Estimates Vote

Department for Communities and Social Inclusion, $998,989,000

Administered Items for the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion, $184,930,000

Minister:

Hon. A. Piccolo, Minister for Disabilities, Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety.

Departmental Advisers:

Ms J. Mazel, Chief Executive, Department for Communities and Social Inclusion.

Dr D. Caudrey, Executive Director, Disability SA, Department for Communities and Social Inclusion.

Mr A. Thompson, Executive Director, Financial Services, Department for Communities and Social Inclusion.

Ms L. Young, Executive Director, Disability and Domiciliary Care Services, Department for Communities and Social Inclusion.

Ms N. Rogers, Director, Business Affairs, Department for Communities and Social Inclusion.

Ms T. Stephenson, Principal Programs Manager, Department for Communities and Social Inclusion.

The CHAIR: The estimates committee is a relatively informal procedure and as such there is no need to stand to ask or answer questions. The committee will determine an approximate time for consideration of proposed payments to facilitate a change of departmental advisers. I understand that the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition have agreed to a timetable for today's proceedings. Is that correct?

Dr McFETRIDGE: We have half an hour.

The CHAIR: Changes to committee membership will be notified as they occur. Members should ensure that the Chair is provided with a completed request to be discharged form. If the minister undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the committee secretary by no later than Friday 26 September 2014 for inclusion the Hansard supplement.

I propose to allow both the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition to make opening statements of about 10 minutes each. There will be a flexible approach to giving the call for asking questions, based on about three questions per member, alternating each side. Supplementary questions will be the exception rather than the rule.

A member who is not part of the committee may, at the discretion of the Chair, ask a question. Questions must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget papers and must be identifiable or referenced. I do ask that members state their references at the beginning of their question. Members unable to complete their questions during the proceedings may submit them as questions on notice for inclusion in the House of Assembly Notice Paper.

There is no formal facility for the tabling of documents before the committee; however, documents can be supplied to the Chair for distribution to the committee. The incorporation of material in Hansard is permitted on the same basis as applies in the house, that is, that it is purely statistical and limited to one page in length.

All questions are to be directed to the minister, not to the minister's advisers. The minister may refer questions to advisers for a response. I also advise that for the purposes of the committees television coverage will be allowed for filming from both the northern and southern galleries. I declare the proposed payments open for examination. I call on the minister to make his opening statement, if he has one, and then I will call on the lead speaker to make their statement.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Thank you, Chair. I am pleased to say that in the past 12 months I have seen some of the most exciting developments in disability services in recent years. South Australia was the first jurisdiction to join as a trial site for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We should be extremely proud of this and our overall involvement in the NDIS. Our trial site, which commenced on 1 July 2013, focused on children aged from birth to 14 years. In the first year, eligible children aged from birth to 5 years were able to access support through the NDIS. South Australia's trial has progressed well. As at 31 March, 1,152 children have been deemed eligible for the scheme and 979 children have had support plans approved by the National Disability Insurance Agency, close to the target for this point in time.

Children with disability and their families participating in the South Australian trial are able to determine the right therapeutic and personal support services to meet their individual needs. The scope of the NDIS is expanding each year. From 1 July 2014, it includes children aged up to 13 and those aged up to 14 in the following year. In 2018, with the implementation of the full scheme, it will include every eligible South Australian with a disability under the age of 65.

The NDIS will ensure that those with a disability have dignity, control and choice. They will be able to select services that best meet their needs and aspirations for the future at every stage of their lives. The state and commonwealth governments are providing significant investment in the funding for the NDIS. From 2018, the full South Australian NDIS is projected to receive funding of nearly $1.5 billion, $723 million per annum from the state government and $760 million per annum from the commonwealth.

We are now in the important phase of reshaping the disability services sector as we transition into the NDIS, in particular assisting government service providers and non-government organisations to transition to the new environment. As the NDIS is not intended to fund supports for all people with disability, mainstream agencies will continue to provide existing inclusive services. This is consistent with the National Disability Strategy which influences the planning, design and delivery of the policies, programs, services and infrastructure at a national level.

