HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-11-11 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Auditor General's Report

Auditor-General's Report

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (15:35): I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended as to enable the report of the Auditor-General for the year ended 30 June 2014 to be referred to a committee of the whole and for ministers to be examined on matters contained in the report for a period of one hour.

Motion carried.

In committee.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Starting on page 1943 of Volume 5, in relation to SA Water Corporation and the Adelaide Services Alliance contract, which was entered into on 1 July 2011, can the minister outline what functions were transferred back to SA Water? I understand there was the call centre, and I am wondering what other functions might have been transferred.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that the operational control centre, the asset management functions and the delivery of capital programs in the metropolitan area are now managed directly by SA Water, not through the alliance contract process.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Can the minister advise how many KPIs Allwater has to report on, and whether this is under the alliance management committee or some other governance structure?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I can advise that under the Alliance framework these KPIs are set out, they incorporate such things as attendance time, restoration times, water quality and environmental licence compliance, those sorts of issues. In terms of the total number of KPIs, we do not have that before us but we can come back with that information.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: On pages 1944 and 1945, in relation to audit observations of the AMC, there are some comments about other matters noted at the time of the Auditor-General's review of the external audit reports: validity and accuracy of invoices were not available for 2013-14. There is also a comment about the independence of officers, which had also been reported on in the consultant's analysis. Can the minister expand further on those comments and advise whether actions have been taken to address those concerns?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: In relation to the first part of the question, when the audit was conducted, the external audit reports used to gain assurance on the validity and accuracy of invoices were not available for 2013-14. SA Water can now confirm that the external audits on the validity and accuracy of invoices have now been completed, with no material adjustments being required as a result of the audit. In terms of the independence of officers, all officers employed in the Alliance but employed by SA Water now have to report directly to the SA Water general manager, I am advised.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Page 1946, the Adelaide Desalination Plant, refers to the renewable energy contract being in draft format and the energy contracts coming into use in December 2013. I understand those contracts are for 20 years. Can the minister advise how much additional expense will be incurred as a result of the renewable energy contracts, over what otherwise would have been the case?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I cannot advise the chamber as that information is commercial-in-confidence.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I refer to page 1952, Other income:

Miscellaneous income decreased by $11 million…including a settlement…with United Water.

Is the minister able to break down the $11 million into its components?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I do not have that breakdown, but my advice is that the vast majority of that $11 million relates to the water issue, which is of the order of $10 million, so nearly all of it.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: On the next page it states, 'Other expenses increased by $4 million mainly due to' and it refers to an increase in electricity expenses for usage for the operating of the desalination plant. Can the minister advise what quantum additional energy was utilised to create that expense?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The Hon. Michelle Lensink is a very good trier, but I am advised that by giving that information there is a possibility you would work out commercial-in-confidence details about the price of our electricity contract, so I have to say to her that I decline.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I refer to page 1955. There are a few different references to revaluations, which I understand have been the subject of a consultancy. There is a dot point that says, 'Revaluation of infrastructure, plant and equipment by $348 million upwards'. It states that it is based on an 'independent valuation or director's valuation'. Can the minister expand on what the director's valuation actually means?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that this relates to the depreciation allowance for all assets of SA Water. My understanding is that where there is no formal accounting standard methodology in place for the valuation, directors are free to make their own evaluation of the assets. My understanding is also that this is very rarely used, and my advice is that we cannot ever recall it being used.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: On a similar issue, on the RAB on page 1962, the Auditor says:

Given the difference in the RAB and financial statement asset values, last year SA Water investigated, with the assistance of DTF and an accounting firm, whether the establishment of the RAB was an indication that the asset values adopted for financial reporting were impaired (ie overvalued).

Can the minister advise which accounting firm that was? Was it Aquenta? Further, it states that the asset value was determined as being within a reasonable range. Can he a little more specific about that detail?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: In terms of the regulatory asset base, I thank the honourable member for her question, because it allows me to put on the record some comments in relation to this. Quite a bit of information has been bandied about recently in the media about the RAB. One of the incorrect statements has been about the regulatory asset base and its valuation.

