HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-10-31 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Auditor-General's Report

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT

In committee.

(Continued from 30 October 2012.)

The CHAIR: We now proceed to the examination of the Auditor-General's Report in relation to the Minister for Health and Ageing, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, and Minister for the Arts, for a total of 30 minutes. I remind members that the committee is in its normal sessions, 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. The member for Morphett.

Dr McFETRIDGE: My first question to the minister refers to 'Audit overview', page 4, and also 'Agency audit', Volume 3, page 683. I am referring to the 'Hospital budget performance and remediation review', and also the savings that the department has been asked to achieve. I understand that the department has spent over $800,000 on consultants to tell them that some of the key drivers, such as length of stay, same-day activity and utilisation rates are high, and some of them can be increased. What does the department actually look at monthly? I understand that the department—

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Could you say that again, sorry?

Dr McFETRIDGE: What does the department actually look at in their monthly reports so that we need to spend the $800,000, or whatever it was, on the KPMG and Deloitte report?

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I thank the member for his question and I, in passing, welcome him back to the health portfolio, if it is pro tempore or a bit longer. I am also advised by Jamin Woolcock, the chief finance officer from the department.

In relation to that question, which is more of a policy related question than a finance related question, the department and I are faced with some fairly difficult funding decisions and we wanted to make sure that we had a good objective look at the way our system works. I think that, if you do get outsiders who have got expertise and who have had experience and worked in other jurisdictions, you get a more independent and a sharper focus on the issues, and I think they have more credibility, I guess, than if we did it internally.

That is not to say that we do not do things internally as well. There is a whole range of things that we are looking at. This was really benchmarking our system against other jurisdictions. Overall, our system is slightly more expensive than the national average. I think we are probably about third or so in terms of the most efficient systems, so we are not that far off. There are things that we can do.

For example, the monthly reporting that would be done by the department would not cover the fact that certain surgical procedures are done more frequently in our state than in other states. So, if we do more of a particular type of surgery here than is done elsewhere, it does raise the question of why we are doing it more. It may well be that it is an appropriate level or it may be that we are overservicing just because we have a lot of staff employed in that area. There is a bit of a push/pull sort of relationship between the number of staff and the number of procedures. So, that is an example of what outside expertise can provide you with.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Same reference, minister: I understand that the department and network executive receive detailed performance data on a monthly basis led by the health information unit under Mr Steven Archer. What work does he not do that you need to pay the $800,000 to these consultants for?

The Hon. J.D. HILL: My answer to this question will be the same as it is to the first question. Mr Archer's role and the government business unit's role is to make sure that we implement the savings measures which have been agreed on and that we have a rigorous approach to the operations of our department from a financial management point of view.

Those reviews were looking at the operations of our hospitals and benchmarking them against national systems. So, do we have more or less numbers of nurses to do particular jobs in South Australia than the national average? Do we have more beds for particular procedures than is done nationally? If we have more, then it raises the question: are we doing more than we ought to? It may not necessarily be so, but it does raise the question. That is not something you can easily do internally. You need somebody who has got that external expertise and that is what we paid for.

Dr McFETRIDGE: The same budget reference, minister: I remember reading a few years ago now—and you can remind me how many years ago—the Paxton review. From memory, it identified many of the same things that we are seeing in the KPMG and Deloitte reviews, such as activity performance, the AAU at the Repat, medical overtime and detailed extensive savings to the system. I do not see any of the report's recommendations being implemented and we are seeing this again. I understand David Swan, the current chief executive, was in charge of operations at the time of the Paxton review, so I am a bit concerned that we are just going to have groundhog day here.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: That is a fair point, I guess, that the member makes. We have had a number of reviews and we are continually focusing on improving. For example, one of the important issues for us, which I mentioned in question time yesterday and I mentioned in media reports, is the average length of stay, and that has been coming down in South Australia.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: The puerile pointscoring that the Leader of the Opposition is now beginning to make will take away dramatically from what I think was a friendly tone that the member for Morphett and I had established. If she continues like that, I will give back in good measure what she is providing.

I was making the point that there have been a number of reviews to look at how our system operates, and elements of those reviews have been implemented. The average length of stay has reduced. In fact, if you turn to page 740 of the report, you will see that in metropolitan hospitals the average length of stay in 2010 was seven days. It has now gone to 6.8 days in the metropolitan area. It has gone in reverse in the country, but that does not particularly perturb me because we are doing more procedural work in the country. In fact, patients who have greater needs are being looked after in the hospitals. That shows that we have made some improvements, and we need to make further improvements. That is looking at only overnight patients.

If we look at all the patients, including the ones who go in for day only, they are spending about three quarters of a day on average longer in a hospital system that the national average. So, there is considerable room for improvement. Trying to identify how you make those improvements and working out the ways of extracting the resource from the system is very complex and very difficult. We obviously want to do it in a way which does not diminish the care of patients. We cannot just take little bits out here and there because we do not make the savings. Trying to work out a way of capturing all those little bits and seeing a substantial benefit for it is what we pay for advice for, and I think we got advice on how to do that.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to the same budget reference, minister, particularly page 683 of Volume 3, dot points 1 and 4: the identification of key drivers and the preparation of recommendations and potential financial improvements. It was disturbing to hear Christine Dennis announce her resignation from Flinders, and she is not the first, unfortunately. We have seen the recent revised financial government arrangements in the bulletin sent out by the chief executive, and we will talk about Oracle in a moment.

What information has been given to the chief executives, because you have centralised finance? Are they able to ensure that their budgets are going to be met? We can look at some of these things: the revisions to delegation levels and approvals that were outlined in this bulletin, such things as the engagement of agency staff, locums, including nursing and medical and allied health staff. There will be no over-contracted over-budget hours for medical staff, including VMS, without the general manager's approval. There will be no minor works or minor equipment purchases without the general manager's approval. The allocation of mobile phones, iPads and other such devices will be reviewed. All overseas and interstate travel, training and development programs, non-core, non-critical equipment expenditure and repairs and maintenance need to be approved by the general manager. Does the general manager—people such as Christine Dennis—actually have the information at their fingertips so they can meet Treasury's demands?

