Estimates Vote

Department of Human Services, $1,067,165,000

Administered Items for the Department of Human Services, $192,286,000

Minister:

Hon. J.M.A. Lensink, Minister for Human Services.

Departmental Advisers:

Ms L. Boswell, Acting Chief Executive, Department of Human Services.

Mr A. Thompson, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Business Services, Department of Human Services.

Mr M. Homden, Executive Director, Youth Justice, Department of Human Services.

Ms N. Rogers, Director, Office of the Chief Executive, Department of Human Services.

Mr G. Myers, Principal Coordinator, Strategic Projects, Office of the Chief Executive, Department of Human Services.

Ms K. Hawkins, Director, Concessions and Support Services, Community and Support Services, Department of Human Services.

Ms K. Tattersall, Director, Service Transfer, Disability and Reform, Department of Human Services.

Mr P. Tsoundarou, Acting Director, Community Services, Community and Support Services, Department of Human Services.

The CHAIR: Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the sitting of Estimates Committee A in the estimates schedule. I will just go through a short introductory comment from the Chair. The estimates committee is a relatively informal procedure and, as such, there is no need to stand to ask or answer questions. I understand the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition have agreed to an approximate time for the consideration of proposed payments, which will facilitate a change of departmental advisers. Can the minister and lead speaker for the opposition confirm that the timetable for today's proceedings, as previously distributed, is accurate?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIR: Are you happy with that?

Ms COOK: Yes.

The CHAIR: Thank you. Changes to the committee membership will be notified as they occur. Members should ensure that the Chair is provided with a completed request to be discharged form. I can advise that the members for Kavel, Heysen, Elizabeth, Enfield, Kaurna and Colton have been replaced by the members for Hammond, King, Morphett, Hurtle Vale, Reynell and Cheltenham. 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 October. I propose to allow both the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition to make opening statements of about 10 minutes should they wish.

There will be a flexible approach to giving the call for asking questions, based on about three questions per member, alternating each side. This is not necessarily to be the case. Supplementary questions will be the exception rather than the rule. A member who is not part of the committee may ask a question at the discretion of the Chair. Questions must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget papers and must be identifiable or referenced. Members unable to complete their questions during the proceedings may submit them as questions on notice for inclusion in the 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, it is purely statistical and limited to one page in length. All questions are to be directed to the minister, not the minister's advisers, and the minister may then refer questions to advisers for a response. The committee's examinations will be broadcast in the same manner as sittings of the house are broadcast, through the IPTV system within Parliament House and via the web stream link to the internet.

I will now proceed to open the following lines for examination: the portfolio of the Department of Human Services—a big department, minister. I declare the proposed payments open for examination and refer members to the Agency Statements, Volume 3. Minister, would you care to make an opening statement and also take time to introduce your advisers.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Can I start by introducing the advisers who are with me today. To my left is Mr Andrew Thompson, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Business Services. To my right is Lois Boswell, Acting Chief Executive, Department of Human Services. At the second table, we have Mr Greg Myers, Principal Coordinator, Strategic Projects, Office of the Chief Executive, and Nancy Rogers, Director, Office of the Chief Executive.

In the third row, we have Katherine Hawkins, Director, Concessions and Support Services, Community and Support Services, and Michael Homden, Executive Director, Youth Justice. In the gallery today we are also joined by Mr Paul Tsoundarou, Acting Director, Community Services, Community and Support Services, and Kelly Tattersall, Director, Service Transfer, Disability and Reform.

I will just make a short opening statement. Through the Department of Human Services (DHS), the government delivers and funds quality services that protect and enhance the community's wellbeing and provide support to people when they need it. The department has a key role to play in delivering on the government's plan for real change.

I would briefly like to highlight some major areas of work. Before the election, we committed to addressing delays and waiting times for screening. There was a large backlog of complex applications, which has now been dealt with. The backlog project commenced on 9 April 2018 and was finalised on 31 August 2018; 1,253 of the 1,310 applications were completed, which is a reduction of 96 per cent. The remaining 57 assessments are being completed as a priority.

Around 85 per cent of applications are now dealt with within three weeks or 15 business days. We will also be introducing new performance indicators to provide for greater accountability and transparency. We are also delivering on our election commitment of free screening checks for volunteers. This is to commence on 1 November. In a number of areas, better and more efficient processes are improving customer services.

We are continuing to review and improve the administration of concessions and also building customer responsiveness in other key areas of service delivery. The transition of all funded domiciliary care services to the Royal District Nursing Service was successfully completed on 29 June 2018. The majority of staff transitioned with the service, retaining their skills and experience in the sector. Clients will continue receiving quality supports and are able to exercise choice and control over their services.

Supporting children and young people who become involved in the criminal justice system is a complex and important responsibility. Young people should expect appropriate consequences for their actions but also be aided to make better choices for their future. DHS is therefore developing a new youth justice strategy that will provide better outcomes for young people and the community through a range of early intervention, diversion, connected support and community reconnection services and activities.

Finally, the 2018-19 budget was a tight budget in which difficult decisions had to be made about priorities and expenditure. We have, however, maintained our support for a strong not-for-profit sector and for partnerships and funding that deliver results for the community. We are still reviewing and developing priorities in this area, but I can assure everyone that our commitments include accountability, transparency, reduced red tape and connected services. Our approach is to engage with stakeholders to ensure genuine codesign of programs with the community and with flexibility and funding arrangements as needed.

The CHAIR: Thank you, minister. Does the lead speaker for the opposition wish to make a statement?

Ms COOK: No, I just welcome the minister to her first estimates committee.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Thank you.

Ms COOK: And we will just proceed with questions.

The CHAIR: I have just a little bit more housekeeping. This portfolio is going to remain open right through until 1pm, so the entire morning session. As just a rough breakdown, up until morning tea, from 9 o'clock until 9.45 I have questions, on my agenda at least, relating to the Department of Human Services and, from 9.45 to 10.30, to the Housing Authority and affordable housing. At 10.30, we will break for morning tea. Questions, member for Hurtle Vale.

Ms COOK: Thank you, Chair. This is a general question seeking qualification regarding the breakdown and movement of the programs and sub-programs from the 2017-18 budget to the 2018-19 budget regarding all the machinery of government changes. Where do specifically the budget items Grants SA, Screening SA, concessions, and Youth Justice sit?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I will ask our acting CE to respond to that particular question.

Ms BOSWELL: Grants SA, Screening SA and ConcessionsSA all sit in program 1.

Ms COOK: Program 1?

Ms BOSWELL: Communities; yes.

Ms COOK: And Youth Justice is part of—

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Program 3.

Ms COOK: I will commence with some questions referring to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 96. What modelling or projection has been undertaken by the department to suggest that, despite the government policy with screening applications changing to be free for volunteers, they will only increase by 844, when in the previous financial year they actually increased by nearly 40,000 (38,156)?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the honourable member for her question; it is a good question. At the time the 2018-19 budget Agency Statements were prepared, there was no commencement date for the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016 or free screening checks for volunteers. The Screening Unit was therefore unable to analyse the impact that these initiatives might have on screening figures for 2018-19. I might actually ask Andrew if he can respond in a bit more detail, because I understand that it is to do with the way that budgeting is framed, timing and those sorts of issues.

Mr THOMPSON: Simply, consistent with what the minister said, the preparation of the Agency Statements was earlier in the calendar year, around April or May, when the statistics were being prepared.

Ms COOK: Have there been contingency funds allowed, if there were to be a large amount of additional screening, based on the free volunteer screenings?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Clearly, additional funding has been allocated in the budget in relation to the free screening budget commitment, which we are now able to deliver. If any additional funding were required—if there was an unanticipated increase in those screenings—then we could consider that through other processes.

Ms COOK: In respect to recent pressure by volunteer organisations, ourselves, etc., I thank the minister for bringing forward the screening to November. That will be very helpful to non-government organisations and they welcome that. When was it first decided to roll them out on 1 January and on what date was it decided to roll them out in November?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am sorry, I missed part of your question.

Ms COOK: When did the minister first decide to roll out the free screenings for volunteers on 1 January, and then when was the decision made to roll them out in November?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I think it is pretty fair to say that the Marshall Liberal government underpromises and overdelivers. The free screening checks were not within our 100 days, but we did want to bring them in as soon as possible, so we were very pleased that the budget allocation was able to be made in this budget. The department identified some systems issues that were potentially going to be a barrier to implementing the free screening checks earlier, so we are pleased that we have been able to roll them out as of 1 November through those systems changes. That has been the potential barrier to date.

Ms COOK: What exactly were the systems changes that had to happen?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: There are a number of technical issues in relation to the Screening Unit. I might get some advice.

Ms COOK: While the minister is getting advice on that question, can I again ask when the decision was made? What date was the decision made to undertake free screenings from 1 November?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I think I would have to go back through our records in order to respond to that. Certainly, we wanted to bring them in as soon as possible. At some stage, I thought that legislation might be a particular impediment to making those changes. As we have done more work, we realised that it has been systems issues that have been the barrier, which we have now worked through and we are able to provide that from 1 November. I might ask if our acting CE can respond in more detail.

Ms BOSWELL: The Screening Unit had to amend the online systems from when the system flows because we need to be able to separate the types of screening and how they are received. In the first instance, some things are going to be done by waiver. Other things will come a bit later, in terms of potential regulatory and legislative change.

Ms COOK: Was the minister advised at all that free screening could come into effect through a regulatory change by changing the cost of a screening in the regs to zero dollars?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I think that has been part of the advice that we have received.

Ms COOK: Can the minister advise when that advice was given?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: That is quite difficult because we have weekly meetings which—

Ms COOK: You can take it on notice if you need to check.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am not sure whether I can advise that specifically because we have our weekly CE meetings with, clearly, senior people from the department. Obviously, the CE, the deputy CE and a range of other people attend those meetings and there are a number of items that are listed, but there are a number of items that we spontaneously raise, too, so I think—

Ms COOK: A month is okay. You do not even have to have a date.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am not sure whether I can specifically give you that exact detail because some of the updates that we receive are verbal as well. I do not necessarily take down every last detail, so I am not sure that I can actually provide that information.

Ms COOK: If you would not mind taking it on notice and humouring me and someone can have a little search. If something comes up, that would be useful; that is all.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, if I am able to provide that then I will.

Ms COOK: In respect of free volunteer screening, is the minister aware of the difference between the working with children and vulnerable people screening versus a VOAN check that is done by the police department?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, I understand that there is different information searched for in the databases between the more complex checks, which is the working with children checks and working with people with a disability, compared with what I think we can broadly call just a police check. The information that they can access is much less complex, whereas the complex checks go to court records and police records.

Ms COOK: In terms of the overall number of volunteer checks, which is the vulnerable people and children plus the VOAN check, are you aware of the number breakdown of the different types of all checks?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, we can provide that for you. Are you asking for the overall number of checks of South Australians or—

Ms COOK: Yes, the overall number of—shall we call them the DHS specific checks—

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes.

