HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-09-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

PRINTER CARTRIDGES

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (15:50): I seek leave to make an explanation prior to directing a question to the minister representing the Attorney-General on the subject of rorts involving printer cartridges within the South Australian Public Service.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: At a recent meeting of the Budget and Finance Committee, the purchasing policies for printer cartridges in the Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Division of the Premier's department were highlighted. An allegation in relation to some 200 printer cartridges having been purchased for over $80,000 in less than two months was raised. The chief executive of the department, within 24 hours, announced publicly that an employee within the Premier's own department had been suspended pending further investigations.

I lodged a freedom of information request with all government departments and agencies on that day, with a simple request of a copy of all invoices for printer cartridges from those departments. I have been provided today with an answer from the Attorney-General's Department, which says:

Unfortunately, I cannot identify the documents you are seeking...For your information the common practice within the Attorney-General's Department when purchasing printer cartridges is to code the cost to the stationery code...I cannot, by looking at this document, determine which transactions include the purchase of printer cartridges.

Please provide me with a list of suppliers to enable me to locate the documents you are seeking.

Your application will be considered invalid until you have provided me with information that enables me to locate the documents you are seeking.

What the Attorney-General's Department is telling me is they cannot, through their invoicing and accounts, tell me how many printer cartridges they have purchased in the last year and what they actually paid for the printer cartridges, and that it is up to me, as the applicant, to identify the unnamed or unknown suppliers of printer cartridges to the Attorney-General's Department before any freedom of information request can be considered. My questions to the minister are:

1. Can the minister explain how his department's accounting and financial management practices can be so slack that they supposedly cannot identify how many printer cartridges they have purchased in the last 12 months and what price they paid for them?

2. If the Auditor-General is going to conduct an inquiry into these particular claims and procurement practices in government departments and agencies, will the Attorney-General's Department provide this same response to any requests for information from the Auditor-General in relation to purchases of printer cartridges?

3. Does the minister accept that this extraordinary refusal under freedom of information from his own department indicates that he and his government are embarking on a massive cover-up designed to prevent the release of any information about the scandals and rorts of purchasing within government departments and agencies?

The PRESIDENT: The honourable minister should disregard the enormous amount of opinion in that question and also realise that this has been evidence at a committee, and whilst the Hon. Mr Lucas sailed very close to that, he was not in breach of standing orders, but I remind members that the Attorney-General should not respond to evidence of that committee until it has reported. The honourable minister.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Public Sector Management, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for Gambling) (15:54): Thank you, Mr President. I thank the honourable member for his question and will refer those to the Attorney-General in another place and bring back a response. Obviously it is a matter for the Attorney-General, but just by way of some very broad and general background, I am advised that an internal investigation in DPC has resulted in action that is deemed appropriate for the alleged breach.

I am advised that the Chief Executive, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, has written to all chief executives asking for an urgent review of procurement practices, particularly in relation to computer consumables, to ascertain if there are any irregularities. As members would no doubt be aware, the Premier advised on Thursday 21 September that the matter had been referred to the Attorney-General and also to the police. The Attorney-General has—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: The Auditor-General.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The Auditor-General, I beg your pardon. The Auditor-General has broad-ranging investigative powers, including the ability to summons witnesses, demand documents, conduct searches and inspect records, and it is up to the Auditor-General to determine whether and how to conduct the inquiry and the scope of his investigation. It is obviously not appropriate to direct the Auditor-General as to how he carries out his role as an independent statutory officer. As I have said, in terms of being able to answer any of the questions the honourable member has asked about, I will refer those to the Attorney-General in another place and bring back a response.

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