As the NDIS is rolled out, the state government continues to drive initiatives such as individualised funding that focus on choice and person-centred planning. As at May 2014, 2,005 participants have a formal individualised funding agreement in place to manage their personal circumstances and support. In the year ahead, it is anticipated that all three stages of individualised funding will be completed, with over 6,000 people allocated a personal budget and able to choose how this is managed.

This past year was also a significant one for disability legislative reform. Once the scope and impact of the commonwealth's National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 was clear, I held three roundtable sessions to discuss South Australia's disability legislation and identify what was important for South Australians with disability in terms of our own act.

I was delighted to see the Disability Services (Rights, Protection and Inclusion) Amendment Act passed by parliament in November 2013. I would like to thank the opposition for its support throughout this legislation. This followed significant consultation with people with disability, advocates, organisations and carers. I received frank and direct advice on a range of issues which required legislative attention. As a result, the new act contains a number of important provisions, including:

referencing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities;

the right of people with disability to exercise choice and control about decision-making in their lives;

an accessible and well-publicised complaints and grievance procedure;

protection for those who make complaints;

mandated safeguarding policies to ensure the safety and welfare of service users; and

strengthened powers to monitor and act on inadequate performance by agencies, both government and government-funded.

I am focused on effective community engagement and, to facilitate this, I have established the South Australian Disability Register. This is a database of individuals who have agreed to consult with me on particular disability-related topics where they have expertise or interest. The register has to date 181 participants and growing.

As noted in relation to legislative reform, roundtable discussions with community members contacted through the Disability Register and smaller group meetings called 'kitchen tables' are an important means of community engagement. At the kitchen tables, specific issues are discussed in much greater detail and reported back to me and roundtable members.

Through this roundtable and Disability Register approach, 11 community engagement events have been initiated this year. This has enabled people living with disability to participate in the ongoing development of government policy, programs and delivery of services which impact upon their lives.

The Community Visitor Scheme is a most welcome initiative, providing an advocacy and monitoring service for people with disability living in state-funded accommodation. The Principal Community Visitor, Mr Maurice Corcoran, has recruited over 20 new community visitors for disability accommodation visits and undertaken numerous training sessions to equip them for this very important task. The Community Visitor Scheme reinforces other safeguarding initiatives, such as the appointment of a Disability Senior Practitioner to work with sector service providers.

A suite of safeguarding policies has also been developed to improve rights protection for those people with disability who may be subject to restrictive practices. These initiatives are examples of how the state government is implementing the important recommendations of the 2011 Strong Voices report. We are getting on with the work set out in the report and expect to better many of the set time frames.

Providing accommodation for people with disability in large congregate settings is no longer a preferred service delivery model; rather, supporting people to live in the community is the policy direction across Australia, thus providing opportunities for people with disability to participate in the life of the community. As at April 2014, there are 93 people living at Highgate Park. Disability Services is working with people who wish to return to the community to find supported accommodation that meets their individual requirements.

The former Social Inclusion Board's report, 'Strong voices: a blueprint to enhance life and claim the rights of people with disability in South Australia', recommended that the transition of people living at Highgate Park to community-based homes be expedited by implementing new assessment and life plans.

A person-centred planning process has been implemented, and people considering a move to community living have been assisted to complete a good life community living plan, which identifies future living and support preferences. People are being assisted to either return to the family home or access community living preferences as vacancies and/or new community living places are developed and become available.

The remaining people living at the Strathmont Centre are being assisted to move to supported community accommodation, using a 'one person at a time' approach. Housing and support options are being matched to people's individual needs. The mix and style of housing and support has been determined through 'one person at a time' intensive lifestyle planning, which includes individuals and their families and guardians. Individualised lifestyle plans ensure that people receive the support that best meets their needs and circumstances. In 2013-14, four people have been supported to move from Strathmont Centre to supported community housing. Due to the complex nature of people's support requirements—

Dr McFETRIDGE: Is there much more, Tony, because we are 10 minutes in, mate?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Two paragraphs.