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I am not sure what point you were making about Christine Dennis's resignation. It was a cheap political shot. I can make as many cheap political shots as you like about resignations, changes in leadership and deputy leadership and the number of deputy leaders you have had. If you want to take shots at people who move in and out of our department, I will return fire with fire. Christine Dennis is a fine public servant. I spoke to her on Friday and wished her the very best. She got a promotion in the Northern Territory and she is entitled to pursue her career interests as she sees fit. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Auditor-General's inquiry. Highly skilled public servants in health are valued right across Australia, and there is a lot of movement. We recruit—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: There she goes again, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIR: Minister, can I suggest we both keep to the point, and I do not need a running commentary from the Leader of the Opposition. If you wish to ask the questions, I suggest you take the podium here and ask the questions or else just please sit there and listen.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: She is not in her seat either, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIR: Well, she might be.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Yes, she might be; that's true. Christine Dennis has left the system and I wish her the very best. She has been a very good public servant in South Australia.

The CHAIR: The question?

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Yes, well, they were the opening remarks he made and he was leading into the question. The LHNs have now been established. They have budgets and they have authority to manage those budgets, and we expect the executives of those hospital networks to manage their budgets appropriately, and the kinds of measures that they are putting in place are the kinds of measures we would expect them to put in place.

The financial environment for the state and for the health system as well is much tighter and tougher than it was in the past, so you would expect people to be taking stronger measures to make sure that budgets come in online. It is a most complex set of businesses that we run in the health service and it requires a lot of effort.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Just on that, minister, can you assure the committee that the CEOs, the general managers, are actually getting all the information they need, that they know exactly what their budgets are? Are there timely updates so that they know exactly where they are going?

The Hon. J.D. HILL: The advice I have is yes. They get a monthly report which has a whole sequence of information from an LHN level right down to some divisions within it. The advice I am getting is that the head office works with them on a monthly basis and, if they require further information, that can be provided to them. We will improve this, too, as we roll out Oracle and as we roll out the Enterprise Patient Administration System (EPAS) so that the tools that they have to do their work are not as good as we would like them to be but over the next couple of years those tools will be considerably strengthened.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Just mentioning EPAS there—and the reference here is page 682—I think the EPAS cost half a billion dollars and you are still having to maintain Legacy systems with the introduction of EPAS, so why are you not including EPAS in the country hospitals and others as an add on to this? How long are you going to have to operate the Legacy systems and separate systems and how much is that going to cost as well as the EPAS?

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Obviously EPAS is not a matter covered by the audit in this level of detail, although the Auditor does mention that he is going to have a closer look at it later on in this financial year. The rollout of EPAS will be completed, as it says here in the Auditor's report, by June 2014, and the first sites will be rolled out early next year, as I understand it.

I have to say that I meet on a monthly basis with the people responsible for EPAS and they are doing an extraordinarily good job. I believe they have a huge commitment from staff, massive amounts of motivation and a highly professional approach to this. This is a dramatic game-changing system which will revolutionise the way we run our health systems. The potential for cost savings is enormous but the potential for improved patient outcomes is also enormous. I think it is $400 million over 10 years that is the cost of running the system, so it is not a $400 million installation cost, it is a $400 million service over that 10-year time with the support that is required. I am very excited about it and I know the clinicians who were involved in it are very excited about it, too, and it will transform the way we run the health system.

Dr McFETRIDGE: That $400 million, that is the ongoing cost. What was the initial licensing cost or purchasing cost of the software?

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I do not have the individual breakdowns. I am happy to provide that, provided it is not commercial in confidence and I do not imagine it would be.

Dr McFETRIDGE: On the same budget reference as previously, the Audit Overview page 4 and Agency Audit, Volume 3, page 683: talking about the hospital budget performance review, as to the centralisation of many of the areas within health both in the central office and within hospitals such as finance procurement, human resources, medical imaging, pathology and now pharmacy, are they demonstrating the savings that you had expected? Where are the savings going to come from now that you have undertaken this degree of centralisation?

The Hon. J.D. HILL: It is a mixture of both savings and improved services. I guess the approach that we are taking is to have an integrated service delivery model clinically, so we have a series of clinical networks which are involved in planning services for the whole state, so there is a cancer network. In the past, services were developed on an ad hoc basis depending on the interests and needs of local hospitals and communities so some communities missed out. The north, particularly, had very little in the way of cancer services or heart services but we now have a planned approach to delivering that.

We also have an integrated approach to delivering financial services and the evidence really is in the fact that this year this audit contains all of the financial reports for SA Health including the Department of Health, the LHNs and the ambulance service, so that is seven sets of reports. In the past, and this is why the audit was not completed until April this year, the Department of Health has had its report presented, head office has had its report presented and then the agencies have not been completed for some months. That has always been standard practice under both sides of politics but, because of the centralisation, the integration, we now have the capacity to do that work.

That is a huge benefit for accountability and management of funds and will produce savings because if you have one system which you have to maintain and not a dozen or 18 systems that we currently have, we will make huge savings. We anticipate, and I am not sure how many, we will need 100-plus fewer finance people once Oracle is completed. There is obviously a transition cost and a transition process, but the end result will be a much leaner system. We are seeing the same thing in pathology; we are seeing the same thing in pharmaceuticals and in imagery. It is about better services but it is also about delivering things in a more efficient way.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Thank you, minister. In that same reference regarding the restructure of finance and corporate services to this ideal centralised structure that you talk about, why then does the department need so many contractors and consultants? I have heard that Ernst & Young and ZED consultants are almost full-time in the department. Is it not cheaper to hire people on a short term basis if you are really serious about the savings? Could you advise the committee of all consultancies in the department over the last two years, the projects and costs—and I understand the Auditor-General is looking for this information as well—as well as all the contractors currently working in the department, especially those who do not appear in your FTEs? You keep talking about losing positions in central office but everybody who talks to me says that you have been backfilling these with more consultants and contractors.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: There are a range of arrangements put in place. ZED, as the member mentioned, has the expertise to implement the EPAS system. We do not have that expertise; I do not know if it is readily available on a short-term contract basis of individuals who we could bring together to form our own company but there would be considerable risks in doing that. We are getting the established expertise by that group. It is a bit like when you are building a house. You can play the part of builder and bring in all the trades yourself but you are taking considerable risks if you do that. I have had some renovations done in the past where I did that, but I had some strong guidance, but you do take a big risk.