Ms COOK: —plus the VOAN checks.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We do not have numbers for the VOAN checks, I am sorry. I will give you the information in relation to the applications approved per annum. This is for the 2017-18 year. The number of applications approved per annum in relation to child related are 101,772; disability related, 17,213; vulnerable person related, 18,631; aged-care sector, 12,159; and general employment probity is 5,529. That is a total of 155,304. That is all applications for 2017-18, so that does not break down between volunteers and others. Obviously, we have students and working ones. Sorry, that is volunteers, I apologise. The total volunteer screening component of that 155,000 in 2017-18 is 35,392. That is 22.79 per cent.

Ms COOK: Given that those screenings are the DHS screenings for, broadly, vulnerable people and children, and the VOAN check is used for sausage sizzles, canteens and goal umpires, for example, and there are tens of thousands of those—I do not have the number; I have asked but you do not have it—could the minister get that information for me on notice. Given that that is the case, has the minister received any advice or had any conversations with the Minster for Police regarding the continuance of the free volunteer check administered by SAPOL?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Thank you for your question. The advice is that through the prohibited persons legislation that was passed in 2016 all volunteers need to get working with children checks through DHS, in any case. We will obviously be adjusting our systems accordingly to manage that influx.

Ms COOK: So you are prepared for the VOAN screening to stop with SAPOL and come across to you?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I will ask the acting CE to respond.

Ms BOSWELL: As I understand it, member, when the prohibited persons act comes in, a VOAN check will not be sufficient for volunteers if they are in prescribed categories anyway, in which case they will all end up working with children checks coming through the Screening Unit of DHS.

Ms COOK: Even a Lions member or a Neighbourhood Watch person doing a sausage sizzle?

Ms BOSWELL: If you need a working with children check, it would have to come through—

Ms COOK: No, I mean a VOAN check. There are tens of thousands of checks that happen through SAPOL for people who work on canteens and barbecues, etc., and do not work with children. Has the minister received any advice that those checks through SAPOL are going to continue or are they going to cease?

Ms BOSWELL: The minister has not received any advice regarding that.

Ms COOK: If they were to cease, and if we said that 30,000 additional screenings or even more, 50,000 additional screenings, came across to DHS, what impact would that have on your capacity?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I guess the simple answer is that we will work through any challenges as they arise. For anybody who wants to get a 'police check', there are a number of agencies that do those online. They are quite readily available; they are something that our agency does as well. We are going to work through any of those operational challenges as they arise and manage them.

Ms COOK: I am still in the same budget area, around concessions. Is the review of concessions being undertaken in the department now complete?

Mr PEDERICK: Is that the same page?

Ms COOK: Actually, I think it might be page 92 of Budget Paper 5. I have training wheels, too, sorry. Go to Budget Paper 5, page 92, the ConcessionsSA line.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am happy that we have that budget line. The Department of Treasury and Finance (DTF) provided DHS with one-off funding of $250,000 to engage consultants to undertake a review of ConcessionsSA, to streamline administration and service delivery processes and achieve efficiencies. The funding was allocated as part of the 2017-18 budget process.

In the 2018-19 state budget, DHS has been allocated $200,000 to assist in implementing recommended system enhancements to streamline administration and service delivery processes and achieve efficiencies as arising from the review of ConcessionsSA. In May 2018, an independent external consultant, Gyre Digital Pty Ltd, was appointed following a procurement process to conduct a review of the administration of the major household concessions.

The review examined the application, verification, payment, audit and reconciliation processes of the major household concessions to identify process efficiencies and possible cost savings. This included alternative approaches to delivering concessions and investment in resources and infrastructure to achieve long-term efficiencies in concessions administration. A draft report was provided on 29 June 2018 and a final report was provided on 26 July 2018, following due diligence by the Department of Treasury and Finance and the Department of Human Services.

Ms COOK: When will the final report be released to the public?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: It has been provided to cabinet, so it sits within that process. It is very much an administrative document.

Ms COOK: Is that a cabinet-in-confidence type arrangement now?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, it is.

Ms COOK: Was the report produced for cabinet, or was it produced for the department to undertake changes?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: My advice is that the report was produced for a budget process to examine those, so that remains as a cabinet-in-confidence process.

Ms COOK: I have a couple of questions regarding the $200,000 that I understand is set aside to support enhancements. 'Enhancement' is a really subjective term. Is that enhancement descriptive of the aims of the minister, the aims of the Treasurer or the aims of consumers?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We are always interested in the consumers, honourable member, as you would know. In terms of the details about concessions administration, I might ask the acting CE to provide some more detail.

Ms BOSWELL: It is primarily to try to produce a better online interface for people so that they can actually see where their application is up to. The people who are answering the phone at the other end can see it on one screen. We have to work through the details of that, but it is intended to be a better client interface. That is what that money is for.

Ms COOK: I would have thought that it is not necessary to stick it in cabinet if it is that simple. In terms of concessions, have there been any recommendations, or has any modelling been done regarding a percentage of energy usage base approach to energy concessions?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the honourable member for her question. This is something that SACOSS have expressed interest in. They probably put it to honourable members before the election, as they did to us. It will be considered in consultation with SACOSS and relevant organisations. I know it is also of interest to the minister for minerals and energy. Certainly, at this stage, no decision has been made.

Ms COOK: So no modelling or anything like that has been done at the moment on what the impact would be from a cost point of view?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The advice is that no modelling has been done at this stage.

Ms COOK: Can the minister rule out the movement of the delivery of energy concessions over the forward estimates from the department to an energy provider?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: As your colleagues in the Legislative Council would know, I am not in the practice of ruling anything in or out. SACOSS put this to us as a political party prior to the election, and we said that we would look at it. Before any decisions are made, I am sure that there will be a very thorough investigation of it.

Ms COOK: How many times have you met with Ross Womersley from SACOSS since you have been a minister?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: From memory, I have had at least two meetings with SACOSS with the Premier. I see him on other occasions as well.

Ms COOK: You have not met with Ross Womersley by yourself since being a minister?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: One-on-one coffee, no, not that sort of thing. I usually have formal meetings, but I do run into Ross quite regularly. As with all other stakeholders, he knows that he can phone me at any stage if he wants to raise particular urgent issues.

Ms COOK: I have asked about ruling out things on energy. I assume that the same answer will apply to ruling out the cutting of any concessions over the forward estimates.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I do not think that the forward estimates are under consideration in this examination of estimates. That is hypothetical and not within the scope of these particular examinations.

Mr PATTERSON: Chair, if I could take you to—

The CHAIR: Do you have a point of order?

Mr PATTERSON: No.

The CHAIR: You have a question. The member for Morphett.

Mr PATTERSON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, going back to the screening applications and referring to pages 94 and 96. Can the minister please provide the committee with information on measures implemented by the government to address delays in the processing of screening applications?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the honourable member for this question. The government is addressing delays and wait times for the screening process. As at 30 June 2018, over 155,000 screening applications were received and finalised by the DHS Screening Unit for the 2017-18 financial year. Of these applications, 148,000, or 95 per cent, were processed within six weeks.

However, a backlog had developed of more complex matters. In April 2018, a temporary project team was established to address this backlog, which included approximately 1,300 detailed assessments. The project was finalised on 31 August 2018, with 1,253 of the 1,310 applications completed, which is a reduction of 96 per cent. The remaining 57 assessments are being completed as a priority. The Screening Unit is also developing strategies to reduce processing times. This includes further systemisation of the screening process, reviewing decision-making thresholds and the introduction of key performance indicators.

I also encourage all applicants to ensure that their applications are completed accurately and include all relevant information, especially all known names. Accurate information means that the Screening Unit can quickly and efficiently access relevant records, which assists efficient processing. Applications that take longer than six weeks to process are more complex matters Generally applicants have significant child protection and/or criminal history that needs to be thoroughly assessed. As well, sometimes information needs to be sourced from interstate. Applicants may also be required to provide additional information, which adds to the processing time.

The CHAIR: The member for Hurtle Vale.

Ms COOK: Just to jump back to the answer that was given before by the minister, I am a bit confused as to itemisations in the budget papers not being up for examination. I asked you a question about the forward estimates regarding costing and you said that it was not part of the line.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am sorry, you will have to repeat your question for me.

Ms COOK: Just before, when we were on concessions, I asked you whether any cuts were predicted in concessions in the forward estimates, and you said it was not up for examination. I am a bit confused about that.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am sorry, I thought you were talking about future budgets.

Ms COOK: No. I am talking about the forward estimates in this budget.

The CHAIR: While the minister is seeking that advice for the opposition, I mention the omnibus questions. Member for Hurtle Vale, you will need to read them in prior to 1pm, and you will need about four minutes to read them, so just pick a time in the day.

Ms COOK: I might do it in a later session.

The CHAIR: Yes, that is fine.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Could I perhaps paraphrase what the honourable member might have been meaning to ask, that is: are there any policy decisions in this budget which would mean there would be a cut to concessions?

Ms COOK: Yes, essentially.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The answer to that is no.

Ms COOK: I want to quickly jump back to the discussion around screening, and the reference is 4.3, program 1, page 96. If there is, say, a 20 per cent increase in the projected screenings, what is the budgetary impact of that in dollar terms? I am happy for you to take it on notice and come back. It is a fairly important question. What would be the impact on the budget?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I will ask Andrew whether he can provide some information.

Mr THOMPSON: We probably would look to take it on notice, but essentially we would need to do the modelling because it would depend on the composition of the applicants we were expecting through. Were they all going to be volunteers who were no longer going to pay a fee, or was it another sort of mix of applicants who were going to lead to that increase? We would need to undertake the modelling.

Ms COOK: Would you expect that Treasury will meet that cost, or will it be required to be met within the current budget of DHS?

Mr THOMPSON: We always have a hope and expectation that Treasury will meet the cost because, for our budget, it is very difficult for us to be able to absorb anything like that. In relation to an earlier question, due to the later budget, the preparation of the Agency Statements was a little bit later than the normal cycle, which would have been starting February, March, April, May, because of the delayed timing of the budget. The preparation of the Agency Statements was a bit later in the calendar year than would normally be the case.

Ms COOK: And no modelling has been done by the department on this since then? Is that what you said?

Mr THOMPSON: I would have to check with the screening people because quite often there is ongoing work being done because there are a number of initiatives occurring in this space and they are likely to be looking at the impacts of those initiatives.

Ms COOK: You said grants were within Communities, so I will refer back to the general budget line in Budget Paper 5, concerning grants, the total Grants SA pool.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Which page are you on?

Ms COOK: It is not very clear. Grants SA sits under the department, and the budget for 2018-19 is not identified in respect of grants compared with the budget in 2017-18. Have you got a grant pool that is allocated for Grants SA? I do not need it to be broken down, just a complete pool.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The nub of your question is: what is the amount of funding for 2018-19?

Ms COOK: Yes.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: In relation to the funding through the Charitable and Social Welfare Fund for 2018-19, it is $2.529 million and volunteers funding is $250,000, so that is a total of $2,779,000. Also, note that it does not include the multicultural grants round, which is no longer—

Ms COOK: That has moved to Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: That is correct. Through machinery of government changes, that is now with the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Ms COOK: How does that total, obviously now excluding multicultural grants, compare with that in the previous financial year?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: My advice is that, apart from the component for multicultural, there has been no reduction from the previous year. Sometimes, grants are impacted by carryovers and recoveries from previous years, so that can mean the numbers are difficult to compare.