As I said before in this place, the RAB is a construct. It was always anticipated that SA Water's RAB would move in line with movements in the weighted-average cost of capital which has dropped to historically low levels. I am advised the RAB is still well below its book value. Changes in water prices are not the same as changes in average revenue because of the specific nature of SA Water's price structures and customer base.

Water prices for the last financial year, 2012-13, have decreased by 6.4 per cent after we appointed ESCOSA as the independent regulator. As the chamber knows, we have limited price increases for the immediate future to CPI. ESCOSA now determines the maximum amount of revenue that SA Water can collect, and this ensures transparency in the setting of water prices. There was some comment about the asset base being within normal practices.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: Within a reasonable range.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Okay. Nonetheless, with the assistance of the Department of Treasury and Finance and a chartered accounting firm, which I am advised was PricewaterhouseCoopers, SA Water has investigated whether the difference in values was an indication that the financial statement asset values were impaired or overvalued. These investigations concluded that the financial statement asset values were materially within the range of market values, and I think I can recall that the asset replacement value (or whatever PricewaterhouseCoopers called that value) was something in the order of $13.8 billion and their regulatory asset base was set at something like $11.3 billion, or something of that order.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Is the PricewaterhouseCoopers report publicly available?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: No, because of commercial in-confidence information that was required for them to do that work.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I now refer to page 1959—Ministerial direction. It says that the minister considered it appropriate to direct SA Water to, among other things, 'purchase renewable energy or renewable energy certificates for the purpose of operating the…desalination plant'. Why was that not covered by the terms of the contract? Am I missing something?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The directions—which I think I tabled today—provide certain things. I think there were five areas: to provide certain services; purchase renewable energy certificates (as the honourable member outlined); maintain statewide water pricing; contribute to water planning charges; and also to reimburse for fees that are passed on to SA Water by the Valuer-General in terms of a roll. The services are of the order of emergency management and government radio network services, etc.

In terms of the direction, I understand the electricity contract rests with SA Water, not the desalination plant, and SA Water provides the electricity for the ADP to operate. It was done in such a way so that ESCOSA would take into consideration the cost of the business and put that as part of its consideration as part of the asset base and the calculation of the revenue that SA Water actually gets from the business.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: My last question is with regard to SA Water. I do not know whether other honourable members have any questions, so it appears this may be the last one for SA Water and the north-south interconnector pipeline. Can the minister advise what volumes have been used to transfer and whether they are north to south or south to north etc?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I am advised that the system works from south to north. The system has been used almost continuously, I understand, since it was brought into operation and essentially it takes treated water. It may store it in the treated water tanks overnight but, effectively, it goes straight into the system and straight into customers' taps. It has been in continuous use, as I said. In terms of the volume, we do not have that with us, but we think that we can come to a very close approximation of that for the honourable member and I will bring that back to the chamber.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Referring to page 41 of the Audit Overview, what impact is the government's transfer of general government net debt of $2.7 billion to SA Water going to have on SA Water customers, and can SA Water customers expect their water and sewer accounts to increase as a result of this gearing change?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The answer to the honourable member's first question is none; and to the second question is no.

The CHAIR: We might move on to DEWNR if everybody is happy.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: This is Volume 2 of the agency reports, page 593, looking at revenue. There are quite a number of debtors in relation to water licensing and levies, which it looks like the department has taken action on, but, of the original $5.5 million, can the minister provide an outline of whether they were weighted towards particular regions that were not paying their levies in higher amounts or a particular source? Is there some more detail that can be provided on that?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I cannot give the honourable member that information because we simply do not keep that information in any sort of form that would be available to us or her; that is the answer to that question. What we do have, though, are the top 200 debts that we are actively managing. Again, they are not broken down by region; they are broken down by the value of the debts, and so rather than doing a regional analysis we actually go through a value process.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: On the same topic, there is a reference to a project that would see this external debt collection agency, which is to be completed in the second quarter of 2014-15. Can the minister confirm whether that time frame is still accurate?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I am advised that the process is on track. The final stage is to take that to the presiding members and get their approval and that should happen speedily.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Page 615, employees; there has been quite a jump in the number of employees who are earning over $138,000—particularly in the over $400,000 per annum bracket, about 15, I think, on my figures. Can the minister, who might need to take this on notice, provide the actual titles for each of those positions?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The information that I have at hand relates to two of the highest paid positions. It is important to understand, of course, that that figure is not the salary; it is the entire package for a targeted voluntary separation payment. It incorporates effectively a full year of salary plus paid leave, and the TVSP component of that would be roughly slightly more than half.