Alternatively, you can get a builder who does all the work for you and you have a contract with them and they are responsible for the outcomes. I guess that is the kind of nature of the contracts like ZED that we have. We also go to outside organisations like KPMG, Ernst & Young and all of the other big accountancy firms for expertise, where they have expertise in financial management. We bring them in for particular projects but the more ongoing projects are really about the rollout of particular programs in our system. I cannot really see a more sensible way of doing it. I just do not think what you are suggesting is practical.

If it was a simple project which involved a person doing a task, then I guess you could go to the market and employ somebody to do that task, but what we are talking about is a rollout of an information system right across our health service, involving all our employees—30,000 employees. We do not have that expertise in the health system. I doubt if we have it in government, and even if we did have it in government, we could not utilise all of it for the purposes that we want for the period of time that we want it. I think what they are doing is reasonable.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Just on that, I understand the Auditor-General has asked for a list of all consultants.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I do beg your pardon. The annual reports provide all of the consultants. If you look at the last of our annual reports, it will say last year's, and the next one will say this year's.

Dr McFETRIDGE: On the same reference, as you said, hospitals are complex places, so implementing changes to clinical practices such as length of stay, utilisation rates, increased same-day stay rates, will take, I would imagine from my understanding, about 12 months to lead in. How long do you believe that these changes are going to take to implement? How will the beds that are to be shut be managed with these changes in clinical practice? I understand that clinical staff are seriously concerned about how this is going to work.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: That is true. I think the member makes a reasonable point. Change in the health service is very difficult. I think that is absolutely true. Culture change is particularly difficult, and one of the reasons why the Auditor-General in the last report criticised the agency in particular over the introduction of Oracle was that we had not implemented it. The Oracle system is terrific; we just had not implemented it in the way which got all the staff using it in the way that it is meant to be used. That is not a criticism of the staff; it is just a critique of how we went about culture change in our organisation. I think we have learnt from that now and we are implementing things in a steadier and a more systematic way.

It is true, too, that in relation to reducing length of stay, the recommendations in relation to nurse-led protocols are very significant and we will have to carefully manage that. One has to be a bit careful about overestimating how quickly and easily it can be done, but there is a strong commitment, I think, from the nurses in particular, but also from doctors, that this is the right way to go, so we will trial it at Flinders Medical Centre.

The trial essentially will be about developing the protocols. What is the protocol for a patient who has a particular set of conditions to be able to be released? When do you know, objectively, whether or not they are okay to leave the hospital? That has been done in other jurisdictions, so I guess we can learn from those. We will trial it at Flinders. I imagine the trial will not be across the whole hospital at once. We will not have every particular condition being trialled at once.

We might work, for example, on people who have come in because they have a gastric problem. What are the factors which will tell you they no longer have a gastric problem? You do not have to think about it too long to work out what might be on that list: temperature, whether they can eat, all those kinds of things. Then the nurse says, 'Yes, you can do this, you can do this.' They are on their medication, they can walk, they can eat, they can do whatever they can; yes, they are ready to go home. We will roll that out and expand it over time and over place. I cannot tell you precisely how long it will take to implement, but I think with goodwill we can do it relatively quickly, at least get the first parts of it happening relatively quickly.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I will make this my last question. The leader has some questions. I refer to Overview, page 5, Net lending. What is the net finance lease liability for the new Royal Adelaide Hospital in 2012-13? Is there an expected revenue or positive capital asset realisation expected from the old Royal Adelaide Hospital?

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I am sorry, what was the first part of the question?

Dr McFETRIDGE: What is the net finance lease liability for the new Royal Adelaide Hospital for 2012-13?

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I will get some further information but I do not believe there is any liability until we, in fact, take over the site, which will be in 2016. I do not know if the Auditor-General has a particular issue in mind. I am not sure precisely what he means. I do not believe there is any liability, but I will have that checked.

In relation to the existing site, this matter has really now been referred to the Minister for Planning's department. We are thinking through what might happen on that site. There will be a whole range of costs in terms of clearing and removing contamination and there may well be some income-generating streams, too, from somebody else wanting to use the properties, but that has yet to be fully thought through.

Mrs REDMOND: Referring to Part B: Agency Audit Reports, Volume 4 at page 1085, about halfway down the page are two dot points that I want some clarification on. The first relates to the Museum board, which comes under your jurisdiction, of course, as Minister for the Arts. One of the requirements at the first dot point is that the Statutes Amendment (Arts Agencies Governance and Other Matters) Act, which was introduced in May last year, required the board to:

seek the approval of the Treasurer to hold and trade in shares

The explanation goes on to say that they did not actually comply during the last year with the requirement of having the approval: they had not sought the approval of the Treasurer as required by the amended act. Could the minister explain what shares the Museum board holds, what they trade in, what is the value of those shares and what generally has been the position in relation to their trading in shares in the 12 months that they have conducted that without any approval?

The Hon. J.D. HILL: The advice I have is that, obviously, this is a matter for the Museum board, which is an entity in its own right. Arts SA is assisting them to get the appropriate approvals in place. In terms of the details of whatever share portfolio they have, I am not aware of the details and I am happy to get a response for the member.

Mrs REDMOND: It is a matter for the minister, I would have thought, since there is a legislative requirement that they get the approval of the Treasurer to do it, and the Museum board comes under your jurisdiction. But, if we can move to the second dot point, the requirement of the act is also that they:

either have a budget approved by the Minister for the Arts or have approval to expend funds in the absence of an approved budget

Last year, they put in a budget which you approved, minister, four days before the expiry of the financial year. They have now put in the next budget. Can the minister give any assurance that their budget for the current year will be approved before we get to the last week of the financial year?

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I am happy to inform the member that the 2012-13 budget was approved on 17 October, two weeks ago.

Mrs REDMOND: I go to Part B, Volume 1 at page 47. The main highlight, I guess, of the arts portfolio in terms of the audit report was that there was essentially $500,000 in operating funding received which was incorrectly entered in the books. That is what I understand the report says. It effectively says that $500,000 was received and for some reason it was put into the books as a liability. That was wrong so, this year, they have had to get that corrected, reverse it, and then put it in correctly as income. Can the minister explain where this $500,000 came from? Was it a grant from government, and how did it come to be classified as a liability in the first place?