Ms COOK: With that, there has been a suspension of grants for around three months from March or April through to July; there was a suspension of the availability of grants. Has the money that was not announced or allowed for application been carried over into the next financial year? Will it be a once-off, or is it flattened out over the year? Has it been lost?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The money has not been lost to the grants. The Charitable and Social Welfare Fund is an administered item and it will be available for grants into the future.

Ms COOK: Is the minister aware of any impact on the non-government or charitable sector with the withholding of the grants for the period of three to four months?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The advice I have received is that there has not been. We have announced a round of the three types of grants.

Ms COOK: Yes, in July. It is just that they were not available, as they had previously been available, during the period post the change of government until July, so there were nearly four months.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The advice of the department is that we are not aware that there was any impact. This particular program is a small grants program; it is not in relation to contracts for services, for instance. The department is more than happy to work through issues with any particular organisations that may have needed assistance.

Ms COOK: Most of these are innovation-type grants and small equipment.

The CHAIR: The member for King has a question.

Ms LUETHEN: I would like to also ask a question in relation to state grant payments on Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 109. Can the minister provide the committee with more information on the reinstatement of state grant payments to the South Australian Housing Trust?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I think that is a matter for the next session.

The CHAIR: We are not quite there yet, member for King. Are there any further questions from the opposition on the Department of Human Services?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: It is 9.45, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIR: Yes. You had an opening statement, so I am prepared to allow a minute or two further on this, if you want, member for Hurtle Vale.

Ms COOK: In relation to the grants suspension, did the minister or her staff actively consult with the non-government sector prior to suspending grants for the period of around four months and after?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: My department advises me that the use of the word 'suspension' is not accurate. There were some machinery of government changes in relation to the multicultural grants that did take a bit of time to work through, as you would expect, because they involved staffing changes, changing financial lines and those sorts of matters.

Ms COOK: I understood the word 'suspension' was used on the web page, but I can follow that up, so sorry about the use of that word; shall we call it 'non-availability' of grants in that four-month period. Was there any consultation done prior to the grants that were usually available to very small organisations to purchase fridges, chairs and other essential equipment? Was there any consultation about what the effect might be? They are mostly churches and very small organisations.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: There may have been a slight delay with the opening of one of the grant rounds, but any organisations that had been particularly anticipating the small grants programs run through Grants SA, we are always available to discuss those with them.

The CHAIR: Thank you, minister. We will move now to the Housing Authority and affordable housing and questions relating to that topic.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr M. Buchan, Interim Chief Executive, SA Housing Authority, Department of Human Services.

Mr N. Symons, Acting Director, Finance, SA Housing Authority, Department of Human Services.

Ms S. Naidoo, General Manager, Customers and Services, SA Housing Authority, Department of Human Services.

Ms B. Hallsworth, General Manager, Strategy and Performance, SA Housing Authority, Department of Human Services.

The CHAIR: Minister, in relation to the Housing Authority and affordable housing, could you introduce your new advisers.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: To my right we have Michael Buchan, Interim Chief Executive of the Housing Authority. To my left we have Nick Symons, Acting Director of Finance. At the second table we have Suraya Naidoo, General Manager, Customers and Services, and Belinda Hallsworth, General Manager, Strategy and Performance. I do have an opening statement, Mr Chairman.

Safe, affordable and appropriate housing is essential to the wellbeing of individuals, families and the community as a whole. However, we know that the increasing cost of housing, together with the rising cost of living more generally, means that for some South Australians finding secure housing that meets their needs, and is affordable, is becoming increasingly difficult. Others are not able to find housing at all and become homeless or find shelter in emergency accommodation.

The challenges we face as we try to address housing supply in this state, including for some of our most vulnerable people, are becoming increasingly complex. These are changes that come as our financial viability is under pressure. We know that we need to better manage our state housing assets to respond to these challenges. Through the newly established South Australian Housing Authority, the state government is taking a fresh approach to tackling housing affordability and homelessness issues. This government will aim to create a more affordable and sustainable housing system in this state—a system where public housing is not an end solution or a destination but a step on a path to secure affordable housing in the market and a system that offers multiple pathways for South Australians to achieve housing stability.

On 1 July 2018, the South Australian Housing Trust commenced operating as a new authority in accordance with the government's 100-day plan. The parameters of the South Australian Housing Authority include a new focus as a whole-of-system enabler, a new structure to enable transparency, accountability and long-term planning, and a new model to develop a more sustainable business model. The new authority will operate as a responsive integrated agency that brings together service delivery and the project and asset functions of social housing, with customers at the centre of operations.

In a time when our financial viability is under pressure, we need to work collaboratively and innovatively to deliver solutions that are efficient and effective. The authority will play a key role in enabling and supporting a modern multiprovider housing system and in establishing an environment that promotes shared responsibility and ownership. An interim South Australian Housing Trust Board of Management has been appointed, and we are currently in the process of appointing a new board made up of people with the required skill sets to drive housing reform. Board members will work with industry providers, and most importantly communities and customers, to develop and drive much-needed reforms.

The creation of the authority presents an exciting opportunity to reset our relationship with stakeholders across the sector. We want to work more closely together with the sector to address the housing and homelessness challenges that we share. This will include strengthening and promoting better partnerships with our customers, communities, industry and providers to enable new thinking and real solutions.

The National Housing and Homelessness Agreement between the commonwealth and South Australian governments commenced on 1 July. This agreement provides funding certainty over five years for housing and homelessness services across the country. The National Housing and Homelessness Agreement seeks to improve access to affordable, safe and sustainable housing, including homelessness prevention and intervention, and to support social and economic participation. It totals $1.5 billion per annum nationally, with South Australia's share being approximately $540 million over five years.

In line with the agreement, the state government will be working in partnership with the housing and homelessness sectors to develop a new 10-year plan for the future of housing in South Australia. The strategy will be informed by our state's current and future demographic challenges and will identify gaps in housing supply and delivery. It will address the entire housing continuum, from crisis homelessness services through to stable social housing, affordable housing and the general housing market. It will be codesigned with the sector and will include extensive engagement with all parts of the sector as well as the broader public. It will begin later this year.

With one in four women in Australia experiencing intimate partner violence, domestic violence is a widespread problem that affects the lives of individuals, destroys families and impacts the broader community. Keeping women and children safe from violence and improving emergency accommodation options for victims is a priority for this government. We are implementing a number of our commitments from the last election, including spending $4 million on establishing 40 new emergency crisis accommodation beds; $5 million in interest-free loans to non-government organisations to fund new domestic violence support housing, including renovations and capital upgrades; $1.66 million over four years to extend the Women's Safety Services Domestic Violence Crisis hotline; and we have had a range of DV round tables. I think I will leave it at that at this stage. If anybody has any questions.

The CHAIR: Thank you. I might throw to the member for King to begin the questioning.

Ms LUETHEN: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 109. Can the minister provide the committee with more information on the reinstatement of state grant payments to the South Australian Housing Trust?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the honourable member for her important question. The budget papers show that, in Treasury terms, the South Australian Housing Trust has a negative financial contribution to the government, which is in recognition of the fact that the Housing Trust is a recipient of grant funding through the state government. For budget presentation purposes, funds provided by the commonwealth to the state and then passed by the state to the South Australian Housing Trust are reported as state funds provided to the South Australian Housing Trust. Grant funding received in this way from the state government is composed of funds provided under the commonwealth National Housing and Homelessness Agreement as well as other state contributions.

The 2017-18 estimated result for state grant funding provided to the South Australian Housing Trust is $257.3 million, which is higher than the 2017-18 budget by $50.8 million, due primarily to the reinstatement of grants to the Housing Trust. The total state grant funding provided to the South Australian Housing Trust is budgeted to increase by $77.2 million in 2018-19 compared with the 2017-18 estimated result.

This is primarily due to the transfer of homelessness services functions from the Department of Human Services to the South Australian Housing Trust, or the South Australian Housing Authority. The South Australian Housing Trust pays land tax on its property holdings; however, this is not included in the calculation of net contribution to the state government. Taking this into account, the net contribution to the South Australian Housing Trust from the state government is $135.709 million.

If I could also provide some other information, I am advised that in 2007 the state government approved a financial viability strategy, which essentially involved increasing asset sales and applying the proceeds to repay the South Australian Housing Trust's debt, which was at that time around $857 million. In 2013, the commonwealth government forgave $320 million owed to the South Australian Housing Trust. The former government transferred the financial benefit of this debt forgiveness from the South Australian Housing Trust to the general government by reducing grant payments to the trust. Whilst the South Australian Housing Trust no longer needed to sell houses to pay off debts, sales were still required to offset the reduction in state funding.

The reduction in state funds associated with the debt forgiveness was originally scheduled to end in 2016-17; however, the previous government effectively continued this by reducing the South Australian Housing Trust's funding by $70 million in 2017-18, which was $50 million in the state budget and $20 million as part of the Mid-Year Budget Review. This was reversed by the current government in June 2018.

Membership:

Mr Basham substituted for Mr Pederick.

Ms COOK: I refer to Budget Paper 5, page 177 and, broadly, the South Australian Housing Trust. In relation the $50 million the minister has announced, which I have seen reported in the media today, will that money go directly to maintenance expenditure in Housing Trust properties?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I might ask the acting chief executive to talk about how the $50 million reinstatement works in a cash and operational sense in favour of the authority/trust.

Mr BUCHAN: Thank you, minister. Fundamentally, the $50 million has enabled us to work through a new business model to determine and improve the financial viability of the South Australian Housing Trust moving forward. It creates flexibility for us. Under the previous financial modelling with the $70 million having been withdrawn from the South Australian Housing Trust, we were likely to fall to cash balances that were less than $30 million by the end of the 2018-19 financial year and, further, by 2023 fall into a negative cash balance under consistent and ongoing operations as they were.

The injection of cash effectively enables us to work through and consider a new financial viability strategy—a new business model—that moves us towards a more sustainable financial position, to think and work through the opportunities associated with addressing backlog maintenance and to continue to work on the redevelopment of our asset portfolios going forward.

Ms COOK: Just to clarify, minister, I understood the announcement to mean new money to be used, and the reference was around improving the maintenance undertakings of the trust. The $50 million is not directly linked to maintenance? Is that what you are attesting?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I can try to explain it in this way, and I will quickly get nudged if I head in the wrong direction. Under the previous arrangement, not having that amount of cash meant that the South Australian Housing Authority effectively had a hand tied behind its back. It was quite difficult, financially, to manage various operations. The reinstatement of this funding is not a specific allocation to a grant program as such, but it provides the authority with the flexibility to undertake a more strategic approach in terms of whether it is maintenance or redevelopment. It gives them more flexibility.

The new authority is going to be much more—the governance arrangements are quite changed. The board is going to be quite proactive in terms of approving developments going forward. I think those will come to me as the minister as well. It provides some headway for the authority to be able to redevelop without being hampered in terms of its activities going forward. I think we will see greater activity in that space.

Ms COOK: Just to clarify, the announcement today is giving the impression that there is an injection of $50 million into direct maintenance and direct works. You are saying that the $50 million is a broader strategic investment moving forward to change things up, as such.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We have not actually determined how that is to be expended. It is not a particular grant program for a specific purpose. We will be working in partnership with the board to determine what projects there are going forward. As you would appreciate, there has been significant change, in terms of the restructure. We have an interim board. A number of those members are new, and we will be appointing permanent board members in due course as well, so it is an organisation that is itself undergoing a lot of change. Going forward, in partnership with the board and within the organisation, those decisions will be made.