The CHAIR: It is just on time.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, there is not much more. We have now lost a bit of time. Due to the complex nature of people's support requirements, the intensive 'one person at a time' planning process and the construction time required for the provision of purpose-built housing, the remaining 23 people will move during 2014-15. The state government has committed to investigate the feasibility of creating a disability hub in the northern suburbs of Adelaide. This will facilitate training for the many people who will be needed to work in the disability industry as the NDIS rolls out.

An amount of $7.4 million has been committed to build a new respite facility within the city for people with disability. This will boost the availability of respite, an important support for people with disability, their families and carers. The government is developing disability access and inclusion plans. All state government agencies are required to report on their plans in annual reports, and local councils are being strongly encouraged as well.

The CHAIR: The member for Morphett.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I do not have an opening statement, other than to say that what the minister has put on the record is important and I would not have minded if he had tabled it without reading it. I will go straight to my questions. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 99, Sub-program: Non-Government and Individualised Funding Targets. Minister, can you reiterate the numbers you advised in your opening statement? I think it was 1,152 are registered as part of the NDIS and that there are 979 support plans approved; is that correct?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: At the end of March, just to confirm, the number of eligible participants was 1,152 and, at the same time, end of March again, 979 were the participants who had plans. I can also let you know that, by the end of March, the average package was about $14,000. I think that I have answered your question.

Dr McFETRIDGE: That is just confirming those figures. My first question is: minister, are you confident that those numbers are correct because I understand that there is some disagreement on the actual numbers and that actuarial reports are predicting much higher numbers than that?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I think that the issue which was raised by that report was not so much the actual numbers but the projected numbers. There was some difference of opinion about projected numbers, and part of that confusion arose from what groups are included in the figures in the estimates. In respect of the commonwealth and the state, my understanding is that the state numbers did not include general developmental delay, whereas the commonwealth did. But having said that, the advice I have received is that our figures are around the ballpark and what we have provided in the initial estimates.

Dr McFETRIDGE: What checks and balances are in place to verify the accuracy of those figures?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Do you mean the actual figures?

Dr McFETRIDGE: Yes, the certainty of those figures.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The actual figures are based on the NDIA; they are the figures they give to us and they are the actual agency responsible for that. As you can appreciate, once a person leaves a state scheme and enters the federal scheme it is up to them to then report to the board, the commonwealth parliament and also the states.

Dr McFETRIDGE: So there have been no delays on behalf of the department in providing the NDIA with information?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: What information?

Dr McFETRIDGE: The projected numbers and the numbers that are still ready to come on individualised packages?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I can confirm that on our part as a department we have provided all available information to the NDIA in a timely fashion, and certainly we have not heard any feedback that our agency has not provided the necessary information.

Dr McFETRIDGE: There have been no delays in providing the information and so families have not been left waiting at all?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Not from the work of my agency, no.

Dr McFETRIDGE: On the same reference and also Budget Paper 3, page 107, can the minister tell the committee what is the number of children and the projected growth costs for children aged 0 to 14 within the NDIS trial cohort by 2015-16?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I can confirm that our original figures were about 5,085. If we take into account children with developmental delay, we expect the figure to be around about 7,500. It is also important to remember that under the agreement the commonwealth bears the cost of any additional people put on this scheme, during the trial period.

Dr McFETRIDGE: The fact that the commonwealth does bear that extra cost, what negotiations are underway to help manage the risk associated with what is almost a doubling of expected initial numbers?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: A doubling? Well, I do not agree that is a doubling, but the actual agreement itself has a review process built in post the trial period, and those discussions will take place to renegotiate the agreement.

Dr McFETRIDGE: There is no expected growth in the state's contribution then?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: During the trial period it is quite clear that the commonwealth bears 100 per cent of the cost. Once the trial period is over there is a process involved in the agreement which outlines how it is to be reviewed, and those discussions and negotiations will take place there. All I can say is that we are committed to this scheme.