So, the total remuneration for one—I do not have the title, but I have the position level, which is a PO503—was $471,399. As I said, that includes more than half of it in terms of TVSP payment. The other component was a full year's salary of the order of, in this situation, $100,000 plus paid-out leave. The second position is the same—PO503. It was for $468,320, and it was essentially the same sort of breakdown.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Would the others all be executive level?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: No, not necessarily. Again, one must remember that those are a compound of a year's salary, for example in this case, and their paid leave, which will vary from person to person. That blows the figure up well above into what you might think is executive range, but the majority of them, I am advised, are not. Looking very briefly at a range of figures I have got, it looks like around a third is salary levels and the rest is a TVSP package, which takes it up well over, for example, $200,000 and higher.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I refer to the same table, which is why I am interposing here. In 2003, the biggest package that did not involve a TVSP was in the band $381,500-$391,499, and I am just guessing it is probably the CEO. This year, there are actually 15 people who are in a higher band; all of them have double asterisks next to that band, and the legend says:

** This remuneration band includes an employee who received a TVSP payment.

My question is: are any of those 15 people basically staff other than those who received separation packages? In other words, are there any regular ongoing staff in that 15 people below the band $391,500? I can explain it again.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Well, the second part of the question, when you repeated it, was not quite the same as the first part. My advice is, however, the answer to the question we think you are asking is no.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: So, clearly the main difference between the last two years has been these voluntary separation packages. The Auditor-General notes that the number of employees who received a package in this period was 172, compared to 48 in the previous year. My question is: are there any separation packages that were offered during that last financial year that are yet to be acted on? I am trying to get a sneak preview of what that number might look like in the current financial year. Were there any redundancies that were partway through and are yet to be completed?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice, Mr Chairman, is that, whilst that might relate to the financial year which we are examining, it does not bear part of the process for the Auditor-General's examination and I cannot comment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I refer to Volume 2, page 591, and I quote:

Over a number of years, Audit has commented on the accounting treatment of Crown land and the completeness and accuracy of Crown land base information…[T]he Independent Auditor's Report to the financial report again qualifies the completeness and valuation of Crown land included in the Statement of Administered Financial Position.

My questions are: why has the department not finalised an appropriate valuation methodology for all crown land and, secondly, has the Valuer-General been approached for advice and, if not, why not?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: As in prior years, DEWNR's administered items schedule has received a qualified audit opinion. In respect of crown lands, as the department has not yet been able to formulate a suitable and cost-effective methodology for determining a reliable measurement of the value of unallotted crown land, DEWNR has advised the Auditor-General that the removal of the audit qualification in respect of crown lands is essentially a two-step process. Firstly, DEWNR needs to identify crown land holdings in a comprehensive manner. Secondly, DEWNR then needs to establish the valuation methodology of the holdings.