The Hon. J.D. HILL: First, I point out that my advice is there is no suggestion of any financial irregularity. It is just how it is accounted for.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: No, I understood that. Just for the record, though. The accounting question represents funds originally provided to the Festival Centre Trust for the purpose of mounting the 2009 Adelaide International Guitar Festival. Following a decision taken by the trust to postpone that festival until 2010, I advised the Treasurer on 13 March 2009 that the trust intended to apply the $500,000 that had been allocated in the forward estimates for 2009-10 to the delivery of the Guitar Festival in 2010. The Auditor-General and the Adelaide Festival Centre trustees adopted different views regarding the accounting treatment of this revenue amount of $500,000.

The Auditor-General faithfully applied accounting standard AASB1004 contributions and Department of Treasury and Finance Accounting Policy Framework 5—or 'V', depending on whether you are the Deputy Premier or not—income framework in arriving at his position. Adelaide Festival Centre trustees applied a conservative perspective in arriving at their position. They sought to have their accounts reflect the nature of their business operations, matching of revenues and expenses in the year in which the guitar festival is held, namely 2010-11.

There was a qualification in the financial statements in 2009-10 when the amount in question was not brought into account and a corresponding qualification to the 2010-11 financial statements when the amount was brought to account. The issue and reasons for the qualification again in 2011-12 remain the same. The qualification has been made to the amounts reported to the end of 2010-11 and I am told will not be an issue in the future.

The CHAIR: The time for the examination of the Minister for Health and Ageing, the Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse and the Minister for the Arts has expired. We will now move to the examination of the Auditor-General's Report for the Minister for Police, the Minister for Correctional Services, the Minister for Emergency Services, the Minister for Road Safety and the Minister for Multicultural Affairs for 30 minutes.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Without wishing to take up the time of the committee, I congratulate the CFS on their new CFS app with its push notifications, which my wife subscribes to and who was notified of a fire not far from her farm about two hours ago. So, well done to the CFS.

The reference is Volume 4, pages 1405 and 1406. There is an issue with SAPOL where, according to the Auditor-General's Report, there have been some errors made with calculating income maintenance payments for workers compensation, and procedures have been put in place to resolve this. Can the minister tell the committee what the issue was and what procedures have been put in place to resolve these concerns?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Certainly. I will do my best to explain this as simply as I can. As I understand it, there was an incorrect calculation of income maintenance payments in the income maintenance calculator. These were the issues raised by the Auditor: a long-term plan to calculate income maintenance payments, unresolved issues identified during external reviews of Injury Management Branch, and matters raised in a prior year audit which are still to be dealt with.

In relation to the incorrect calculator, the sample testing of income maintenance payments identified instances where the weekly income maintenance payments were incorrectly calculated as a result of incorrect inputs in the calculator, so the Auditor-General recommended SAPOL implement procedures to ensure inputs are correct in future. They have done some work in relation to that, had an independent private auditor check the robustness of the calculator and I understand they are confident that it will no longer be a problem.

Dr McFETRIDGE: My next reference is to the same volume, page 1408, 'Wireless communications and security', and there is an issue raised there where rogue and unapproved wireless access points created security problems for SAPOL and they are being addressed. Can the minister tell the committee what was the extent of the concern; how many unapproved interventions or accessing of information on the SAPOL site was undertaken and what is being done to make sure that the system is not being put at risk now?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I am advised that there have not been any breaches to the system and my understanding is that the policy is to not operate wireless systems, not allow wireless access into the SAPOL data, and that is a very strict policy. What they will do now is periodically scan the system for any wireless access but, as I understand it, there have not been any intrusions into the system identified.

Dr McFETRIDGE: What was the Auditor-General then talking about minister when he said:

Audit conducted a high level assessment of wireless security within SAPOL, with a specific focus on wireless access points.

The Auditor-General said:

They can potentially allow both users and systems to access the SAPOL network.

So this was a potential then, it was not a real issue?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: The assessment noted that SAPOL had developed a policy document which outlined approval process for the implementation of wireless access connectivity within SAPOL. However, the document did not have any specified requirement to do regular scans for rogue and unapproved wireless access. There are, as I understand, rare occasions where approval is given so that has now been put in place.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to the same volume, pages 1412 and 1446. The Victims of Crime Levy receipts increased by $470,000 to $13 million due to an increase in the levy rate from 1 January 2011. We saw a decrease in returns from expiation notices which is good, because fewer people are doing bad things. If, as we all hope, that expiation receipts continue to drop, how will the Victims of Crime Levy be managed? Will there be further increases in the levy rate?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: That would obviously be a budgetary decision that would be made that is not under the control of SAPOL.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Was SAPOL in any way aware of the reported fraud that was going on in the Victims of Crime Levy?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: This is an examination of the Auditor-General's Report. SAPOL does not administer the Victims of Crime Fund; my office does not administer the Victims of Crime Fund. We have no administrative responsibility for victim of crime payments.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I am conscious of the time and the other agencies we have to look at. The reference is page 1429. The revenue from wide loads and other escorts was $2.6 million. Is that expected to increase or decrease, minister? How many of the wide load escorts are sworn police officers, and how many are civilians nowadays?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I cannot give you a specific answer in relation to that, because it depends on the needs of a range of industries about the number of wide load escorts we will have, and what that income might generate.

Dr McFETRIDGE: The effect of Roxby not going ahead, was that a significant part of the income for wide loads?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: The expansion to Roxby Downs had not started.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I understand that there were something like 160 houses that were going to go up to Roxby; whether that is still going ahead, I don't know, but I would imagine that they may not be needed now.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Our accounts only show what we receive.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Moving on then. On the same page (1429), there was $2.7 million in revenue received from the hoon legislation recovery. I remember in the budget examination there was an issue of a $3.6 million—I think it was $3.6 million; I may stand to be corrected there—deficit in the budget due to the legislation needing to be changed. I believe it had something to do with the impounding and clamping of cars. Has that legislation been sorted? Is the $3.6 million able to be accessed, or will we not be seeing that in the future, so that the revenue will increase?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Sorry, I am not clear on what you are asking.

