistical in nature. In 2010-11, grants and subsidies expenditure of $74.6 million is primarily attributed to employment program expenditure of $24 million, which relates primarily to: $9.5 billion for the Working Regions program; $2.6 million for the Structural Adjustment program; $2.4 million for the Building Opportunities program; $2.4 million for the Group Training Scheme; $1.7 million for the CareerStart program; and $1.4 million for the Industry Partnerships Program. I am further advised that the VET program expenditure of $12.1 million related primarily to: $4.3 million for the Adult Community Education program, $1.5 million for the skills shortages program and $1.5 million for the Seafood Training Centre.

I can further add that Science and Information Economy program expenditure of $22.4 million related primarily to: $6.9 million for Bio Innovation SA, $5.2 million for the Premier's Science and Research program, $3.6 million for the Education Investment Fund and Trans Tasman Commercialisation Fund and, finally, $1.8 million for Playford Capital. I can also further add that other specific grant expenditure of $2.7 million related primarily to $1.5 million for Education Adelaide.

Mr PISONI: I refer to page 532, Supplies and services. There was a contract let by selective request for quotation to Ferrier Hodgson for $98,064. The execution date was 20 May 2011. This is available on the government website. I believe it is for financial services. Are you able to give more detail as to what financial services were being purchased from Ferrier Hodgson for that figure?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that that report was commissioned for financial advice for TAFE. I also understand that that advice is commercial in confidence and cannot be released.

Mr PISONI: Are you able to give details as to what the advice was for? I am not asking for the advice: I am asking what the advice was for.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that there were three new chief financial officers who were looking for advice re the financial management of TAFE.

Mr PISONI: And was that advice not available from Treasury?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that they commissioned a report from Ferrier Hodgson.

Mr PISONI: Well, that wasn't the question. The question was: was that advice not available from Treasury? Was Treasury asked for that advice, prior to this contract being let?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You would have to ask that of the Treasurer.

Mr PISONI: With all due respect, minister, you are acting minister for this department; you are responsible for this department. I am asking you whether Treasury was approached for that advice, prior to this contract being let.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that a steering committee was in place. On that steering committee, Treasury was represented and they sought advice from Ferrier Hodgson.

Mr PISONI: I refer you now to the student information system that is described on page 537. This was an $18,031,000 contract, described as $18.1 million. The Tenders and Contracts page describes this contract at $18.031 million. It is described as a web-based student information system, managing all data for students, from initial inquiries, submissions, enrolment payment fees, allocation of classes, recording of results, etc. Are you able to advise the house, minister, as to whether the $18.031 million figure is the only money that has been paid to safeguard, or committed to safeguard, higher education, or if there were any additional invoices presented to the department, above the tender amount?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that the cost of the total program was $20.4 million. The project is ongoing, and it is expected to be on budget. In 2008, this government announced the student information system—a $20.4 million ICT project that delivers new IT hardware and infrastructure, licensing and software, vendor consulting costs and expenses as well as DFEEST permanent and contract staff costs.

SIS is a package of state-of-the-art software, produced for managing student, academic and financial records and the complete TAFE SA course catalogue. Since implementation on 14 June 2011, SIS has managed the admission of over 21,000 new students, starting with their studies in semester 2. Forty thousand students have registered for classes, representing over 223,000 individual registrations, and over $24 million in student fees have been invoiced.

SIS is strategically critical to the successful delivery of future vocational training through TAFE SA. I am advised that SIS manages all data related to students and a complete life cycle of their interactions with TAFE SA. I am further advised that SIS currently supports the student life cycle from applications to graduation but, in its final state, it will support the management of student data from initial inquiry, admission, enrolment, payment of fees, allocation of classes, recording of results, progression to the eventual completion, graduation and through to alumni.

It also provides a framework, I am advised, and a significant driver for the adoption of consistent business policies and processes across TAFE South Australia. SIS keeps all information on the training and courses offered by TAFE SA, including, but not limited to, all training packages and fee-for-service special interest courses offered.

I am further advised that a key component is the provision of web-based, self service facilities for students and staff that will greatly improve student and staff accessibility to information, deliver, I am advised, significant deficiencies and meet the expectations of a computer-literate and intranet-aware community.

Mr PISONI: Minister, are you able to advise as to whether any additional contractors or in-house staff were used in the provision, the setting up, or the maintenance of this program outside of the contract?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We will get back to you about whether there were any other consultancies engaged in the implementation of the program. I am advised that about 10.5 FTEs maintain the system.