In May 2014 the chief executive approved a formal communication to state government agencies requesting a copy of their records relating to crown land under the care, control and management of their respective ministers. Responses have since been received, I am advised, from all agencies and will largely influence DEWNR's intended approach to identifying crown land holdings in a comprehensive manner and subsequent resolution of this ongoing qualification. However, it is foreshadowed that such a project will be long-term and will require significant resourcing if the end result is to be achieved successfully and, given the situation we face in terms of our budget, we will need to manage that as best as we can.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: My second question was: has the Valuer-General been asked for advice and, if not, why not?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: That does not really relate to the Auditor-General's report, and I cannot give any answer to that question at this point in time.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: One relatively small amount in the finances on page 614 is the payment that was made for people sitting on boards and committees, and it has dropped from $505,000 down to $340,000. My question is: why has it dropped? Is it because you are paying fewer people to sit on boards and committees? Did the boards and committees sit less often or is there some other reason?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources paid sitting fees, including super, payroll tax and salary sacrifice amounts of $225,000 to 20 boards and committees during 2013-14. This is down from $265,000 during 2012-13 and is represented by a reduction of paid members by 17 people. A total of $218,000 was paid to the board members of DEWNR's administered entities during 2013. This amount excludes the natural resources management boards.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister for his answer, and it actually leads on to a question which means I may have misunderstood the figures on page 614. Where it says 'Board and committee fees', it is under the heading of 'Employee benefits expenses', so are they sitting fees that are paid to existing public servants to sit on boards and committees?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: No, the sitting public servants are not eligible for board sitting fees. Let me qualify that: in some special circumstances leave of the minister may be granted, but it usually involves very special circumstances.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: My question therefore is: $340,000 was spent on board and committee fees and it is under the heading of 'Employee benefits expenses', so what else would that money have been used for if not paying extra sitting fees to existing public servants?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Was that page 614?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Yes, 614, down the bottom.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Just so that we do not give any incorrect information, I will need to take that on notice. It may just be an accounting mechanism, but we will find that out.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: In relation to Skills for All, I have a range of questions here that the shadow minister for higher education and employment has provided to me. I refer to Volume 2, page 714 and the heading 'Lack of formal policies and procedures'. The Auditor has noted numerous ongoing policy and procedural deficiencies with the delivery of the Skills for All program. The question is: do you find it acceptable that your department has distributed hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars to RTOs and TAFE without having any documented policies and procedures for calculating the training subsidies to training providers?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It should be noted that Skills for All system controls are in place, but need to be refined. Whilst documentation on processes exists, there is a need to improve the development of formal policies and procedures. DSD has advised the Auditor-General that existing documentation and work instructions will be converted to formal policies and procedures and communicated to relevant staff, I have been advised.

I have also been advised that a project will be established to formally document, communicate and keep up-to-date policies, procedures and management reports that describe how payment hours applicable to each unit of competency are determined and approved, the variables that comprise the subsidy rates and any changes to these variables.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: My understanding of the minister's answer is that the procedures have been changed in line with the Auditor's advice. Has that been a change from the original setup of Skills for All, say, two years ago?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that it is taking the existing documentation and work instructions and then converting them to formal policies and procedures and, obviously, communicating that to all relevant staff.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: So, prior to this, there were no formal policies and procedures: they were just what you call the 'documented procedures'. Can you just explain the difference, please?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that what has existed are detailed work instructions and working procedures, and it was simply a matter of reformatting these into a formal policy position. As I said, a great deal of that detailed work was already available; it needed to be transcribed and reformatted.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: In relation to RTOs, how have they interacted with this change? They need to have faith in the process so that, when they are dealing with your agency, they know they are getting the accurate information.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I think the honourable member is referring to the changes that have occurred in relation to the funding arrangements for Skills for All, which I alluded to during question time today; that is, changes to banding arrangements and capping arrangements have needed to be put in place since the beginning of Skills for All to manage the huge demand, the unexpected demand, that occurred when Skills for All was put in place.

The issue that RTOs have raised with me, anyway, is that we keep changing the rules along the way. They want consistency so they can get along and run their businesses. I certainly understand the need for that, and we have certainly considered that in the way we have gone about introducing further changes since I have become minister.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: What I was referring to was in relation to the opening question, which was about not having any documented policies and procedures for calculating training subsidies to the training providers. You have outlined how they are now going to be transitioned into sort of formal documents or formal agreements. I am just wondering what interaction you have had with RTOs so that they have actually got faith in the process to get the information they require, and it will be robust.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I think the honourable member is confused because of what he is referring to in relation to these policies and procedures. These are internal directions for staff. I am advised that these are documents to support internal workings in terms of how we manage information about changes to the way we derive formulas for funding, capping and banding, etc. That is done through direct communication with RTOs, through information that we put on our websites and through our industry engagement which occurs in an ongoing way.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I will move on to the next point, which is still on page 714, in relation to the Enterprise Client Relationship Management (Pricing Management) system. The Auditor-General finds that your department had no procedure in place with regard to changes in payment hours in the Enterprise Client Relationship Management (Pricing Management) system so that they are independently checked for validity and accuracy.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: What page number are we on?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: It is at the very top of 715, I beg your pardon. I will read out the point from the Auditor-General's Report:

DFEEST does not have a procedure in place to ensure that all changes made to payment hours in the Enterprise Client Relationship Management (Pricing Management) system are independently checked for validity, accuracy and completeness of changes.