Ms COOK: Can I clarify, minister—

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Could I just add that one of the important effects it has is that it means that we do not have to cut maintenance to fund things going forward because the cash position of the organisation is so much enhanced.

Ms COOK: That opens a new question: was there an agenda to cut maintenance?

The CHAIR: We are back to the original budget line highlighted by the member for Hurtle Vale in the first instance. We are still on that page, as I understand.

Ms COOK: I have not moved. We are just talking about the budget and the announcement.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: In relation to the position of the Housing Trust or the Housing Authority, I tabled a ministerial statement into the triennial review, I think in July—someone will correct me if I am wrong. The previous financial situation of the organisation was such that three things took place under the previous administration: its funding was effectively provided back to general government revenue, maintenance was cut and properties were sold. That situation is no longer the case.

Ms COOK: So the $50 million is not new expenditure authority?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: It is new to the organisation, but we cannot say at this stage how it is going to be expended because it is a new organisation and it has a board that has a significant governance role going forward, which means that they will make decisions that I think will come to me and therefore through me to cabinet. There are a few people in this space who will be making those decisions about how the funding is expended, but it certainly removes an impediment from the Housing Authority in terms of what it could and could not do.

Ms COOK: So it is new expenditure authority, but you cannot say yet what that is going to contain?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I will just ask the acting CE to explain how this works.

Mr BUCHAN: For simplicity, it is best to imagine that the grants have effectively increased the cash balance that exists within the South Australian Housing Authority. The approved programs going forward were going to result in the Housing Authority entering into a negative cash position. It could not pay its bills. It would not be able to undertake those projects without additional cash being injected into the authority.

What the $50 million does is provide room within our cash balances to enable us to do a couple of things: (1) to continue to maintain our existing expenditure across the forward estimates without falling into a negative cash balance (i.e., not being able to undertake that activity), and (2) have time to restructure our plan and work through the strategy associated with how we best manage our assets moving forward to ensure that we are meeting the needs of our customers in the right location with the right asset.

Ms COOK: I am still in the same section, just for clarification. Can the minister rule out any further increases to Housing Trust rents—I know you do not like to rule things out, minister—on top of what has already been announced across the forward estimates? I am specifically referring to the increases to the one-bedroom cottage flats and the bedsits. Can you rule out any further increases to those?

Ms LUETHEN: Point of order: does this relate to a specific budget line?

The CHAIR: Member, perhaps you could refer us back to the budget line that you first indicated.

Ms COOK: It is Budget Paper 5, page 177, the South Australian Housing Trust.

The CHAIR: Member for King, two-thirds of the way down the page you will find mention of this topic.

Ms COOK: Correct. You have announced increases in the budget from 19 per cent or 21 per cent up to 25 per cent and then there is a category increase that talks about moderate income, going up to 30 per cent of income. The remaining folk in Housing Trust pay 25 per cent of their household income. Can you rule out any further increases in rent over the forward estimates?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I take it this is a similar question to the one the honourable member was getting at last time, which was, if I can paraphrase, and she will let me know whether or not I am correct: is there anything else in the budget that people are not aware of? No, we have been very transparent and very up-front about this process and have given people forewarning and time to adjust. There is nothing that is not contained within the budget papers in relation to that matter.

Ms COOK: What stakeholders and community groups did the minister or the department consult with ahead of the decision to increase Housing Trust rents?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: That was a decision for the cabinet through the budget process.

Ms COOK: Can you repeat that?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: That was a decision for cabinet through the budget process.

Ms COOK: So there was no consultation with any stakeholders or community groups ahead of these increases?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: My understanding is that that is not generally the practice.

Ms COOK: So it did not happen?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: That is my understanding.

Ms COOK: In terms of people who are now experiencing increases in their rent over the forward estimates, are there any options available for people who have hardship and are unable to pay those rent rises?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I understand there is a general provision for hardship, which applies to everybody in a Housing Trust property and which can be accessed if that is a problem.

Ms COOK: In regard to moderate income, can the minister define what that actually is from a monetary point of view?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I can advise that moderate income thresholds will be determined closer to the implementation date but will take into account the size of the household and focus on those households with incomes above the lowest 40 per cent of income earners.

Ms COOK: Which is? Do you know what the monetary value is? Is it $40,000 a year, $50,000 a year, $25,000?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: It is a little bit difficult because it can be considered at a point in time. I think the example we gave in the budget papers was that a single person earning $1,000 a week in public housing could potentially have their rent changed from $250 to $300, assuming that the market rent is above $300. These things change over time, so it is a bit difficult to be definitive today about what that particular income might be.

Ms COOK: I understand that the budget reflects 500 to 1,000 homes being affected by this moderate income assertation, so there has been some modelling. Would that then be the $1,000 per week you are talking about?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: My understanding is that the Housing Authority keeps a range of data on current tenants. The single person example is not the definitive person. We will be consulting with SACOSS and a range of stakeholders as we try to implement it because we think that consultation is important to shape it. We did not just want to come up with a particular number in a vacuum; we want to make sure that we actually consult on that so that we are informed by those outside of government who understand these things.

The CHAIR: The member for Florey has a question.

Ms BEDFORD: Thank you, and it is again on Budget Paper 5, page 177. With $11 million annually being raised by rent increases and only $9.6 million being spent through the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement, why is there a net reduction in state government investment in the social housing sector, especially at a time when so many South Australians are seeking food parcels and charity assistance?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Sorry, could you repeat that because I do not think that the numbers that you have read out accord with what we have.

Ms BEDFORD: According to page 177, $11 million is coming in from budget increases.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: That is not just from rent increases.

Ms BEDFORD: What is the rent increase and is there a net reduction through that? How is that going to affect people at a time when so many people are accessing charity and food parcels and having difficulty paying their bills?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I can advise the honourable member that, in relation to the rent increases, that is expected to increase the income of the organisation by $1.55 million, not the figure that she quoted.

Ms BEDFORD: Annually, right?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes.

Ms BEDFORD: How are people in the situation that we are talking about—the single-bedroom flats, for instance—going to get any benefits from this budget when they are not going to receive anything back from the emergency services levy, for instance? These people are being hit with an increase but are not going to get anything back from the budget.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: This budget was very much about resetting the financial situation. I am not sure whether the honourable member was here before to hear the discussion in relation to the $50 million that the Housing Authority will have access to that it did not previously. It has partly been about resetting the authority to make sure that it is sustainable because, if we do not have a sustainable organisation, then we are not able to continue to provide important housing services to people going forward. The authority was effectively in a situation where it was going to go broke.

These are modest increases in the scheme of things. There are a number of people, the majority of Housing Trust tenants, who are already paying 25 per cent. The policy across the board has been 25 per cent of household income or market rent, whichever is lower. There are a number of people in very comparable situations who are paying 25 per cent already.

Ms BEDFORD: So it was really necessary to put this into that sector of your public housing, absolutely no other way to work on sustainability rather than impact on these people at the very end.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Well, there is a social equity issue. We have had some responses from some of our tenants. A number of the people who have called have not been in the scope of this particular policy. When it is explained to them that other people have not been paying 25 per cent of their household income, their expressed opinion to us has been that they think that is fair and reasonable.

Ms COOK: Continuing on page 177 of Budget Paper 5, I want to ask the minister about the social equity comment she just made. In respect to what you were saying, you believe in creating an 'us versus them' approach in the Housing Trust regarding the tenants, and you support the statement: 'Well, if they're not paying 25 per cent like me, they should be, so I don't really care what situation they fall into.' Do you think that is satisfactory?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: As one of your colleagues in the upper house says on a regular basis in question time, please do not put words in my mouth. I note that the former government implemented a similar policy in 2011. I am not sure whether the same arguments were raised by Labor members—

Ms COOK: I do not think that budget line is open.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: —in the estimates at that stage. The policy of the previous government that had always been expressed to me through briefings and the like was that it was 25 per cent of household income or market rent, whichever was lower. I would have to double-check, but I think that minimal issues have been raised by those who are within scope of this particular policy.

Ms COOK: These people are very vulnerable and at risk, minister. I expect that they would have great difficulty in being able to express this issue to you. That is what our job is; they are contacting us.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: With due respect, the most vulnerable people are living on the streets and cannot get into public housing. That is due to a range of policy decisions made by the former government. We want to provide as much assistance to as many people as possible, so to ask one group of people who are not paying what the expressed policy is to pay a little bit more so that we can provide more places to people who are living on the streets and in dangerous situations is, we think, a pretty good outcome. That is why we are providing more crisis beds for people in the domestic violence space.

The CHAIR: Member for Hurtle Vale—

Ms COOK: Can I move on?

The CHAIR: No, I just want to say something from the chair. As I said to this committee yesterday and on Friday, this is an opportunity to ask questions of the minister, not to provide commentary. Member for Hurtle Vale.

Ms COOK: I will move on to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 92, in relation to remote Aboriginal housing. Have you read the review the federal government completed in 2017 about the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing? There was a recommendation that any future funding agreements be funded fifty-fifty by state and federal governments. Is this something the state government agrees with?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I understand that the Treasury-to-Treasury negotiations are continuing, and that may well be part of where those negotiations are at. I have answered a number of questions in the Legislative Council in relation to remote housing to which I refer the honourable member.

Ms COOK: Is your position currently that the agreement should be funded fifty-fifty as per the recommendation?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: That would ultimately be a decision for cabinet.

Ms COOK: There was a recommendation that future funding agreements are a minimum of five years in length. Would that be something you would be prepared to agree with as well?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: These will be decisions of cabinet and intergovernment agreements going forward.

Ms COOK: In respect of Aboriginal remote housing, what is the percentage of houses currently deemed as overcrowded?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am advised that we do not have that specific statistic, so I will need to take that on notice.

Ms COOK: Could you add to that: if a problem is identified, how many remote Aboriginal housing builds would be required to alleviate that problem?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, I am happy to take that on notice as well.

Ms COOK: How much new funding is available in the budget for remote Aboriginal housing?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The advice is that, because we have not settled negotiations with the commonwealth, that particular figure is not available in the budget at this stage.

Ms COOK: So there may be some but you do not have a figure as yet?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I know what the figure is, but I do not think I am able to advise because those matters are subject to intergovernmental agreement and cabinet confidentiality at this stage. When we have settled an agreement, then we will be able to make an announcement.

Ms COOK: Have you met with the federal minister Nigel Scullion since the election?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes.

Ms COOK: Did you meet with him by yourself?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Do I need to?

Ms COOK: Well, I think so, but that is not the question. Did you meet with him by yourself?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: No, I did not meet with him by myself.

Ms COOK: Who was present?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The Premier and some other advisers.

Ms COOK: So you have met with Nigel Scullion since the election.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Correct, and this is all a matter of the public record in the Legislative Council Hansard.

Ms COOK: What date was that?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I could not tell you off the top of my head, but if you like to read the Legislative Council Hansard it is in there.

Ms COOK: Are you trying to secure this next funding agreement with the same duration as the last one, and that was 10 years?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: That goes to questions of the negotiation and cabinet matters, which I am not able to comment on until we make an announcement.