Dr McFETRIDGE: On page 1429, there is income from hoon legislation recoveries of $2.765 million; it has more than doubled from last year. I remember in the budget examination there was the issue of $3.6 million that had been forgone because the courts were unable to order these hoons to pay fees to collect their vehicles, or something like that, anyway. It was an issue that had been raised, and it was a significant amount of money that had been forgone, so I was just wondering where the government is at.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I am told the $2.7 million is based on court-awarded costs. Does that answer your question?

Dr McFETRIDGE: I thought the figure was about $3.6 million.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: According to the Auditor-General, $2.765 million was collected from court-awarded costs.

Dr McFETRIDGE: That was the problem where the legislation was deficient, in that the court could not actually order the full cost to be recovered, which I understood was about $3.6 million.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I am advised that there is a gap between what the court awards SAPOL and what it actually costs us to operate this particular system.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Thank you, minister. On that same budget reference, under 'Revenue from fees and charges', there is $1.175 million from other fees. Can the minister tell the committee what some of those fees would be?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I am told it includes things like vehicle salvage, but I do not have the specific detail of all of the things that that might include, so I am happy to take that on notice if you want the detail of that.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Just one last one, minister, going back to the hoon legislation recovery, my understanding—and I will have to read the Hansard or perhaps you can clarify now—is that the cost of actually recovering that money from the hoon legislation is more than will be received from the legislation. Is that correct? The cost of actually recovering the cost of hoon legislation is greater than the fees?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Yes, that is what I said to you. It costs more to operate this than we recover from the sale of vehicles or fines; that is correct, but we actually think it is an important issue. It is an important road safety issue and it is an important community safety issue. Delivering a whole range of services costs money.

The CHAIR: We are moving on to correctional services. Minister, would you like to change your advisers? Member for Morphett.

Dr McFETRIDGE: The Auditor-General reference on the first question here is Volume 1, pages 303 to 304. The Mount Gambier Prison contract has been awarded for five years, effective from 1 December 2011. Minister, can you give details on that contract? I understand there were tenders put out there. How many people tendered for the contract? That will do for a start.

The CHAIR: I just remind members that this is actually questions on the issues raised by the Auditor-General; it is not a question time as such. I just remind members because I am going to have to start ruling some questions out of order. I have tried to be lenient, but they are going too far astray now.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Sorry, were you asking me how many people tendered for the Mount Gambier Prison contract?

Dr McFETRIDGE: Yes.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I am sorry, I do not have that information. I was not the minister at the time. I do not understand that the letting of the contract was actually an audit issue.

Dr McFETRIDGE: It was just mentioned in the Auditor-General's Report that there were a number of tenders for the contract but, anyway, it does not matter. We will move on, minister. Under accounts payable, on page 305:

Audit identified a number of non-purchase related invoices that were processed for payments without any evidence that the goods/services have been received and that the invoices agreed to the goods/services ordered/received.

The Department has amended its expenditure policy to reflect that prior to invoices being processed for payment there must be a check that goods/services [actually] have been received...

Can the minister tell the committee if there was a deficit between what was paid for and what was actually received? Are we sure we know that what taxpayers have paid for has actually been received?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: The Auditor never found any evidence that goods or services had not been received. The department has amended its expenditure policy to ensure that prior to authorising an invoice for payment in BAS, staff must now check that goods and/or services have been received and the invoice has been certified as correct. In addition, monthly compliant testing will incorporate expenditure payments and the team leader (finance) will follow up with staff on instances of any non-compliance.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Further to that issue and related to it, on page 304 under 'Risk management', it states:

Audit identified that the department's risk management controls have not been operating effectively. In particular, the review found:

no evidence that all material risks were being continually reviewed and monitored

no evidence that all risks had been reviewed in the last 12 months. Audit noted that some risks documented in the risk registers dated back to 2005-06

It is 2012 now. The review found:

extreme and high risks were not always reported to the Audit and Risk Management Committee as required by the Committee's Charter

senior management were signing off the financial management compliance program...as being compliant without sufficient evidence that the risk management controls were operating effectively.

Can the minister tell the committee what has been done to make sure that particularly things that have been sitting around since 2005-06 are now being addressed?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: The department has recently established the Internal Audit and Risk Management Branch, which has undertaken to review and monitor all risk registers and report to the Audit and Risk Management Committee. The Audit and Risk Management Branch will also include identification of extreme and high risks as an integral part of the annual internal audit plan. DCS has recently amended the financial management compliance program to better reflect the monitoring and reporting of risk to ensure that each directorate complies with reports being provided to the Audit and Risk Management Committee.

Dr McFETRIDGE: It still begs the question: why has nothing been done since 2005-06 when this was raised by the Auditor?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I understand that these were not issues that were necessarily raised in 2005-06. It is just that some issues have been identified backdating that far. It is pretty well updating registers.

Dr McFETRIDGE: That is what it says. It is documented in this register, and I would ask myself: who has it been documented by? We will now move on to emergency services for the last 11 minutes. Apparently the minister is not willing to answer questions on road safety. The email I got implied that it was in DPTI yesterday.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I will just clarify that. My understanding is that there was a conversation with your office about whether we were doing road safety in this or whether it would stay with minister Conlon, seeing that he has an overall responsibility for administration of the department. I understand your office was very happy with that suggestion. I am happy to take road safety questions that are related to the Auditor-General's Report, if you want.

Dr McFETRIDGE: That was not my understanding. I will check with my office and check the email that was sent to my office from the minister's office. Welcome, Mr Place. We will go straight to SAFECOM. I refer to Volume 5, pages 1493 to 1499. We are talking about the Building Project Control Committee. There were some significant issues that the committee was not operating effectively, capital project budgets were overrun and no formal reports prepared and submitted to the SAFECOM Board. Committee membership was not consistent, did not review or monitor the projects adequately and could not find the minutes of all the meetings and audits. Can the minister tell the committee what is being done to make sure that the Auditor-General's concerns are being addressed?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: We accept the concerns of the Auditor-General in relation to all of this. The Building Project Control Committee was established by SAFECOM to oversee CFS and SES building projects to ensure things like value for money was achieved, that tendering and selecting processes provided for ethical and fair treatment, probity, accountability and transparency. The committee's membership and terms of reference are now under review to ensure that the focus and outcomes of the committee are appropriate and the Auditor-General's observations and criticisms will be included as part of this review.