Mr PISONI: No additional contractors outside of the original contract?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will get you a more detailed answer.

Mr PISONI: Are you able to advise whether there has been any variation in the contract price that was awarded by public tender to Forest Grove Technology in November 2009 for a 10-year contract to approach the market through a public request and tender service listed here on the government tender website at $1.954 million?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Just for clarity, could you refer to what page you are talking about?

Mr PISONI: 'Supplies and services' on page 532. I am referring to a contract that appears on the government website for Forest Grove Technology. It was awarded on 25 November 2009 for a 10-year period. I am asking if there has been any variation in the agreed price or the published tender price of $1.954 million.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that there have been no variations to that contract.

Mr PISONI: If I can just finally take you back to the student information system: are you able to advise the committee whether there was any disruption to student involvement in the implementation of that student processing system when it was implemented in the mid-year?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that as with any new program put in place there are minor hiccups, but there have been no major disturbances to the interaction, but they are working those through and they will be ironed out. I am advised that the system is working well.

Mr PISONI: Can you bring back to the committee how many complaints it received via TAFE, either verbally or written, on that?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that the government is not saying that there have not been complaints, but with any new program that is in place there will be hiccups. In terms of major disruptions, I am advised that there have not been any. If you are asking for the government to detail the number of complaints, are you talking about through forms of email or telephone?

Mr PISONI: I know that my office was contacted by people who were having difficulty in registering and enrolling, and I said to those people who contacted me that I would use the first opportunity in the parliament to seek clarification as to how widespread their concern was, so I am using this opportunity, minister, and I am happy for those numbers to be brought back. I would imagine that any complaint that was received by TAFE, either verbally over the phone, email or written—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that the department logs these complaints, so we can get back to you with some details of that.

Mr PISONI: Thank you. I would like to take you to page 557, allowance for doubtful debts and the debt write-offs. We had $394,000 last year, and this year in the budget we have $190,000. I also know that there are significant amounts in TAFE fees that are overdue. Are you able to describe the nature of those write-offs and whether they are TAFE fees or from some other debtor?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that all write-offs have received the Treasurer's approval. I am advised that some write-offs—the two largest debts—were written off with approval of the Treasurer in 2010-11, and we will get you a more detailed response on those in the coming days.

The CHAIR: Time has expired.

Mr PISONI: Just one supplementary question.

The CHAIR: No, sorry, the time has expired, member. I have given you an indulgence already. The time allowed for the examination of the Report of the Auditor General 2010-11 for the Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, Minister for Science and Information Economy, and Minister for Recreation and Sport has now ended.

I now call on the Minister for Transport Services. We are now moving to the examination of the Report of the Auditor General 2010-11 for the Minister for Transport Services for a period of 30 minutes. I remind members that this is a normal committee session, so you will need to be on your feet when you ask and respond to questions, and that the questions must relate to the Auditor-General's Report. I am sure I do not have to remind the member for Goyder, who is a most responsible member, but I have had to remind a few of his colleagues on a number of occasions. The floor is yours. Minister, are you ready?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Mr Chairman, it may be that I seek your leniency a couple of times. I will just flag that from the very start.

The CHAIR: Are you trying to take advantage of me?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Never.

The CHAIR: I was hoping my luck had changed. Sorry.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I do so on the basis that in direct references in the Auditor-General's Report, there is not a lot of detail contained about the minister's portfolio areas, so, in the spirit of bipartisanship that exists, I am sure that I can ask questions and the minister will provide answers as best she can.

The CHAIR: I have no doubt—a wonderful minister.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I will make an initial comment. Something that surprises me—and I have enormous respect for Mr O'Neill—is that the Adelaide Metro bus contracts negotiated during the 2010-11 financial year—of significant value, $1.6 billion; and over a significant time, 12 years—does not feature in this. Mr Crackett is nodding his head. I can only hope that it might be a little like some of the other bus contracts, and we might receive a supplementary report about it. Can the minister comment and confirm if that is the case?

The CHAIR: Sorry, which contract are you referring to?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Adelaide Metro bus contracts. I can find a reference for it if you need it. It is in Volume 5, page 1,504.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: The reason is that, in accord with the Public Transport Act, the Auditor-General has to report to parliament within a fixed period, and that period ends on 6 January this year, so he will then report after that period.