Are you surprised that you do not have that sort of level of checking? We are talking about millions of dollars here, minister.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that DFEEST's response is that the project will be established to formally document, communicate and keep up to date policies and procedures that describe how payment hours are applicable for each unit of competency, the variables that comprise the subsidy rates and changes to those variables.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: On page 715 of Volume 2, in relation to 'Approval of Skills for All training subsidy rates and pricing variables', is the minister going to ensure proper procedure for the authorisation of training subsidy rates and pricing, given that this is the second year the Auditor-General has raised this as an issue?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The existing instrument of delegation is being updated to specify the approval authorities for Skills for All training subsidy rates and changes to training subsidy variables. I am advised that this is actually with the Crown Solicitor's Office at present.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Another question in relation to the same issue: is the minister aware that subsidy rates and changes have been one of the major concerns of RTOs, in particular with Skills for All, and particularly in regard to business planning and employment?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I just outlined that in a previous response. This was an issue that RTOs—and TAFE, for that matter—have raised with me, and it is something I have sought to address. We have put a number of measures in place to help provide greater consistency and better communication across the sector.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: My apologies; I am trying to follow a number of things here at the moment. Can the minister give any indication of when the subsidy rates differences between TAFE and the private RTOs will be harmonised?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: One of the objectives we have set ourselves is for that price differential to be reduced over time, in relation to TAFE's cost of activity compared to the private training providers. However, it must also be remembered that there are greater onuses on our public provider. TAFE is responsible, for instance, for delivering our community service obligation training elements, which involve a number of different training programs, particularly those around Aboriginal training services. Of course, the cost of those are greater than many other training areas.

There is also the issue of training to regions. South Australia is characterised by many small country towns in very remote locations, making training in those areas extremely costly. We find that TAFE has a strong presence in our regions, which is very much appreciated by our regional communities and very important to them, but we know that many of those cases would be unlikely to attract a private provider because providing training to them is simply not financially viable.

We accept that there are structural elements that result in there being a higher cost impost or inputs into the training that TAFE delivers. Although I have qualified that, we still seek to bring the costs down to as close to parity as we possibly can.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have a question in relation to the review of Skills for All, which I asked the minister a question about during question time today. I will not repeat that question but I have another one, if the minister has the advice handy. Was the fee for the budget for the review coming out of training money or from some other funds to be provided?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: That is certainly outside of the Auditor-General's Report, but I am happy to answer it. I meant to answer it in question time. It was found within our current appropriation.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Is the minister able to share with us, so we do not have to pursue it through freedom of information, the actual budget for that review, or the likely cost?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that it is around $200,000. That is not finalised.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: At the top of page 719, under the heading of expenses on page 718 of Volume 2, it states:

Other payments to TAFE SA include $74 million in grants and subsidies for structural funding and community services obligations…