During this process, the Deputy Director-General of Community Safety will now chair this meeting and ensure appropriate processes and documentation occurs. I guess this reinforces why we have established the directorate of community safety.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Now that the minister has raised the community safety directorate, will that directorate be going through the same audit as any of the other departments, as in CFS, SES, MFS, SAFECOM?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: It is part of a large department. I would assume that if the Auditor-General wants to audit it, he will do so.

Dr McFETRIDGE: My understanding was that because it was not a specific department within itself it was not subject to the same audit, but I am assured—

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: It is part of the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion.

Dr McFETRIDGE: And does the budget come out of Department for Communities and Social Inclusion or out of the emergency services budget?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: At the moment it is cost neutral. The people who are working there have been seconded from agencies.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to pages 1494 and 1495. It is the old chestnut that keeps turning up: Port Lincoln emergency services complex. The recordkeeping, according to the Auditor-General, was seriously deficient during the construction process and questions have been raised by the Auditor-General regarding the payment authorisation process for this project. Can the minister let the committee know where we are with this project? Are people who are still owed money by subcontractors being paid? Are they going to get paid?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I understand there is just one outstanding account that is in negotiation at the moment, but that has just recently been received. I understand all other payments have been made.

Dr McFETRIDGE: So the young fellow, who I think is a tiler, who is owed $50,000 according to my information has been taken care of, I hope. I am happy to forward correspondence that I have received and Mr Foley, former treasurer, had sent to this chap.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: That was a contract, I am advised, between Unique and the tiler. He was a subcontractor. It had nothing to do with SAFECOM.

Dr McFETRIDGE: That was the issue. Unique had been paid but this fellow had not been paid, and he has still not.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: That would be a dispute between him and Unique, not between him and the state government.

Dr McFETRIDGE: But doesn't the government oblige their contractors to pay the subcontractors on time?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: You would recall that Unique was involved in a few contracts that have caused some grief and we are currently working with the Crown to try and recover some monies that have been paid to Unique.

Dr McFETRIDGE: That will be good news to that young fellow. On page 1669, Burra and Port Lincoln surplus sites have not been sold yet. When are they expected to be sold and is there any idea of what we are expecting to get for them?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I understand it has been on the market for some considerable time and has not sold so we are going through the process of revaluation before putting it back on the market.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I will make this the last question because the leader has a question. On page 1724, under the SES section, there was $170,720 paid for capital works projects in 2009-10 for works that did not materialise. Recovery of costs still has not been finalised. How much is left outstanding of that $170,000?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Sorry, what page was that?

Dr McFETRIDGE: Page 1724, under 'Contingent assets', No. 27.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Off the top of my head I think this may be a boat and trailer that has significant problems. We will check that issue for you but I suspect it is in relation to an unseaworthy vessel.

Mrs REDMOND: I have one question on multicultural affairs. Minister, in volume 1, page 285, at the very top of the page is a reference to various committees and so on, and I particularly want to ask about the multicultural and ethnic affairs committee on the next page. It says there that all members of boards and committees, including those who may have resigned or their term has expired during the year, are listed. I see that the number listed, although it is not obvious from there, is an increase from 10 to 15 on the previous year.

My question is: is the number of people listed there the current membership? I know at the front of the page before it says that it could include people who have resigned or their term has expired. Can the minister clarify whether the listing there is now the membership of that board as it stands at the moment or whether that includes people who have now resigned or retired from the board? I am curious as to whether there has been an increase in the size of the multicultural and ethnic affairs commission and, if so, why, and what the new people are doing. If it is not, can the minister identify which of the people there are no longer on the board?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I cannot see any names there of people who are not currently on the board but, if I am incorrect, I will get back to you with that. I do not believe that we have increased the number of people on the board; I think we still have the same number as when I started.

The CHAIR: I think the minister is saying that she will get back to you on that and take it on notice.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I do not want to give you the wrong answer but, just as a quick summary, I think it is the same as it has always been.

The CHAIR: The time for the examination of the Auditor-General's Report for the Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety and Minister for Multicultural Affairs has expired.

Mrs REDMOND: I think the agreement was that it did not include the Minister for Road Safety and that is why the member for Morphett did not ask questions on that.

The CHAIR: Let me finish. We went through this yesterday when the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure was here, and I made it very clear that questions would be allowed to the Minister for Road Safety. If you cannot follow the Hansard, that is not my responsibility. Moving on.

Mrs REDMOND: Mr Chairman, my understanding of the previous conversation, though, was that there was—

The CHAIR: I understand what you are saying. That was clarified yesterday, when the issue was raised. The Minister for Transport and Infrastructure made it very clear it was not his responsibility. He was happy to entertain, but he said you need to ask those questions of the Minister for Road Safety, and it is listed on the agenda for today for road safety.

Mrs REDMOND: Exactly, but then the conversation that took place, I thought, earlier, indicated that it was actually being dealt with by the other minister.

The CHAIR: Not at all. What the minister said was that she was more than happy to entertain questions about road safety today. If it were things which pertained to the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, you should be aware that they would have to be taken on notice. That was my understanding of what was said today. Member for Morphett.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Just as a point of clarification, I will go and check the email that was sent to my office from the minister's office, because it was my clear understanding that the minister was not taking road safety questions. If I am wrong there, I will have to accept that, but that was my understanding.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I will be interested to see if he has an email, because none was sent; it was a telephone conversation, I am advised.

The CHAIR: Emails do appear in the opposition sometimes.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Sorry. Before I get myself into further trouble, we are moving now to the examination of the Auditor-General's Report for the Premier and Minister for State Development for a period of 30 minutes. Premier, do you have your people ready? Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs REDMOND: I refer the Premier to Part B, Volume 4, page 1300. There is a reference to employees paid above $400,000 and it includes a reference to those who received termination payments. A note with the double asterisk in the bottom three lines of that table of people and their various remunerations indicates that the list of people who were paid in excess of $514,000 last year includes employees who have received termination payments. My question to the Premier is, what were the total termination payments received in each case, and what positions and how many people in those bands actually were people who received termination payments rather than people who received that actual amount by way of salary?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The answer to the member's question is that there are three positions in that table on page 1300 that were very senior positions: deputy chief executive, an executive director of the department, and a commissioner. Those sums comprised their salary for the year plus their termination payments. Their termination payments comprise the sums that were due to them on the termination of their contract of employment and also, obviously, leave and other entitlements. They are the nature of those. I am happy to quantify the portions of those things which are relevant to leave. I will take that on notice and bring back an answer.