Ms COOK: Did minister Scullion make an offer for the new funding agreement when you met with him?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I do not think I can add to my previous answers. I have been questioned on this extensively in the Legislative Council, and I refer the honourable member to the Hansard. Surely you read the Legislative Council Hansard—you must.

Ms COOK: Has minister Scullion written to the South Australian government with a formal funding offer at this stage for the new partnership agreement?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I would need to double-check that, but my understanding is that this matter is actually with the Treasury officials at this stage.

Ms COOK: Can I just jump back for the final little stretch to Budget Paper 5, page177.

The CHAIR: In fact, it will not be a stretch, member for Hurtle Vale; it will probably be one question.

Ms COOK: Then I will refer to Budget Paper 5, page 108 at 4.3, the creation of the Housing Authority. What selection criteria did Mr Storkey fulfil and was the appointment of Mr Storkey decided before you were elected as minister?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: In answer to the second question, no. Mr Storkey brings extensive experience in executive management and the community housing sector, with a passion for accessible and affordable housing. Mr Storkey was appointed by the state government for a three-year term. He was selected for the role for his extensive experience in the housing sector, including his instrumental roles in establishing the Common Ground program in South Australia and the Credit Ombudsman of Australia regulating the mortgage brokerage industry.

Mr Storkey was also the CEO of HomeStart Finance, one of the most successful government mortgage lenders in the country. One of HomeStart's successes was its innovative Nunga Loan, a product that significantly raised Aboriginal home ownership levels in South Australia. Mr Storkey also has significant experience in the community housing sector and was previously the state manager, South Australia for Community Housing Limited.

The CHAIR: I advise the committee that, in accordance with the agreed timetable, the committee now stands suspended until 10.45am. The bells with ring for just two minutes prior to our recommencing.

Sitting suspended from 10:31 to 10:46.

Departmental Advisers:

Ms L. Boswell, Acting Chief Executive, Department of Human Services.

Mr A. Thompson, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Business Services, Department of Human Services.

Mr N. Ashley, Acting Group Executive Director, Disability and Reform, Department of Human Services.

Ms N. Rogers, Director, Office of the Chief Executive, Department of Human Services.

Mr J. Young, Director, Strategy and Partnerships, Disability and Reform, Department of Human Services.

Mr G. Myers, Principal Coordinator, Strategic Projects, Office of the Chief Executive, Department of Human Services.

The CHAIR: Welcome back to the sitting of Estimates Committee A. I do not believe there is any change in committee members. Minister, we are now turning to questions in relation to disability services. Would you care to make an opening statement and introduce your advisers, please?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I think we have the same advisers we had previously for the 9 o'clock session with the exception of Nick Ashley, who is the Acting Group Executive Director, Disability and Reform, and Joe Young, who is the Director of Strategy and Partnerships, Disability and Reform. I do have some opening remarks.

The primary focus of the NDIS and disability services program in 2017-18 has been on achieving a safe and successful transition to the National Disability Insurance Scheme in South Australia. On 18 April 2018, the commonwealth and South Australia agreed on the bilateral agreement for the full scheme NDIS. From 2018-19, the state government will commit around $750 million per annum to the NDIS. At full scheme, the NDIS will benefit around 30,000 people with disability, their families and loved ones. It is vital for these citizens, the economy and the taxpayers of South Australia that we get this right.

The previous government made the decision to withdraw from the direct provision of most disability services, given the transition to the NDIS. Our government, in opposition, made an election commitment to announce within our first 100 days a timetable for the transition of all disability services to the non-government sector, on which we have delivered. Child and Youth Services will become an employee-led mutual from October. Disability community services are being wound down as they are no longer required, and processes are underway for other areas of the business, including ASSIST Therapy Services and equipment services.

DHS is also working with Highgate Park residents who are interested in transitioning to community living. In addition, the state government is withdrawing from the provision of accommodation services. This will be done gradually and carefully. The first step is consultation with clients and their families, staff and the sector. This has now commenced.

In this time of great change in the disability arena, we remain clearly focused on service quality and standards, continuity for clients, retaining a skilled and experienced workforce, growing the capacity of the sector, expanding the not-for-profit sector and minimising risks. State services will continue to support clients until they transition, and my department is working closely with the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) and the sector during this time.

This government also committed to reintroduce the Disability Inclusion Bill into parliament. I am very pleased that this was the first piece of legislation passed by the new parliament. The Marshall Liberal government is committed to ensuring all South Australians with disability have every opportunity to live a fulfilling life as equal members of our community and to maximise the benefits of the NDIS for South Australians.

The CHAIR: Thank you, minister. Questions, member for Hurtle Vale.

Ms COOK: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 102, acknowledging that there is a significant decrease in FTEs eventuating from the migration of clients and service provision to the NDIS. Can the minister detail exactly where savings and efficiencies have been found with regard to FTEs?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I will take advice on this, but I do not think it is an efficiency measure. The decrease in income, expenses and FTEs between the 2017-18 estimated result and the 2018-19 budget is primarily due to the transition of Child and Youth Services to non-government management as an employee mutual and the wind-down of services and functions associated with the transition to the NDIS.

Ms COOK: How many FTEs have transferred to alternative programs within the Department for Human Services?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I will ask the acting CE if she can respond to that one.

Ms COOK: I have three questions in a row all about transfers. Shall I continue to direct them to the CE?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Perhaps if we just respond to this one first.

Ms BOSWELL: We do not have a figure of transfer to alternative programs because we are regularly reshaping with the downsizing associated with the NDIS transition. For example, in the community services division we have set up some new areas where we are dealing with the NDIS payments and delivering services in a different way from previously. We also obviously have a number of people being managed in terms of case management looking for alternative work across government, and some people are out-placed in other government departments. It is a moving feast that actually changes almost every day at the moment because we are dynamically managing it.

Ms COOK: So some have gone to alternative agencies like the NDIA as well?

Ms BOSWELL: Yes. We actually have a whole group of people at the moment out-placed in the NDIA assisting with trying to get the transition through on time. We have about 68 staff that we are managing. We are using a managed workforce inside the agency and we have previously placed people in the NDIA who have now become NDIA staff. It is part of the arrangements originally which were under the first bilateral agreement, an agreement that they would take our staff first, and we have continued that into the new bilateral agreement in terms of the way we are operating.

Ms COOK: So to this point, in regard to that area, have there been any redundancies?

Ms BOSWELL: With specific redundancies, we have had some TVSPs in the area of nursing because in that area community nursing is one of the very few disability professions that is reducing, but at the moment I do not believe there have been any in other areas. I can check that for you though.

Ms COOK: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 104, sub-program 4.3, which is around disability services and equipment. There appears to be a blowout in the figures. The budget projected the total number of equipment repair and maintenance requests completed as 4,300, yet the estimated result reads 7,392. Can the minister detail what this was a result of?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the honourable member for that question. As she is probably aware, South Australia was supposed to be at full transition by 1 July and it has been delayed, so we welcome the fact that some of our DSA staff are helping out the National Disability Insurance Agency. In relation to those two figures, the increase is because of the delay in the full scheme rollout.

Ms COOK: Now that there has been a projection of a significant decrease, do you believe that that will be the case, given that we are not anywhere near full rollout?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, we expect that that is the case.

Ms COOK: Can the minister provide any detail in regard to the plan to commence a market process to transfer commercial services of domiciliary equipment services to the non-government sector? That is on page 104 of Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, the same page.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I might ask the acting CE to respond to that.

Ms BOSWELL: Yes, at the moment the start of that process is occurring in the way that it also occurred with ASSIST Therapy Services and, before that, Domiciliary Care Services. The way that works is that there is a joint committee between the Department of Treasury and Finance and the Department of Human Services, and we prepare all the documents and do market sounding. We are looking at doing market sounding; it is about to commence, if it has not already commenced. It will commence shortly. For DES, we will commence in the new year. We have been looking at the Independent Living Centre as part of that process.

Ms COOK: Regarding the provision of maintenance and equipment for people with disabilities in South Australia, do you believe that the market has been sufficiently prepared and protected to transition?

Ms BOSWELL: Part of what we will be doing in the new year is a thorough process of speaking with the market, doing what we call a market sounding, doing the preparation we did for the last few transfers, ensuring that there is a set of criteria about the way staff can transition. We have made it a part of the criteria in the past that involve job offers and the number of staff going with the jobs.

Ms COOK: In reference to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 107, the projected figure in the NDIS Reform Support program was 25,957 of NDIS participants with approved plans, but the estimated result was 18,460. Minister, can you explain this discrepancy with the figures in terms of how that has happened?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the honourable member for that question. Yes, the National Disability Insurance Agency is working to transition state and commonwealth clients and new participants; however, it has announced delays, which I have referred to. The government will ensure that clients continue to receive services they need until they transition to the NDIS. The NDIA should transition clients as quickly as possible so that they receive the full benefits of the NDIS. The Department of Human Services is working closely with service providers and the sector and will continue to provide support until the transition is complete.

The Department of Human Services is also working closely with the NDIA to try to address the delays, including staff, helping to approve access requests and being seconded to the agency, which we have referred to. The NDIS should deliver a better experience to participants thanks to recently announced improvements that will commence from October 2018. These include an additional 750 staff nationally over the next 12 months and targeted training of 6,000 planners and front-line staff to support the reform implementation. I hope that covers it.

Ms COOK: Minister, are you confident of a full rollout of NDIS by 31 December 2018?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The goalposts have been moved on a number of occasions. My personal view is that the numbers that were projected were probably too ambitious. In hindsight, the planning process should have been made as appropriate as possible at the front end rather than have to review plans and so forth. A lot of people have not had a great experience through the transition, which is really quite sad because we want to make sure we have confidence in the scheme.

I am confident that in the long run it will be fantastic for people with disabilities. But particularly because this process is beyond my control, I am not going to try to project when they will or will not land, but I can assure you that I have raised this matter of delays with several federal ministers now. Particularly now we have had a change, I have raised this with many of them.

Ms COOK: Minister, do you have an arbitrary date in mind when you might reconsider the expectation of the rollout being completed so that the sector can have some assurity going forwards, because everyone is very unsure at the moment?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, I understand. The NDIS itself is a series of moving parts that move in different directions on a regular basis, so we do try to keep on top of that. I might see if our acting CE can add some comments to assist you.

Ms BOSWELL: I can advise that as of only last week the deputy CE of the NDIA was telling me that they expected to have everybody in by the end of this calendar year. We are scheduling for March next year. We have an agreement in place about the way that funding will work up until March next year, and NGOs have been advised of that. They have also been advised that we are continuing to maintain funding until there is transition. In fact, we have built some indexation in to match what they would have got under the NDIA so that they are not missing out in that regard.

We have also put, as we said, a number of staff in to do it. We are doing work within the department to assist the agency to catch up. Because of the staff who have now gone over to the agency, as a managed workforce we understand that in the last few weeks the number of plans being approved each week has picked up. We are hoping that in the next week or so they will get up to the necessary approval rate they need to meet the deadline.

Ms COOK: In respect to supplementary payments and block-type payments that are being provided to non-government organisations, I am aware, as I am sure the minister is, that some are running out this month. There was a range of terms on which funding was provided at the end of the financial year going forward to different organisations. I am sure there was some maths behind it that I did not understand. How was the judgement made as to how much funding was provided to each organisation to continue their services pre the NDIS rollout of their clients?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I will ask the acting CE to respond.