Can you expand on this please, minister, and in particular, what are the details of the structural funding?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that the structural funding was funds made available to assist TAFE in its transition into a single statutory authority on 1 November 2012 and to transfer into becoming the one TAFE. Prior to that there were three separate organisations, and this was to assist them to transition into the one TAFE.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Further on in the Auditor-General's papers, I think on page 721 under further commentary on operations, it talks about Skills for All, $289 million in 2013-14, $189 million to TAFE, and the aim of 100,000 training places. Minister, do you have an update on the data? How many courses were completed by students? How many students were enrolled in multiple courses and how many training places resulted in employment on the completion of the courses?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that there were 43,900 qualifications completed in 2012 and that this was an increase of 23 per cent on the 2011 figure of 35,700, which was the second highest growth rate in the nation. Nationally the qualification completions increased by 13 per cent, so you can see that it was fairly impressive. We completed our commitment to an additional 100,000 training places, which was set for over six years to 2015-16. We completed that virtually within the first couple of years, so it has certainly produced some fairly impressive outcomes.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: How many students were even involved in multiple courses, so double or triple counting?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: We do not have that data. I am happy to take it on notice and, if it is available, I will bring it back.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: You have the figures on those who completed the courses: do you have any data on how many gained employment once they completed their courses? Once they completed, how many gained employment?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have some employment data from an independent validation assessment that looked at graduates from 14 courses funded under Skills for All, I am advised. The key findings from that first report were that, in relation to certificate III in aged care, unemployment fell from 57 per cent prior to course commencement to 26 per cent after graduation. Over 75 per cent of graduates were assessed by their employer to be excellent or adequate in a certain number of tasks, and 94 per cent of respondents agreed to or strongly agreed with the statement that they were satisfied with their training.

Findings from another survey done, a telephone survey of 3,000 graduates from 14 courses, were that overall employment rates for respondents increased from 56 per cent before enrolment to 74 per cent after graduation; unemployment fell from 44 per cent to 26 per cent; 51 per cent of respondents who were unemployed before their course were employed after graduation, with 67 per cent in work related to their course. Ninety-six per cent of respondents agreed, and 52 per cent strongly agreed they were overall satisfied with that training.

The 2013 NCVER survey demonstrated that 90 per cent of graduates are employed or in further study after training which was also above the national average. I am also advised that a 2013 annual survey for Skills for All graduates found that 80 per cent of students identified their main reason for training was employment related, and almost 75 per cent of that group had achieved these objectives shortly after graduation.

Of those people who are already employed 75 per cent indicated that their course was relevant to their current job, with most rating it as highly relevant. Of those who commenced their current employment either during or after completion of their course, 70 per cent indicated that completion of their course was important to gaining their current job. So, that is some employment data that we have.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am aware that the Hon. Kelly Vincent and the Hon. John Darley have a couple of questions they would like to ask, and I think we are nearly at the end, but can I ask the minister whether she can bring back an answer in relation to this next question. Anecdotally I have heard that often there were senior people who were employed within government—the Public Service and other areas—who undertook Skills for All training for things like landscaping, which had nothing to do with their particular task, but they were able to access the Skills for All program. Can you bring back some information as to whether there is any accuracy to those comments?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: So, what they were about—

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have been anecdotally advised that senior people in the Public Service were able to do courses such as landscaping and other sort of, if you like, home-vocational upskilling that really had nothing to do with the tasks they were assigned to. I know you will not have that data with you, and I am mindful that the other two members would like to ask some questions, so I do not wish to take any extra time.

The CHAIR: Do you want to take it on notice?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: No. I am advised that we do not have that level of detailed data. We may be able to derive that, but at present that level of detailed data is not available. I am certainly happy to have a look at what is available and bring that back.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Looking at Volume 1, page 307, under the heading of 'Other provisions', I refer to the payment of workers at the Strathmont laundry.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: That is not an area I am responsible for as minister.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Are you able to take it on notice?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: No, there is a process for questions to be referred.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I assume the minister will have to take this on notice to the Treasurer. Referring to the Audit Overview, on page 44 of the Auditor-General's Report, Part C, State Finances and Related Matters, it is stated that:

State taxation revenue, whilst revised down since the 2013-14 Budget, is expected to increase by 15.1 per cent by 2017-18 in real terms. This increase is due mainly to estimated increases in property taxes driven by increases in conveyance duty, the removal of general remissions on the Emergency Services levy and the introduction of a new transport development levy from 2014-15.

My questions are, given the very volatile—

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Can I interrupt as a point of order; it is not usual that ministers for these committees take questions for other ministers in another place. It is not appropriate.

An honourable member: Sorry, it has happened in the past.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am just saying that I do not believe it is appropriate.

An honourable member interjecting:

The CHAIR: The minister has made her position quite clear.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am here to take questions about my responsibilities.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will ask it during question time.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes.

The CHAIR: The committee has concluded the examination of the Auditor-General's Report.

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