Mrs REDMOND: Thank you, Premier, because that is what I am after. What were their salaries and what component was the termination payment? I go to page 1301: in supplies and services about six or seven lines down you will see contractors and consultants. Can the Premier explain why there is such a massive increase in the moneys paid for contractors and consultants last year, from $5,319,000 to, this year, nearly $14 million?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is principally due to machinery of government changes: $9.4 million is from incoming machinery of government changes. Because different agencies are now brought within the scope of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, what comes within them is the details of the expenditures associated with consultants for those agencies.

Mrs REDMOND: I ask the Premier further on that point what exactly he means by 'machinery of government charges'? What particular things have come into the department and where in the bookkeeping do you show the equivalent savings in the other departments from which those increased amounts have come?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is machinery of government changes, not machinery of government charges. The incoming agencies and divisions are: economic policy, transferred in from DMITRE; population and migration, in from DMITRE; and Office of Local Government, transferred from Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure. Those are the functions that have been transferred into the agency. Also, in terms of government services, Shared Services, Service SA and the Office of the Chief Information Officer. They are the functions, if you like, that have come in to DPC as a consequence of machinery of government transitions; and what comes with them is their contractors' and consultants' budget lines.

Mrs REDMOND: Can the Premier explain why we need so much—it is $8 million—in contractors and consultants when what you are telling me is that various parts of other departments are being transferred into Premier and Cabinet? Why does that necessitate all these millions of dollars being spent on consultants and contractors?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Because all agencies have a paid workforce and they have a proportion of their work that is carried out through consultants and contractors. So, when you bring in a function, you bring in their full-time equivalents, their workforce and also their contractors' budget. That is the explanation for the bringing within the agency of those additional sums. It is not an increase: it is just the transfer of a function in that relevant sense.

Mrs REDMOND: If I understand the Premier correctly, what he is saying is that there will be, in other parts of the government's audit processes, equivalent decreases in the other departments. I expect the Premier will have to take this on notice but can he provide a breakdown of the amount of that $7.5 million, I guess, that has come from each of those individual components that he has referred to—economic policy, population and migration, local government and Shared Services? Can the Premier provide—and I expect not tonight but on notice—a breakdown of the amounts of each of those that have come in from the other places?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The short answer is yes. A substantial proportion of them come from Shared Services, and that should be replicated in a corresponding adjustment in the DTF budget.

Mrs REDMOND: Just a couple of lines further down there is also a massive increase in the temporary and casual staff payments. That has gone from $1.789 million to $6.260 million in the last year. Can the Premier provide an explanation as to why there has been a more than trebling of temporary and casual staff?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: For the same sort of reasoning. Out of the total $2.3 million the main DPC divisions were: Integrated Design Commission, $231,000; state development, $250,000; SafeWork, $676,000; and support services, $828,000. Shared Services was transferred to the department as part of the machinery of government, which is the $3.8 million which is the largest share of that. That essentially explains the increase.

Mrs REDMOND: Is that an explanation for why the total amount spent on IT and computing charges, which is just above the contractors and consultants, has also increased massively (more than double) from $4.3 million to $9.7 million?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think, because of the increase in the size of the full-time equivalents due to the machinery of government changes, there is an ICT charge that essentially goes with each employee. That increases the amount charged. As the FTEs increase, obviously you have more workers with more demands for ICT services, then that increases the ICT budget of your agency.

Mrs REDMOND: Further down the same page, under the heading at the bottom of 'Payments to consultants', given that the total number of payments to consultants decreased from 106 the year before last to 70 in the year just gone, why has the total amount spent on consultants then gone up from $1.9 million to $2.6 million? It seems contraindicated: if you are using fewer consultants, why has the amount increased so significantly?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We will have to take that question on notice.

Mrs REDMOND: I will try to do this in some sort of reasonable order. On page 1303, just over a third of the way down the page, item 12, 'Resources provided free of charge', there is 'donated assets' totalling $1.5 million essentially. Can the Premier explain who on earth donates what asset to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet valued at $1.5 million?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: They are assets that have been brought back into DPC from the arts portfolio, so it is essentially one government agency transferring assets to another government agency. Arts was already in DPC, so I think it gets down to who controls the asset so there is no sense of one government agency purchasing that asset, so it is transferred for no consideration.

Mrs REDMOND: Perhaps one of your advisers can explain whether you would normally record that as an asset or a resource provided free of charge, rather than simply an internal transfer of assets?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Apparently, that is the accounting standard for the description of these types of transfers.

Mrs REDMOND: Sorry, minister, I should have asked another question on 'Payments to consultants' at the bottom of page 1300. There are 12 payments listed there which were for consultants who were paid more than $50,000. Now, I fully expect that you may not be able to provide the details of that right now, but even if you have to take it on notice, can you itemise and expand on what those 12 payments were for, how much they were, and who they were paid to?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am advised that they are published in the annual report, so they are publicly available.

Mrs REDMOND: Premier, I have a series of questions about the table of grants and subsidies that appears on page 1302. There are quite a number of figures there which are significantly changed, and I just want to go through some of them. For instance, can the Premier explain why the Adelaide Festival Corporation operating grant has increased from less than $2 million to over $5 million for this year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think that is simply because we have now gone to the annual festival. So, 2011 reflects the off year, and 2012 reflects the festival year.

Mrs REDMOND: If we just doubled the $1.9 million, that would get us to $3.8 million; why up to $5.6 million?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, the way it works is that, in the off year, there are still some basic costs associated with running a festival on a biennial basis, but obviously they increase when you go to an annual festival. That is the nature of the equation.

Mrs REDMOND: A little further down that same listing of grants and subsidies, what is the Timor Leste Basic Skills Training Project, and why has that grant increased for this year from $0.4 million (or $400,000) to $1.1 million?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: There is a continuing program of funding for the Timor Leste Basic Skills Training program, and it does fluctuate from year to year, so this is the particular sum that has been provided for this year. But, the fundamental commitment to the program remains the same.