Dr McFETRIDGE: And that is the important thing, that we are all committed to the scheme, so we need to know what it is going to cost. To follow up on that answer, there is a significant risk that the costs to the state might increase?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It is very early to make an assessment, because you may recall a few months ago there were suggestions that the scheme would blow out by 30 to 40 per cent, and that was based on the first quarter results. When the second quarter results came through, those cost figures came down in terms of package costs, then the third quarter results came out and those costs went down again, because you get a more normal distribution of people in the scheme.

We anticipate that next quarter the figures that trend will continue, and so it is very early to work out what the figures may be beyond the initial estimates. What we can say, though, is that during the trial period we are protected from increase in cost and I would say that as we get closer to the period we will have a better idea. I think it is just too early to estimate what those cost increases, if any, may be.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I think we need to be certain, because everybody wants this to work, that the numbers the state government have are as accurate as they possibly can be.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am advised that we base our figures on actual numbers of our own clients, plus other information. My understanding is that the commonwealth number is another estimate.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Just to follow up on that again, how many children with disabilities are there in South Australia in total under 18? We need to prepare families to come into the NDIS, so have we identified them and do we know how many there are?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I do not have the precise figure for that for you in terms of people registered within the state scheme, or have been predicted, but I am happy to take that on notice and get that figure for you. But I would say it is not too far from the figure I have already given.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Two weeks ago now, the Aboriginal Lands Committee was on the APY lands and we are very concerned that the rollout of the NDIS on the APY lands is going to be a very logistically difficult problem. How many recipients of the NDIS are on the lands at the moment, and what is the expected total number of Aboriginal kids?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: There are two things: I will need to get those actual figures from the—

Dr McFETRIDGE: You can come back to the committee with them.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes, I am happy to come back to the committee.

Dr McFETRIDGE: We need to be certain that nobody is in any way reducing the effectiveness of the NDIS; so are there any delays in agreeing on the data between the states and the feds at the moment?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am not aware and I certainly have not been advised of any delay in delivery of services because of data. I am aware discussions have taken place, but they have not actually hindered the service delivery, and certainly to my understanding have not hindered people being signed up.

Dr McFETRIDGE: My information is that there have been some significant differences in the estimates between the feds and the states on this, and I do not want anybody to get out of this, because we have raised expectations and now we have to deliver. So, minister, you can tell the committee that there is an agreement on the numbers; I understand there is a disparity between the numbers.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I will get the CEO to just explain. It is a very technical process we have gone through and I will get one of the officers to actually explain it better than I can. You are referring to the figures that are the actual estimates for the scheme, is that right?

Dr McFETRIDGE: Yes.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: David is best to respond to that one.

Dr CAUDREY: At the very beginning, we went through a process with the commonwealth to work out what we thought was the best estimate of the number of children up to the age of 14. That came out at the 5,085 figure. That was not disputed by the commonwealth. Subsequently, the commonwealth actuary did an exercise and came out with some similar figures. The NDIA actuary used population statistics and a fair bit of inference to come out with a figure of 10,700, hence the alarm: was it 10,700?

It is certainly more than 5,085, because the original figure did not include developmental delay, which the commonwealth and other states insisted be included, which we did not originally include in our figures. So, that is why we think the figure is probably more like 7,000. There is a process going on at the moment with the NDIA to try and establish a better benchmark for what the likely figure is going to be.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Thank you for that. Just quickly changing into another very important area for the providers of services who use volunteers—

The CHAIR: And your line is the same line?

Dr McFETRIDGE: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 98, relating to the screening costs for volunteers; so, it is really under the net cost of service provision. Minister, the screening costs have gone up; what consultation took place with the various service providers over the increase of screening costs?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Screenings used to be under my portfolio, but are now under the portfolio of minister Bettison, so she is best placed to explain to the committee what process she used in determining that.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Minister, are you aware of some very significant increases in cost to some of the NGOs? I have spoken to one NGO inquiring about this, and their extra screening costs are over a quarter of a million dollars more.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am aware that, under new fees charged, the charge to volunteers was uppermost in our mind and the government has kept them as low as possible; in fact, they are the lowest possible fees being changed. So, the government—

Dr McFETRIDGE: It used to be zero.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The government was very mindful of the cost. But, like I said, in relation to the whole rationale behind the new structure, you are best placed to get it from the person who is responsible for that, and that is minister Bettison.