Mr GRIFFITHS: If I may just seek clarification—

Members interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Calm down. So is that a certain time after the signing of the contract that stipulates it will be 6 January? Is there a similar time frame involved for all contracts that relate to public transport?

The Hon. C.C. FOX: I understand that it is a fixed period of time. The Auditor-General has to report by 6 January, and we understand that he will be ready to do so. I think your second question (forgive me, because I was concentrating on the answer to the first question) was in relation to whether that was—

Mr GRIFFITHS: If the time frame from the signing of the contract to 6 January is an identical time frame to that put in place for other public transport contracts.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: Yes.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Is it the minister's intention then, on the presentation of this supplementary report to the parliament, for any level of scrutiny to occur about it within a similar forum to what we are doing now?

The CHAIR: It is up to the house to decide that and refer it to committee. I have been very naughty, actually. I have allowed some questions about the supplementary reports, which technically I was not allowed to do, because they were not referred to. However, having made the mistake, I will let it go, but that is not a precedent, so I would see a scrutiny through the normal process of parliament, which is question time.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Thank you for your clarification on that point. My question is a relatively innocent one, because I am aware that—

The CHAIR: Nothing is innocent in politics.

Mr GRIFFITHS: —the health department has not tabled their Auditor-General's Report yet. My assumption would therefore be that a time opportunity will be scheduled for that report to be scrutinised. Given that this is also a supplementary report about a very significant level of expenditure over a period of time—

The CHAIR: I understand your question, but you will need to raise it in the house and ask the house to refer it to committee. It is not up to the discretion of the minister, or any minister. It is up to the house to refer those matters.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I did note that the minister was keen to say yes, though.

The CHAIR: If the house so decides, the minister, I am sure, will do the right thing.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Thank you for your leniency then. Most of these questions will reference page 1504 on the activities of the department being activity for public transport services, given that there is not a lot of specific detail contained in the report.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: No doubt. If I can't refer to post-July stuff, minister, can you confirm to the committee how many new buses were purchased in the 2010-11 financial year?

The Hon. C.C. FOX: I thank the member for his question, but sadly that is a question for the other minister (that is to say, minister Conlon, who is the Minister for Transport), and the reason why is because in the gazettal of his own department on 21 October this year the minister was determined as being responsible for the administrative matters.

Mr GRIFFITHS: For the administration of buses, not just the capital purchase and acquisition of them? Because really, I suppose—I would assume your portfolio, minister, relates to the administration of buses also.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: The administration of them?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes; certainly for the contract for the provision of the services they provide.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: I thank the member for his question. Member for Goyder, it certainly would appear, just looking at it here in the South Australian Government Gazette of 21 October 2011—certainly in relation to what is covered in the Auditor-General's report, it is the Minister for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure who is the minister for that administrative unit.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Thank you, minister. I am trying not to use the term used by other members of parliament when they describe your portfolio—

The Hon. C.C. FOX: Oh it's alright; it's fine.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Okay; you know, 'minister for bus timetables'.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: Well then that makes you the shadow for bus timetables.

Mr GRIFFITHS: True.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: So, you know—

Mr GRIFFITHS: That is why I am trying not to use that.

The CHAIR: That includes trains as well.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I know; and trams, and taxis, and regional airlines, and all those—

The CHAIR: That's right, yes.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes, as we have discussed.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: And licensing and registration.

The CHAIR: Yes.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Okay.

The CHAIR: There you go; your colleagues are wrong.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes. But indeed, if I cannot ask a question about the number of buses purchased, can I ask a question about the number of buses that, under your area of responsibility, actually operate in South Australia? If you have any updated figures, that would be even better, but I am only asking questions about 2010-11.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: I can tell you that we currently have 904 buses running on the streets of Adelaide. In relation to 2010-11, I will just take some advice on that. Member for Goyder, I will have to take that question on notice, and I am happy to get that figure back to you probably sooner rather than later. I am advised that, in the strictest interpretation of the Auditor-General process, apparently that is a question also for the Minister for Transport; but that is okay, I will bring it back to you anyway.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I can sense your disappointment in having to provide that answer to me. If I can ask a question about the 904 buses that you quoted as presumably being in place at the moment. It is a bit of a general area, but in the transport services which you are responsible for coordinating with buses, is the entire bus fleet that is used for those services owned by the government? I know an absolute majority is. If not, what number or percentage are owned as part of the contractor service?