Mrs REDMOND: Can the Premier explain that a little more? I do not understand why one year you would get three times as much as you got the previous year.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Because the obligations in respect of the payments may fall in one particular year. The basic commitment of participating in this, which is an aid program in relation to Timor-Leste, is something which is made and then the particular financial obligations in respect of it increase in whatever particular year you happen to be in. So, for instance, if you have made a commitment but you have not been able to expend some of the money in the previous year, there can be a carryover of resources to the next year and that reflects the fluctuation in the funding from year to year.

Mrs REDMOND: Still on that same table of grants and subsidies, I notice that the grants to the Anangu Pitjantjatjara operating grant, the Country Arts SA debt servicing grant and the Building Family Opportunities program are zero when they were, in fact, receiving money last year. Can the Premier explain why funding to these groups has been cut altogether in 2012?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: In respect of the Australian Centre for Social Innovation, that just reflects the end of the funding commitment that was made to the centre. In a sense, it came to an end, if you like, so that is the explanation for that. There was never any intention to extend it beyond that period.

The responsibility for the Anangu Pitjantjatjara operating grant has been transferred to the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion from the beginning of the year. In respect of the Country Arts SA debt servicing grant, the funding is now complete, so that brought that particular arrangement to an end.

I think you have then got a question about the Building Family Opportunities program. Once again, the responsibility for that has been transferred to the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion. The responsibility for Macquarie Capital Advisers Ltd has been transferred to DMITRE.

Mrs REDMOND: In fact, that was going to be my next question because I had not mentioned them yet, but can the Premier explain who they are and why they were getting $333,000 last year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The body that was receiving this funding was investigating the feasibility of the Green Grid program, so that is why it has been transferred to the renewable energy section of government, which is now found within DMITRE.

Mrs REDMOND: So, do I take it from the Premier's answer that, in fact, it is a private company that is yet another consultancy, effectively, to government?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, it is a feasibility study for the Green Grid. This is a body that has expertise in advising us concerning that.

Mrs REDMOND: Yes, but I am just seeking confirmation that it is a private organisation and the government is engaging its services and, effectively, paying them as consultants on that matter.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That is your characterisation. I can only tell you who got the payment and why they received it.

Mrs REDMOND: Perhaps the Premier could tell me how he would characterise it, if not as a consultancy. It is not a department, it is not employed by the government as a direct employee; surely, it is a consultancy.

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill: I am not here to debate: I am here to answer questions.

Mrs REDMOND: Can the Premier provide further detail on why the characterisation of 'other' at the very bottom of that listing of grants and subsidies has increased by more than one-third from last year, from $9.1 million to $12.6 million?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We will bring back an answer on that question.

Mrs REDMOND: Can the minister explain why the grant for the University of Adelaide has at the same time fallen from $1.2 million to $360,000? This is still in the same column, about a third of the way up from the bottom of 'Grants and subsidies'. The University of South Australia went up and the Adelaide University went down.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think that is largely associated with a one-off research grant of $800,000 for South Australian geothermal energy research at the University of Adelaide and a number of new initiatives for the University of South Australia, the most significant being the development of photonic crystal biosensors for cardiac biomarker detection.

Mrs REDMOND: Still on the same table, a bit higher again, there is a grant to the University College London which has gone up very marginally. Can the Premier advise what this funding that we are providing to the University College London is for, why it is under Premier and Cabinet, whether that is the total government funding, and how long it goes on for? It is under the Carrick Hill Trust operating grant—University College London. It is still under that same table of 'Grants and subsidies'. University College London is shown as having $769,000 last year and $771,000 this year. I am not asking about any increase; it is roughly the same amount of money. What I want to know is how long we are going to continue to fund University College London and what it is doing in Premier and Cabinet?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Maybe it is the way you draw the line across the page but, for me, University College London goes from $769,000 to $771,000. There is no increase.

Mrs REDMOND: Premier, I am not suggesting there has been any significant increase. I am asking a separate question, and that is: why is that in Premier and Cabinet and for how long are we going to continue to pay University College London nearly three-quarters of a million dollars a year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet because of the international university precinct project. Essentially, the substantial funding for University College London has ended. It ends in this financial year, 2012-13. Beyond that there are relatively small sums of money in the future for University College London in the order of $50,000 or so from 2013-14.

Mrs REDMOND: So do I understand the Premier to say that the $771,000 listed is the last substantial payment for University College London and that it will then drop down to about $50,000?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The essence of it is that 2012-13 (the current financial year) will be the last year that University College London receives substantial sums in the order that has been described in the Auditor-General's Report.

Mrs REDMOND: I should perhaps move on to some other topics, but just on that issue of the Premier and Cabinet control of universities, in terms of those overseas universities, can the Premier indicate how many full-time equivalents are in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet devoting their time to the universities?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Apparently a very small number of people. This program, in terms of the government funding, is winding down.

Mrs REDMOND: There is an item that begins on page 1316 and goes for several pages, which is the remuneration of board and committee members, and the total number of persons serving on boards and committees who receive or are entitled to receive remuneration appears to have increased from 349 in 2010-11 to 499, so an increase of 150 by the year 2011-12. Can the Premier provide any explanation as to why there is such a massive, almost a 50 per cent increase, in the number of people serving on those boards and committees and whether or not such an increase is consistent with the State Strategic Plan.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Once again, this is a machinery of government issue. The increase is substantially due to the fact that new agencies or new committees have been brought into the agency, because of those machinery of government changes, and one of the issues, though, is that there is a Treasury requirement which stipulates that both the receiving and the losing machinery of government agencies are both required to report any boards or committees that relate to any machinery of government changes. So there will be duplication of across agencies for these purposes.

Mrs REDMOND: If we can go back to page 1313, at the very bottom of the page there is a heading of 'Cash flow reconciliation'. Just above that are a couple of paragraphs on the impact of the High Court of Australia decision regarding the appeal by the Public Service Association. There is a reference beneath those paragraphs, just above that heading I just referred to, of: 'The estimated contingent liability is $150,000.' Can the Premier explain why it is contingent liability and whether that is, in fact, for the costs, whether it covers the whole of the costs or whether that is the liability expected to be paid out?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is described as contingent because it is not conceded and it refers to legal costs.

Mrs REDMOND: Is it the whole of the legal costs for the government?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I understand it is the estimate of costs that may be awarded and paid by the government to the other party.

The CHAIR: The time available for the examination of the Auditor-General's Report in relation to the Premier and Minister for State Development has expired.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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