Dr McFETRIDGE: So you have had no approaches from the NGO providers of disability services about the effect of this? They have not contacted you or your department?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: My understanding is that some providers have contacted the department and I will be having regular meetings with the NDIS, etc., so I am sure it will be a matter which will be on the agenda for our next meeting.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Minister, just on that, then: is the government going to offer any rebates, remissions or subsidies to help cover these costs? Some of them have said to me that this could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back after WorkCover increases, now we have got this.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: In terms of those NGOs which are responsible to my agency, we look at those at a case-by-case basis.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Thank you, minister; I am sure there will be more to come on that one. In relation to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 99—non-government and individualised funding arrangements: what arrangements are currently in place regarding the payment of invoices to non-government organisations, and are there delays in the payments causing issues for both the organisations and individuals?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Can you just clarify that again to make sure I have understood your question correctly?

Dr McFETRIDGE: What arrangements are currently in place regarding the payment of invoices to non-government organisations? Is there a cash flow problem in the department, and are individuals who are being paid under individualised funding being paid on time?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I can advise there is no cash flow problem—

Dr McFETRIDGE: There are no cash flow problems?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, not at all. What I can advise is that, in terms of individualised funding, in 2014-15 225 clients have elected to take up an option to have a greater involvement in the design of the contract under their support service. Two hundred and fourteen have taken the opportunity to receive payments directly into their bank accounts, which you have referred to in your question. The remaining 11 clients have elected to lodge their funding with a host agency who support them by either delivering the service agreed in the clients’ personal budget plan and/or by purchasing other services where the clients have request this to occur.

As at 7 July 2014, payments have been made to 119 clients participating in the individualised funding program. I am advised that the payments to the remaining 106 clients have all been arranged by today. This includes 11 payments being made directly to non-government organisations which have been selected by the clients to host their personal budget allocations.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Just on that same reference, how is pricing determined for disability services, and how are you able to determine those prices in the way you do?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Sorry, you mean prices under the state scheme or the new NDIS?

Dr McFETRIDGE: The new NDIS.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Those prices are set by the NDIA, which is covered by commonwealth legislation.

Dr McFETRIDGE: And the state scheme?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: In terms of working out what is a reasonable price, we take into account the prices charged by a whole range of non-government organisations. In terms of which price is allowed, it is a case-by-case situation, but we obviously encourage people to use those services that come at a lower cost. To some extent, it is actually determined by the market, in terms of the providers.

Dr McFETRIDGE: And you are able to assure the committee that there is a level playing field between DSA and the non-government providers?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: We are getting back to this question you asked us last year.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I did, and we are still disagreeing on it, I think.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes. I suppose you are asking whether we should be in the marketplace.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Perhaps in the APY.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I certainly have not changed my view from last year on that matter but, having said that, we have set up a project team to look at that because we need to make sure that we comply with the appropriate national laws and rules regarding contested services. That project team has been established to make sure of two things: firstly, the prices we charge are fair prices and, secondly, we are in a marketplace we are required to be in.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Just finally on that same reference, I am aware that there are some people who have been put into financial stress because payments are being paid in arrears and payments are being delayed, even when they are being paid in arrears.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am advised by department agencies that, as soon as we are made aware of any payment delays, we are acting on those very quickly. We obviously try to make sure that payments are made as quickly as possible to avoid any difficulties for our clients, especially people who need that funding. I am not going to suggest that payments have always been made on time but, as soon as it is brought to our attention, we act quickly to make sure it does not cause any difficulties.