The Hon. C.C. FOX: Previously I mentioned the 904 buses that are currently on our roads. I believe that 90 of those buses—not 90 per cent but 90 of those buses—are not owned by the government.

Mr GRIFFITHS: What number of the buses are used in peak times, that very busy morning time and that very busy late afternoon and evening time? What number of the buses do you have on the road providing services then? How many are either held in reserve—I understand that might occur for a breakdown situation—or are not required? My assumption would be that in peak times every available bus is required for the services being given, but I want confirmation of that.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: I will seek some more advice on this but, as you know, a number of these buses are run by private companies. There are three private companies running in the metropolitan area at the moment. Often that will be a decision for those companies themselves. Some companies will choose to keep a certain amount of buses waiting in the depot just in case of one breaking down or something going wrong, and some companies will completely extend themselves in the hope that they are going to offer a better service by getting everybody there on time and using all their buses.

While I am quite happy to speculate on an answer to that question, the reality is that a great deal of that answer would probably be better provided by the private bus companies themselves. However, I will get a little more advice for you. In relation to the second part of your question, which was the percentage of buses used during peak hour, that is, in the morning and in the afternoon, I will have to take that on notice and bring that back to you.

Mr GRIFFITHS: If I may ask another question that is numbers based also, about disability accessible buses. My recollection is that in the media you quoted 82 per cent by 2019.

The Hon. C.C. Fox interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: The target for 2019 is 100 per cent then, is it? Can you clarify that?

The Hon. C.C. FOX: Yes. That 82 per cent referred to the number of disability accessible buses available now on our roads. I think the target for 2019-20 is 100 per cent. I think it is probably worth pointing out here, at the risk of sounding a little political, that some—

Mr Griffiths: Don't do it.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: Can I do it a little bit?—10 years ago that number was at least half, if not less, of that 82 per cent. I forget exactly who was in government then, but I do know it was not us. So, there has been considerable investment over the past 10 years in making sure that those buses are disability accessible. Maybe I should not just put that down to a party political answer either. I think that in the past 10 years across society a great deal of awareness has been raised about disability issues, so perhaps we are all more aware of those issues than we were 10 or 15 years ago.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I suppose that relates to the issue raised by Mr Richard Maurovic a few weeks ago. There was a radio session on ABC with Kelly Vincent and a few other members—the Leader of the Opposition spoke, and the Hon. Ian Hunter also. The question has been posed to me since that if the current level was 82 per cent—for example, on weekends where there is less demand for bus services—have you issued a decree or does a decree actually exist with an operational expectation that 100 per cent of buses used on weekends or non-peak times are disability-access buses to reduce, as much as humanly possible, the inconvenience?

The Hon. C.C. FOX: There is an expectation for weekends and public holidays, etc., that the buses used during those less busy times are all disability-compliant. In relation to Mr Maurovic, I believe he was the gentleman who waited for some five buses before the sixth one came along, which was disability-compliant. That was extremely regrettable. There is capacity for people who require it to ring ahead and to make sure that the central booking agency is aware of their need for the relevant bus. I know that all the companies go out of their way to make that happen.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I seek clarification on one more point in this area. When you refer to an expectation of these disability access buses, is it part of the contractual standards that they have to ensure that these buses are out there at those times?

The Hon. C.C. FOX: I am led to understand that that particular thing that you referred to is in fact codified in the new contractual arrangements. I would have to check to make sure that I am 100 per cent correct on that, but that is what I am led to understand. I do know that the contracts that have been enacted since July—and, on a practical level, since October—have been much more stringent on a number of levels than previous contracts.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I have a question about passenger transport services—the number of complaints. Recently I heard you refer to the fact that there are some 250 per week. We ask questions pre-30 June 2011, though. Can you give me confirmation of how many complaints were received on average each week for the 2010-11 financial year, not just about buses but about trains and trams and the general public transport options?

The Hon. C.C. FOX: The answer that you require is in the annual report, so I will be able to bring that back to you.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I admit to not being sure of where the reference to this is, but it relates to an answer that you provided to a question from your own side today, about managed taxi ranks. As part of an answer you referred to that.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: You mean new stops?

Mr GRIFFITHS: No. Can you confirm the level of commitment that exists from the government for the managed taxi ranks? My understanding is that there is an approximate cost of, I think, $50,000 or $60,000 per year for each one. Is the government fully subsidising that cost, or is it coming from another source?