Ms BOSWELL: For the vast majority of block funding, they should have run till March, because that is the date that we added a bit extra in because we were not 100 per cent sure that they would hit the 31 December date. They should have all run till March because we believe that by then a full rollout should have occurred. The only funding that I can think of that completes in 31 December is actually SRF funding, which has been planned for quite some time, and we have been working very closely with the sector on that.

Ms COOK: How many people living with a disability currently who receive state services will not qualify for the NDIS? Can that be broken down by age, group, diagnosis?

Ms BOSWELL: We have only a very small number of people receiving disability services who have not qualified for the NDIS. In those cases, we are maintaining state continuity of support. There are of course separate services provided under the SA HACC program. That is a chronic health service, so it is a different thing. In terms of Disability SA clients, we know of only 18 as at 30 June who had not qualified since the start of the children's trial. It is a very, very small number, and we are maintaining continuity of support.

Ms COOK: Will anyone who was previously or is currently receiving HACC funding and does not qualify for the NDIS continue to receive the same level of service?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Sorry, could I just clarify with the honourable member whether that was DHS Disability SA clients who do not qualify, or were you talking about HACC?

Ms COOK: I am asking about both.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Both; okay. In relation to DHS Disability SA, there is the Continuity of Support Programme, and 18 people fall into that category. In relation to HACC clients, it is a bit more complicated; they can start entering the NDIS from 1 July. Many who fall into the HACC category have a level of impairment below the NDIS threshold. The impact of those is not known at this stage, so we will need to reconfigure that going forward as we become aware of which clients transition into NDIS and which do not.

Ms COOK: Does the guarantee under the bilateral agreement, that ineligible people will not be worse off under the new arrangements, still stand?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: My understanding is that under the previous bilateral agreement that particular commitment applied to the NDIS transition for Disability SA clients; it did not apply to the full scheme or people who were not Disability SA clients.

Ms COOK: What is the total number of South Australians who will transition to the NDIS? What is the estimate by the department?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Thank you for that question. The number, which has often been quoted, is that 32,000 people are expected to become eligible by 30 June 2019.

Ms COOK: What was the number as of 1 July?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The number of people who were in the scheme as at 30 June 2018 is in the performance indicators. The budget figure says 18,460. We have a figure here that is a slightly different measure, which is those who were deemed as eligible—so they do not have a plan—which is 29,467.

Ms COOK: But do not have plans?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Correct.

Ms COOK: From a financial perspective, what is the delay of the NDIS rollout costing the Department of Human Services? Can that be quantified on a daily, monthly or annual basis?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Our officers here are intimately across this issue, for obvious reasons, so I will ask them to respond.

Ms BOSWELL: I can let Mr Ashley answer if you want more detail. We reached an agreement with the commonwealth government that meant that we are deducting from our payments the cost of continuing to run services until people transition, so at the moment it is pretty well cost neutral. Regarding the amount that is in the budget, we are not paying everything over to the NDIA until they have actually transitioned.

Ms COOK: So the $700 million plus change is getting money to come back?

Ms BOSWELL: Yes, they are paying us back.

Ms COOK: Is the minister aware of the level of underutilisation of NDIS plans currently? What can the minister say about that?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: It is about 55 per cent of plans, yes. I note the honourable member is surprised. It is not a great outcome for people. I think that nationally the figure is about 65 per cent. It is something that we have raised with the commonwealth. My personal view is that, within five to 10 years' time, when people are used to utilising plans and we have a much more robust market and so forth, we will see greater plan utilisation into the future. However, I think that is part of the factors. Obviously, we are keen that people are fully utilising their plan and working towards full independence, choice and control.

Ms COOK: I am sure the minister is aware of the range of dollar figures applied to plans. It is quite diverse, but if we were to pick a fairly comprehensive plan of $100,000 and that plan was being underutilised—and we are looking at thousands of people—where is the money that is not being utilised per plan going?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I might ask Ms Boswell whether she could provide some more comments.

Ms BOSWELL: In terms of the underutilisation of plans, it is something that the department and the minister have expressed considerable concern about. One of the reasons that our figure may be a little lower than the national average is that, at the moment, supported accommodation (which is usually fully utilised) and bigger plans have not yet transitioned fully, so they, as well as children, are possibly pushing it down, but also we are aware that rates are lower in regional areas, etc.

In terms of where the money is going, at the moment there is certainly money in the commonwealth going towards the Future Fund, but as well as that there is some money coming back to South Australia if it reaches a cash ceiling each month because we have negotiated that with the commonwealth as part of this year's transition.

Ms COOK: So the money that is underutilised, you are seeing a return to—

Ms BOSWELL: Not all of it. There is some money coming back for underutilisation. Some of it is certainly sitting with the commonwealth and they say that it is being put against Future Fund requirements for the scheme.

Ms COOK: In regard to that, would the minister consider that the money remaining with the commonwealth is then overinflating our contribution to NDIS?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I can assure the honourable member that when we have Disability Reform Council meetings, which are meetings where the commonwealth, states and territories come together to talk about these issues, we have some very robust discussions.

Ms COOK: In respect of non-individualised items, and I give you the example of Auslan interpreters who are trained and utilised by organisations, how do organisations undertake the use of Auslan interpreters at public events if they are not funded for those because the payment of those needs to be applied to individuals? I am thinking about public events and the like.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: That is a very good question because I think the NDIS assumes that there is a market for all these things, and some services on an individual basis are much more complicated. As I mentioned before, there are a number of moving parts and a lot of issues relating to interfaces and how funding arrangements will be managed. Some of it is pretty straightforward, obviously, in terms of people's care arrangements and those sorts of things. This is one of the issues that we are in ongoing discussions with the commonwealth about, that is, how to manage those going forward.

Ms COOK: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 106, supported accommodation services. In regard to clients and families who are residing in, supported by and connected to supported disability accommodation, has the department and/or the minister further communicated with individuals regarding the privatisation or outsourcing of this service since the first round of letters was issued?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the honourable member for her question, although I object to the term 'privatisation'. Clients, staff, employer associations and the non-government sector were informed from 26 June 2018, and continuity and quality of services for clients is one of our key objectives. We are expecting this transition to occur gradually within this current term of government. No immediate changes are planned and services will continue as usual for now. Before any changes are made, clients will be supported to make decisions about their future services. Clients will be able to stay in their current homes if they wish to.

Through consultation with staff and employer associations, this will be an important part of developing the plan for implementing the withdrawal of services. All stakeholders will have opportunities to ask questions, provide feedback and contribute. Consultation is occurring with clients, staff and the sector. The consultation will employ a variety of methods, including meetings, workshops and phone calls. The consultation process is designed to inform development of a transition strategy to outline options to gradually withdraw accommodation services, whilst upholding the other objectives.

I can also advise that, as part of the consultation process, the Department of Human Services has engaged the Australian Centre for Social Innovation to lead a two-month initial consultation process with clients and families to gain an understanding of client and family experiences within the existing service, their aspiration for future service delivery and the development of a framework that will support clients and families throughout future change. That commenced this month.

Ms COOK: In regard to the public corporation set up to oversee, what consultation did the minister undertake before dissolving that?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The biggest consultation of all is to have it in your election platform, effectively, that we would provide a plan for what would take place with the existing government services. That is the ultimate test. I have also responded to this in the Legislative Council quite extensively.

The various stakeholders were ones that we talked to. From a family's and client's point of view, there certainly has been concern that those people who were living in group homes have not actually been asked about whether that is where they particularly want to be going forward. Obviously, the non-government sector has an active stakeholder organisation, and there was a range of other stakeholders as well, who we spoke to prior to the election and since. I did ponder for some time on the public corporation, and cabinet ultimately decided that it was not the best model going forward.

Ms COOK: The public corporation, it was not your decision but a cabinet decision to dissolve that?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes.

Ms COOK: How long did Jackie Howard have left on her contract?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: That is not a matter I am familiar with because she was an employee of the public corporation. That is not a decision that I made.

Ms COOK: You do not have access to that information of how long she had left on her contract and how much it cost to pay her out?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Well, it is not a decision that I make. Employees of the Department of Human Services, those issues are not mine to make either.

Ms COOK: In respect of the consultation, you stated that you consulted with residents prior to making the decision.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I did not have access to residents, so, no, I was not able to speak to them. Some of them are non-verbal, so they are not in a position to be able to articulate what they want.

Ms COOK: The decision to move the residents from their current homes and under their current care arrangements was made without the resident being at the centre of the decision?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: You need to separate the resident's location from the resident's care because those are different matters. None of those decisions has been made and we want to actually ask people what their preference is going forward.

Ms COOK: I was under the impression that the residents who are affected in this particular type of accommodation were receiving care from state government employees.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: They are, but my understanding of the arrangements is that the housing and the care are separated. That has been the case for some time. The centre of the decision-making for this policy was really about choice and control for residents, which is at the heart of the NDIS. We believe that the best interests we need to serve are those of the residents. At the same time, we would like to ensure continuity of care, which goes to the existing staff.

There are a number of non-government providers in South Australia we would also like to see as part of those other two priorities and increase the capacity in the local sector. There is some concern, as the honourable member may be aware, that there are large interstate providers who are well resourced. We like what we have locally and, where possible, we would like to see that those providers are the ones who are part of all the processes going forward.

Ms COOK: Particularly with residents who have been subjected to the same arrangements in terms of accommodation, and then in relation to—and I am separating it—the care that is provided by the same carers for 25 years on some occasions, will the minister provide some guarantees to these people that she will advocate for them to receive care from the same people, particularly those who have volatile behavioural concerns?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Continuity of care is something I have mentioned repeatedly in the other house and repeated today. We appreciate that there are some very longstanding relationships between people in group homes and their carers, and we respect that.

Ms COOK: Has the minister ensured that there is money in the budget to fully fund a disability advocate as committed to by the minister?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the honourable member for her question. I can advise that $200,000 will be allocated out of existing Department of Human Services resources for the appointment of an independent disability advocate. The advocate will be appointed to sit within the Office of the Public Advocate to support the transition of South Australians with a disability to the NDIS.

The position will play a key role in collating evidence about how transition to the NDIS has progressed in South Australia and capturing any unintended systemic gaps as a result of the disability reform process. The disability advocate will work closely with the Public Advocate, the Department of Human Services, the National Disability Insurance Agency, community advocacy organisations and other key stakeholders. They will inform the development of future policy to ensure that people with a disability are supported under the NDIS.

Ms COOK: I may have missed it, but did you say when you expect the disability advocate to be in place?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We are working through that with the Public Advocate, but we expect that it will be in the next couple of months.

Ms COOK: With respect to the goals and aspirations of people living with a disability, what have you put in place or what are you intending to put in place to ensure that there are jobs and outcomes available for those people moving forward, in particular setting a standard in public service, for example?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I do not think I have a particular brief on this. Someone will poke me if they think I am going in the wrong direction. I know that the honourable member is well aware of the Disability Inclusion Act, and I pay tribute to my predecessors in that role. The Commissioner for Public Sector Employment was organised under the auspices of the Department of Human Services.