We also need to be mindful that we have legal obligations to meet in terms of acquittals, etc., so sometimes the documentation needs to come through because there is public money we need to pay. It is a bit of a balancing act, but we always make sure that the interests of the person who is receiving those services are uppermost in our minds.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Those individual payments are obviously being scrutinised and paid. Just to get it quite straight, when you are being invoiced for services being provided on behalf of the department, there is no delay in paying those invoices? We see some invoices, unfortunately, in arrears by 60 and 90 days in some departments.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I cannot speak for other departments, but I am sure the Treasurer or other agencies can. As at 31 May—the most recent figures available to me—I can tell you that 99.29 per cent, or 274,954, of all invoices were paid within 30 calendar days. This represents $907 million paid within agreed payment terms, which is not a bad record.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer again to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 99, Sub-program 2.1: Non-Government and Individualised Funding. Which state programs have been folded into the NDIS as part of the transition?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Is your question: have we transferred any service delivery to the commonwealth? I am not clear on your question.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I understand that there have been a number of services that are being transferred across to the NDIS from the state government, from DSA. Is that correct? If so, which ones? It might be to some of the service providers as well.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Just to clarify, are you referring to the children, basically?

Dr McFETRIDGE: Yes.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: DCSI has been a longstanding provider of services for children and young people and is continuing to provide its expertise in early intervention therapy and equipment and home modifications for children and young people under the NDIS trial. As we discussed last year, we still have a service delivery arm of government.

We are still maintaining that because a number of those children continue to get services from us. The only thing which is different now is that, as a service provider, we are eligible for payments from the commonwealth scheme because in those cases we are the provider of choice people have chosen to stay with, and that remains the case for quite a few young people.

Dr McFETRIDGE: On that same topic, how are in-kind calculations undertaken within the department as part of the funding arrangements for service providers? How are these types of calculations impacting on the transition to the NDIS?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am advised it is a very technical answer, so you are about to get a very technical response from my adviser.

Dr CAUDREY: Basically, services can be cashed out, in which case the funding that we give to the agency is transferred to the NDIA and then they purchase services back from the agency or from whichever agency the person chooses to go to. In-kind services, which are very common in other trial sites but less so with us, you do not cash out. You provide a service and, if the NDIA wishes that service to be provided, then you effectively subtract from the grant that the agency gets the equivalent amount of money.

Effectively, the money does not change hands, so it is a very technical thing. At the end of the day, it is anticipated that cashing out will be universal. Basically, all funding that we supply will effectively be transferred to the NDIA and then they will purchase back services, but in transition it is just very difficult for some agencies to identify exactly how much money is assigned to each individual.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Thank you for that answer, Dr Caudrey. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 102, Disability Support. There was an announcement of $400,000 over two years for a feasibility study into the setting up of a disability hub. Has that feasibility study started? Was there a pre-feasibility study done, which is something I understand is always done now before even committing to feasibility studies? Do not ask me why, but they do.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I can confirm that the government is undertaking a feasibility study for a new disability hub in the northern suburbs. As you mentioned, $200,000 in the 2014-15 budget and $200,000 in the 2015-16 budget has been allocated for this work. The disability hub will have a key role in training people for new jobs in the disability sector and also provide co-located services for people living with a disability with their families and carers. New job opportunities are particularly important in the northern suburbs, given the impact on the area following the closure announcements from Holden.

A high-level steering committee has been established and will report to me as Minister for Disabilities by the end of this calendar year. A business case will be developed that examines costs and benefits and sets out a project plan with time lines. Specialised working groups will be established as required. As mentioned, the initial report should come to me by the end of 2014. A working group within the agency has been established which comprises a range of members from both state and federal government agencies to provide advice to me, and reports will begin regularly on the service model and development of the business case.

Another thing I would like to mention is that we will, hopefully, be working with the non-government sector to create a holistic hub as a one-stop shop for people needing disability services and advice. Obviously, there are job creation opportunities for the northern suburbs, but there is also the opportunity to improve service delivery for people living with disabilities and their families in that area.

Dr McFETRIDGE: And, if it stacks up, minister, you are hoping to be cutting the ribbon on what date?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: As soon as is possible, of course. We want to see as many jobs created as soon as possible.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Six months, 12 months?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I would anticipate, all going well and no hiccups, during 2015-16 that will hopefully occur.