The Hon. C.C. FOX: The government is, of course, making some contribution to that cost, but the taxi industry itself has been very financially supportive, as has the Adelaide City Council.

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

The Hon. C.C. FOX: Holdfast Bay?

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

The Hon. C.C. FOX: He is talking about the ones we were talking about in the city.

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

The Hon. C.C. FOX: Sorry, I was listening—

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

The Hon. C.C. FOX: I was talking about the four in the city. I can come back to the member for Morphett with information about his particular taxi ranks, if he would like that. Yes, there is a financial contribution from the Adelaide City Council from the taxi industry itself. I believe that the majority of the government's financial liability relates to improved signage; and also making sure that the drivers concerned are aware of exactly which stop they are meant to be using and when, because some of those stops have moved slightly or, in fact, are new stops.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Can I ask the minister for clarification. On the basis that significant labour cost is involved in a managed taxi rank, I presume, and you have referred to contributions made by the taxi industry itself, have you had discussions with the Taxi Council or the taxi industry about what it would like to see happen, because I understand that there is a proposal for some more to be opened up? Is there an expectation that industry itself will continue to fund it, or will the state be putting in more dollars to support it?

The CHAIR: I will let you answer. That is fine. I just want to let the member know. I have been really good up to now, member for Goyder.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: You have been very, very generous—in many ways. Sorry, before we were talking about the bus stops?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Managed taxi ranks.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: You asked me about the thing that I was talking about today. I was talking about bus stops.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Part of that answer referred to managed taxi ranks also.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: Okay, so your question is about taxi ranks.

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

The Hon. C.C. FOX: No, hang on. Member for Goyder, for my own clarification, can you ask me that—

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

The Hon. C.C. FOX: I didn't know what he was talking about.

The CHAIR: You are no orphan there. Member for Goyder, would you like to rephrase your question?

The Hon. C.C. FOX: I apologise. If the member could just clarify that question, that would be good.

Mr GRIFFITHS: My understanding, minister (and certainly it was evident during the 2010-11 financial year where there has been forward managed taxi ranks—

The CHAIR: I would not take that for granted.

Mr GRIFFITHS: —which is under 'Public Transport Services' on page 1504), there is an approximate cost in the range of $50,000 to $60,000 a year to manage each of those managed taxi ranks. My understanding is that the state contributes approximately $20,000 towards that cost. Can you just clarify whether that is the case, and is that the intended position moving forward?

The Hon. C.C. FOX: Thank you, member for Goyder; I will have to take that question on notice. I should actually say that I am meeting with the Taxi Council representatives next week, and that will certainly be one of the things that we will be discussing.

Mr GRIFFITHS: My reference is now page 1508 under 'Grants and subsidies', and I refer specifically to the Transport Subsidy Scheme. Minister, you would be aware–and I certainly am, also—that there have been occasions when this fund has been rorted in the past by some unscrupulous operators out there. In the main it is used very well, though; I do respect that.

This is the SATS Scheme. I note, though, if I can ask a financial question, that, for the 2010 ending period date there was some $14.65 million in expenditure, and for the 2011 ending date there was $13 million in expenditure. Can the minister give an outline, because I would have presumed that the demand for the service would have remained intact. I am rather surprised by a mere 10 per cent drop in expenditure.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: Financial statements reflect the level of usage of SATSS. A lot of work is being undertaken to try to prevent fraud in this particular system. Of importance has been the completion of an extensive risk assessment process that resulted in the development of a fraud and corruption control plan with a range of specific actions endorsed; the development of procedures that cover all aspects of SATSS administration, including misuse and fraud; enforcement of tighter application and management of third-party service providers; and also, obviously, given everything I have just said, the establishment of formal monitoring and reporting arrangements.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I thank the minister for the explanation about what has been done to prevent fraud opportunities. Fraud would have only been minor because, on the absolute majority of occasions, it was appropriately used; but the expenditure has been in the range of about a 10 per cent drop. Does the minister or the officers supporting her have any explanation as to why there is such a significant drop in the use of the SATSS?

The Hon. C.C. FOX: Member for Goyder, I hate to break your heart, but I am going to have to take that question on notice.

The CHAIR: The time has expired for the examination of the report of the Auditor-General for 2010-11 for the Minister for Transport Services. That concludes the examination of the Auditor-General's Report.

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