The Office for the Public Sector recently had an employment forum in relation to implementation and advocating for the direction in the Disability Inclusion Act. The forum's participants included a range of government departments, local government and so forth. At that event, Ms Erma Ranieri talked quite extensively about her vision for employing people with a disability, so I think that she is onto that one.

Ms HILDYARD: Can the minister report on the progress of the implementation of Changing Places across South Australia?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the honourable member for that question and her interest in Marveloos, as they are known. The first two grants for Changing Places partnerships, $50,000 to the Adelaide Oval Stadium Management Authority and $100,000 to the City of Adelaide, were finalised on 3 July 2018. I do not think I need to talk about carry forwards. Also, $1.7 million has been committed to develop 15 Changing Places facilities and to purchase two Marveloos. The City of Adelaide one is in relation to James Place. Contracts with the City of Holdfast Bay, the City of Mount Gambier, the City of Victor Harbor, the City of Port Lincoln and the City of Whyalla will be progressed once councils have consulted with their local communities about the best locations for the facilities.

The Department of Human Services is conducting a process to give local councils and not-for-profit organisations the opportunity to apply for a Marveloo grant. Initial expressions of interest have been received from the City of Port Adelaide Enfield, the City of Port Lincoln and the Copper Coast Council. Councils and not-for-profits that have expressed an interest will be notified of the next stage in this process.

The CHAIR: The last question on this topic, member for Hurtle Vale.

Ms COOK: Very generous. Minister, how many disability COAGs or meetings of disability ministers have there been since you were elected and when was the last one?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We have had one face-to-face meeting which, from memory, was on 30 April in Sydney. We have also had a telephone one, and if we can get the date before this session closes we will. There was to be another one planned soon but with the changes in Canberra, I am not sure—no, that is scheduled for later this year, I think.

Ms COOK: So there has been a delay. There is going to be one held but you are not presently advised as to when?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, it will be held this calendar year. I am advised that 27 July was the telephone one.

Ms COOK: One in person in April and one on the way?

The CHAIR: Member for Hurtle Vale, if the minister can just finish her response and then we will move on.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: That was it.

The CHAIR: Having reached the allotted time of 11.30am, I indicate that the committee will now move to questions relating to the Office for Women. We will just give the advisers a few moments to change places.

Departmental Advisers:

Ms L. Boswell, Acting Chief Executive, Department of Human Services.

Mr A. Thompson, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Business Services, Department of Human Services.

Ms N. Rogers, Director, Office of the Chief Executive, Department of Human Services.

Mr G. Myers, Principal Coordinator, Strategic Projects, Office of the Chief Executive, Department of Human Services.

Ms F. Mort, Director, Office for Women.

The CHAIR: Minister, would you care to make an opening statement and introduce your advisers, please?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, thank you, Mr Chairman, I can advise that our two disability reform colleagues have not quite left the building, but they are no longer part of this session, but I would like to welcome Ms Fiona Mort, who is the Director of the Office for Women.

I will make just a brief opening statement if I may. I am pleased to be here today in my capacity as the Minister for Human Services to focus on the Status of Women program. While this government has been in office for only a short time we have made some significant achievements. Prior to the election, we released a comprehensive package to address domestic and family violence, and we are delivering on these commitments.

The 2018-19 state budget committed $11.9 million over four years to a suite of positive measures to support women and children at risk, including:

$510,000 to support a statewide trial of a domestic violence disclosure scheme;

$624,000 over four years for the South Australian Coalition of Women's Domestic Violence Services; and

$150,000 for the development of a personal protection app linking at-risk women directly to police and domestic violence services.

We have committed to establishing safety hubs, strengthening legislation and ensuring that women have what they need in crisis situations. We also committed to hold a domestic violence round table within the first days of taking office. This commitment has been fulfilled, and we are continuing to roll out a series of round tables across regional South Australia.

These round tables are important forums where we are building partnerships, genuinely consulting and developing sustainable solutions that will deliver the best outcomes for this sector. I am also proud that on 4 October we will be hosting the COAG National Summit on Reducing Violence against Women and their Children.

The key outline from the summit will be the Fourth Action Plan, Turning the Corner, the final action plan under the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. The summit, which will include around 100 delegates, will feature panel sessions and interactive debates and is the final sounding point and opportunity to consider feedback received through the comprehensive national consultation process for the development of the plan.

Of course, there is more to gender inequality than women's disproportionate experience of domestic, family and sexual violence. The fundamental disrespect of women in our society must be addressed. To have the most impact and address issues in a systematic, targeted way, we will develop a women's economic and leadership strategy. This will outline a range of ways we will work across government and the community to increase women's economic participation and leadership, particularly in positions of power where decisions are made.

I would also like to acknowledge the Women's Information Service, which is this year celebrating its 40^th anniversary. WIS continues to provide a valued service to the women of South Australia and also to build its volunteer base and reach into the community. While this is a significant milestone, it is unfortunate that the need for such a service continues and that the issues women most often contact the service about—namely, health, safety and legal assistance—have not changed a great deal in the last 40 years, which tells us that we have more work to do for the women of this state. I am committed to addressing these and other issues for women in South Australia in this coming year.

Ms HILDYARD: Thank you, for that opening statement. Can you please elaborate on how your government specifically will improve the status of all South Australian women?

The CHAIR: Member for Reynell, could you reference a budget line, please?

Ms HILDYARD: It is relation to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 97, and many of my questions are in relation to that.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The government, through the Office for Women, is developing a women's economic and leadership strategy. Consultation with the business sector and other key stakeholders is critical, with a focus on small and medium enterprises, not-for-profits and larger corporates. Later in 2018, the Office for Women will convene a forum with SMEs, not-for-profits and corporate organisations to inform and develop the strategy.

The Premier's Council for Women will also be asked to provide advice on working with business and the barriers facing women. The Office for Women is also working with key partners to progress key issues for older women, building on work undertaken through the mature women's project. Focus is particularly on the economic empowerment of older women, working with employers and other organisations to promote the benefits of older women in the workplace and address discrimination.

In late 2018, the Office for Women will hold a round table with the South Australian members of the Australian delegation to the recent United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, along with representatives from regional women's organisations. This is likely to focus on using information technology to connect and support regional women. The Office for Women will also support the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure to encourage women to nominate for election to local government. I am sure the honourable member is aware that the elections are taking place fairly soon.

The government will work to ensure continued support for women in the workplace, at home, in our institutions and in the public, which means more than ensuring mechanisms for women to make complaints about sexual harassment and assault, discrimination and sexism. We are working to change the cultures that allow these behaviours to prevail. I can go into range of other ways as well, but that is just a general introduction. If I could just correct the record, the COAG summit is 2 and 3 October, not 4 October.

Ms HILDYARD: The statement at the top of page 97 states:

The Status of Women program supports the full and equal participation of women in the social, political and economic life of the state. Priorities include addressing violence against women, equality for women in every aspect of life, and women’s economic empowerment.

How does that statement and the vision that you have just articulated, with a focus on developing an economic and leadership strategy, accord with the fact that the government has 16 per cent representation of women in the House of Assembly, that is, four members out of 25?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We have women in leadership roles. We are not backwards in coming forwards. I think women's representation in parliament generally needs to be improved. I have never shied away from that. I was asked about this by the ABC in the election campaign. I would like to see our numbers improve. All our members are chosen in the Liberal Party by a democratic process of members. That is a decision for those colleges.

Ms HILDYARD: Given our shared belief that there are equal numbers of men and women of merit who could enter politics, will the Liberal Party implement affirmative action to address the gross inequality of women's representation in this parliament?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I do not think that is a question for this estimates committee. I think that is a matter you would need to put to our state director.

The CHAIR: In fact, I concur with that, minister. That is a question relating to policy rather than budget lines.

Ms HILDYARD: I guess I was very interested in the minister's personal vision to improve the status of South Australian women and in her comments about the need for an economic and leadership strategy. In the budget, there are words about the need to ensure that women can participate in political life, yet having four members out of 25 who are women in the House of Assembly is a sad indictment on any progress towards that strategy.

The CHAIR: As I said earlier today, I appreciate your comments, member for Reynell, but it is a time for questions rather than commentary from individual members. You have asked the minister a question.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: And I am happy to respond, too. Quite frankly, the question is much broader than the members of parliament. We can all be in a little goldfish bowl if we like, but the questions are much broader than that. There are, however, many South Australian women in this state with a greater range of issues than purely parliamentary representation.

Ms HILDYARD: Yes, indeed there are. The last government achieved 50 per cent representation of women on government boards and committees. How will the government maintain that?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We do not have a mandated target. Clearly, every minister needs to be mindful when they come to cabinet, if that is where their appointments are made, that we want as much gender diversity as possible.

Ms HILDYARD: So you are leaving it up to ministers?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: There are not mandated targets, from my understanding of the new approach.

Ms HILDYARD: What plan does the government have to improve the representation of women in the private sector?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I did refer to the economic participation, so they will be part of that process. However, some of this comes to responsibilities of the federal government as well. There used to be EOWA; it is now WGEA, Workplace Gender Equality Agency. They play a significant role in this space and keep track of the representation on Australian boards, and they also run an accreditation process. They do a huge amount of work in this space, which we think is very valuable to South Australia as well.

Ms HILDYARD: Do you support federal Labor's plan to publish the results of gender inequality in the workplace?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am actually not that familiar with Labor policy. I am pretty reluctant to endorse Labor policy of most natures, particularly if I have not seen it. Again, that is a question that is beyond the scope of this committee.

Ms HILDYARD: Coming back to the opening statement on page 97, what is your government's strategy to achieve equal pay?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: A number of those matters, I understand—someone will poke me if I am incorrect—relate to federal awards and are beyond the scope. Where it is relevant, we will consider it as part of the employment and leadership strategy.

Ms HILDYARD: Will the government commit to supporting the Big Steps Campaign for equal pay for early childhood educators?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Is that a Labor campaign?

Ms HILDYARD: That is a campaign amongst childcare centres, unions, community, parents. It is a very broad-based campaign to achieve equal pay for early childhood educators.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I think that is probably a question for the Treasurer, who has responsibility for industrial relations matters.

Ms HILDYARD: Have you advocated to him for your government to support that campaign?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I do not think we have had a discussion on this particular issue.

Ms HILDYARD: How do you envisage achieving gender equality in sport?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Of course, that is a matter for the Minister for Recreation and Sport, but I have some brief comments on this. This government supports the inclusion of women and girls in all sports. We appreciate that, across the board, participation in sport by women and girls is not equal to that of men and boys. Specifically, in South Australia—across nearly all metrics of sport participation, leadership, sponsorship, remuneration and media coverage—the engagement of women and girls is far from equal to that of men and boys. There is a significant commitment nationally and locally to address this imbalance.

My understanding is that the Office for Recreation, Sport and Racing and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet are currently seeking input from state sporting organisations and grassroots participation through a survey process to inform the future direction for women and girls in sport. I look forward to hearing about the results of the surveys, which I am told will close at the end of September.

Ms HILDYARD: How does the government's cut to the Female Facilities Program and to female participation grants accord with the statement on page 97, and I quote:

The Status of Women program supports the full and equal participation of women in the social, political and economic life of the state. Priorities include addressing violence against women, equality for women in every aspect of life, and women's economic empowerment.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: That specific budget line relates to—

Ms HILDYARD: It is on page 97 in the Status of Women papers.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, but you are asking me about a program that is not within this portfolio, so I would ask that you raise that with the relevant minister.