Dr McFETRIDGE: So 2015-16, a while away yet.

The CHAIR: Before you go on, member for Morphett, do you have any omnibus questions?

Dr McFETRIDGE: We will put them in later. Thank you, ma'am, for being concerned about it. I appreciate it. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 106, Sub-program 3.2: Equipment Services Home Modifications. How much funding is provided by Disability Services to undertake home modifications through the equipment program?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: As your question alludes to, a whole range of equipment and home modifications services are provided to both adults and children. I am advised that, during 2013-14, 108 home modifications were completed for children, 551 for adults and 2,485 for older people, a total of 3,124 during that year. Overall demand for adults and children with disability remains consistent with the previous year, but a 50 per cent drop in numbers completed for older people meant that for 2013-14 the overall target of 3,700 home modifications was not met.

Dr McFETRIDGE: On that issue of home modifications, on Channel 7, I think, there was a television segment on where there was a delay in providing home modifications by subbies for this particular contractor. The contractor was blaming the government, I think. It was on Thursday 26 June this year, so you might want to have a look at it. I will not name the contractor, but there were some significant issues raised, with the main contractor being paid and then not paying the subcontractors and subbies being threatened with not having further work if they did not continue to work. Can you assure the committee that the contractors are abiding by all ethical and financial standards of probity that we would expect?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Certainly, any matter brought to our attention will be acted upon. Clearly, a contractor has requirements to meet, it does not matter who they use, to deliver the service on their behalf.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Any penalties if they do not? It was quite concerning, this particular issue.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Generally, there are contractual arrangements. In terms of the case that you raise, we will look into it and get back to you with information and also provide you with an answer on the normal compliance action we take.

Dr McFETRIDGE: How many young people with disabilities are in aged-care facilities in South Australia, and what is the government doing to provide alternative accommodation?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am advised that we do not put young people into aged-care facilities as new cases. We manage those young people differently. The underlying part of your question is that it is not a desirable thing, and you are quite right and I agree. In fact, it is an issue which I raised last year with the agency and in my discussions with young people—that we need to find more effective ways to deal with young people because not only does the person have to cope with the whole thing of having a disability but then also being placed in a setting with aged people who have a whole range health problems does not help their psychological status. I do not have the exact figure, but we do provide the funding and I will get that figure for you. Certainly we are not putting new cases in there because we do not think it is desirable, but there may be some people still under the old policy.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 101, Exceptional Needs Unit. What is the total annual budget for the Exceptional Needs Unit and how many FTEs are employed within the unit?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am advised as follows: people with psychiatric disability and complex needs who experience chronic homelessness require a range of integrated supports. From 2005-06, the state government provided funding for psychiatric disability support and complex needs. This funding was a direct response to the recommendations of the Social Inclusion Board's reference on homelessness, which identified that lack of appropriate housing and support for people with a psychiatric disability and complex needs was a key contributor to chronic homelessness.

During 2013-14, the homelessness support program within the Exceptional Needs Unit provided services to people with cognitive, social and functional impairment linked to psychiatric disability and other complex needs. Clients of this program have a history of chronic homelessness and of resistance to engagement with services. The program funds and works intensively with non-government agencies to deliver individual targeted assertive outreach support and accommodation.

I can also advise that in 2012 the homelessness support program attracted additional funding through the HACC program to enable service responses to issues of early onset ageing within the homelessness sector. This program was initially funded from 2012 to 2014, but has now been extended for a further 12 months to 30 June 2015. The program is required to provide 100 hours of service to 80 people. However, targets have consistently been exceeded, with approximately 95 people receiving services each year. Of this group, around 80 per cent are aged under 65, and 20 per cent 65 years or over. The total amount provided for that unit is $10.2 million.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Thank you, minister.

The CHAIR: There being no further questions, I declare consideration of the proposed payments adjourned and referred to committee B, and thank the minister and his advisers for their attendance this morning.