Ms HILDYARD: The program is absolutely about achieving gender equality in sport, so I am very interested in your views in relation to those cuts.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I think you will find that the particular item that you are talking to is not in one of the budget lines that are open at the moment.

Ms HILDYARD: I have just quoted from page 97. I am very interested in your view, as the Minister for the Status of Women, on the cut to the Female Facilities Program and to female participation grants. Are you saying that that is not an issue that the Minister for the Status of Women would have any interest in or concern about?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am advising you that, as you would be well aware, that particular item is not under consideration in the estimates before us today. I would invite the honourable member to put that specifically to the minister responsible.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, did you speak against the cut?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: That discussion is cabinet-in-confidence.

Ms HILDYARD: Do you support the cut?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: You have asked me the same question.

Ms HILDYARD: Do you support the cut, because I am referring again to the opening statement on page 97 that says that the Status of Women program is about supporting the full and equal participation of women in the social, political and economic life of the state. Priorities include, amongst other things, 'equality for women in every aspect of life'. I think the question about the cut to the Female Facilities Program and the female participation grant goes to the very heart of what your government espouses it intends to do in relation to improving the status of women here in South Australia, so I am very interested in your view. There are many clubs and state sporting organisations that are very interested in your view. They are hoping fervently that you might be a voice in the government that will stand up for equality in sport.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I will give the member points for persistence, but she well knows that that particular program is not a line item that is before us in the committee today. If she has questions on that particular line item, she needs to put them to the relevant minister.

Ms HILDYARD: It is a question about the statement at the top of page 97.

The CHAIR: The member for Florey has a question.

Ms BEDFORD: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 97. It will not surprise you that I am seeking some information about the coordination and promotion of a range of activities around the 40^th anniversary of WIS and the 125^th anniversary of women's suffrage in South Australia.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the honourable member for this question and commend her for her ongoing interest and very deep commitment to this particular celebration. As the honourable member knows, 18 December 2019 will mark the 125^th anniversary of South Australian women's suffrage. The passage of the Adult Suffrage Bill on 18 December 1894 granted women the right to vote and also, for the first time anywhere in the world, to stand for parliament. I am not sure that we are allowed to say this anymore after we received evidence about Colorado.

The Office for Women is working with our joint parliamentary committee on initiatives to mark the anniversary and it made a presentation to the committee, which included a number of proposals. The Office for Women is developing a register of initiatives planned by community organisations and is engaged in talks with a range of organisations, particularly History SA, the State Library of South Australia, the Centre of Democracy and the Department for Education. We are encouraging all government agencies, non-government agencies, the private sector, as well as community organisations and individuals to consider ways in which their organisation could best acknowledge this important anniversary.

We celebrated the 40^th anniversary of WIS on 10 July this year through a number of ways, including a reception at Government House for current WIS volunteers; the launch of 24 oral histories collected by the WIS history project volunteers; the release of an interactive e-timeline marking significant dates in WIS and South Australian history; a social media campaign; and honouring past and present staff and volunteers.

We offer our congratulations and thanks to the many women who have contributed to this pioneering service over its 40 years of service, which is an outstanding contribution. The WIS continues to be supported by a strong volunteer base and provides a number of volunteering opportunities, including a shopfront and phone room, Family Court support, an oral history project and a children's centre satellite program.

Ms BEDFORD: Are there any plans for statewide celebrations or commemorations around the 125^th next year?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: That is something that we are looking into through social media and a range of other ways of engaging. I have written to all departmental heads, CEs, all the agencies, to encourage them to plan some events and encourage them to commemorate this important date. We have been reaching out across the state to as many organisations as possible to let them know and invite them to participate.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, what role do you believe gender inequality plays in the prevalence of domestic violence?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: That is a very broad question. Clearly it is at the heart of it. I will try to remember what the former prime minister said. I cannot remember the quote, to be honest. It was a very effective quote. I will paraphrase him: gender inequality is at the heart of domestic violence but not all gender inequality leads to domestic violence. We clearly had a very compressive policy that we took to the last election, which we are very proud of—a significant injection of funding, which includes a range of measures, some $11.9 million in funding over the forward estimates.

We have appointed an Assistant Minister for Domestic and Family Violence Prevention to ensure that we are continuing to keep the pressure on this issue. There is a new framework for the prevention of domestic, family and sexual violence, which includes the domestic and family violence election commitments as well as a host of other actions, and that is currently being developed. We have had a statewide round table, as the honourable member would be well aware, which was on 13 April and was well within the first 30 days.

We had a round table in the Riverland on 29 June, one in Mount Gambier on 14 September and we have others planned in Whyalla and Port Lincoln. We have provided peak funding for the Coalition of Women's Domestic Violence Services. We have also delivered the crisis line funding to enable Women's Safety Services to operate 24 hours a day. We are working on improving data collection and communication, and the Office for Women is leading a collaborative partnership to advance this work. The Office for Women is also exploring ways to make information, for example, from ANROWS and other research organisations more accessible to front-line workers.

The Housing Authority has commenced work on multiple enhancements to the Homeless to Homes system to improve data capture, including safety information. We are also working on rolling out safety hubs in regional South Australia, which has been very welcomed there. We will make funding available for the 40 new crisis accommodation beds for domestic violence, which is a 50 per cent increase on the crisis accommodation beds that we have at present. We will also provide $5 million in interest-free loans. The government is undertaking a range of activities. The Attorney-General also has a range of initiatives in her portfolio. Multiple initiatives are happening at the same time, and we are all very proud of this package.

Mr PATTERSON: Minister, I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 97. Could you update us on the women's economic and leadership strategy to promote gender equality in public and private life and also help prevent—

Ms COOK: This question has been asked and answered.

Mr PATTERSON: No, this bit was not touched on. I would like to elaborate on that, thank you.

The CHAIR: Can I interrupt on a point of order. Every member of this committee has the opportunity, and will have the opportunity, to ask a question if they wish. The member for Morphett has the call.

Mr PATTERSON: Thank you—touching on how to help prevent violence against women—

The CHAIR: This is the first question from the government. Member for Morphett.

Mr PATTERSON: Thank you.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the honourable member for his question and for his interest in this area. The South Australian government, through the Office for Women, is developing a women's economic and leadership strategy. This will include a focus on older women, particularly relating to economic security and participation. Success will require buy-in from all stakeholders, not just from government, including industry, individual employers, key advocacy organisations and our state's educational institutions. The Office for Women will lead a forum to advance the development of this strategy later in 2018.

I will also ask the Premier's Council for Women for advice on working with business and the barriers facing women. In addition to the strategy, the South Australian government has committed to continue to work with stakeholders, such as the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, the national body tasked with progressing gender equality in the workplace; ongoing funding for the South Australian Working Women's Centre; and specific skills training—for example, IT training sessions for older women, which have recently been held at the Women's Information Service.

Ms HILDYARD: Given, as you said, minister, that gender inequality is at the heart of domestic violence and that there is much evidence about the need for preventative programs that challenge gender stereotypes and focus on achieving gender equality, why is there no money whatsoever in the budget for the prevention of domestic violence?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Prevention is everybody's problem, quite frankly—

Ms HILDYARD: So why is there no money in the budget for the prevention of domestic violence?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I was actually trying to answer your question. I feel like I am back in the Legislative Council, where I am not allowed to answer questions because I keep being interrupted. Prevention is everybody's problem. It is particularly important that the focus is on men calling out men who say and do inappropriate things because we know that is a very important means of changing the culture on this issue.

We have created a specific role of Assistant Minister for Domestic and Family Violence Prevention; that speaks for itself. Every single time assistant minister Power and I visit a region, we receive attention in the media for our work on domestic and family violence prevention. That in itself sends a clear message that the government is committed to this important issue. Every action that everyone takes is important. People will read those stories in the media and we trust that will help them to understand this is something that a range of people in our community are committed to preventing, not just the government.

It is also at the heart of the White Ribbon approach. We have a number of White Ribbon Ambassadors in this parliament, including our honourable Chairman here today. It is a very important role that a number of members of parliament are taking on within their own communities. It is a primary prevention area. I can remember when the member for Florey and I, and probably some other members, would attend the domestic violence vigils on the steps of Parliament House when another woman had been murdered. It used to be a lonely place 10 or 15 years ago, but now when we hold those vigils they are attended by a range of members of parliament and it is better understood. All of those actions and all of that support that all of us provide to enhance the understanding of this matter are important.

It is also the work that we do with Our Watch, as I mentioned, White Ribbon Australia, the faith in community leaders, the role of the Equal Opportunity Commissioner in her work on respectful workplaces, and the work of the violence against women collaborations. It is a priority for absolutely everybody, both within this place and outside this place and, clearly, with the leadership role of a number of government agencies that are White Ribbon Ambassadors.

The CHAIR: I will allow one last question on this topic, member for Reynell.

Ms HILDYARD: Maybe two?

The CHAIR: No, one, member for Reynell.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, your budget allocates funds for crisis accommodation. Who will provide support to women accessing this accommodation, and why are there no funds allocated for staff or other resourcing in relation to this accommodation?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I think this is actually a question that needed to be addressed during the housing section.

Ms HILDYARD: No, this is in relation to the Budget Overview on page 17, your headline statement about domestic violence, which absolutely is an issue relating to the Status of Women.

The CHAIR: Could we just have the budget paper in the budget—

Ms HILDYARD: I refer to page 17 of the Budget Overview.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I could dive under the desk, but I will save everyone from that spectacle. Regarding this particular initiative, we believe that, within housing, we will need to examine some of the spending that is made on alternatives to the crisis accommodation. In terms of where people are at with the crisis, there are currently 86 beds within the system. We are increasing that by 50 per cent, so 40 new ones. People are placed in hotels and motels once they are not able to access that crisis accommodation, which is a very expensive model compared with other models, and so it is anticipated that some of that funding may be able to provide that ongoing funding.

The CHAIR: I invite the member for Hurtle Vale to read the omnibus questions.

Ms COOK: The omnibus questions are as follows:

1. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors with a total estimated cost above $10,000, engaged between 17 March 2018 and 30 June 2018 by all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, listing the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier, the estimated total cost of the work, the work undertaken and the method of appointment?

2. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of the forecast expenditure on consultants and contractors with a total estimated cost above $10,000 for the 2018-19 financial year to be engaged by all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, listing the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier, cost, work undertaken and method of appointment?

3. For each department and agency for which the minister has responsibility:

(a) How many FTEs were employed to provide communication and promotion activities in 2017-18 and what was their employment expense?

(b) How many FTEs are budgeted to provide communication and promotion activities in 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22, and what is their estimated employment expense?

(c) The total cost of government-paid advertising, including campaigns, across all mediums in 2017-18 and budgeted cost for 2018-19.

4. For each grant program or fund the minister is responsible for please provide the following information for the 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 financial years:

(a) the name of the program or fund;

(b) the purpose of the program or fund;

(c) balance of the grant program or fund;

(d) budgeted (or actual) expenditure from the program or fund;

(e) budgeted (or actual) payments into the program or fund;

(f) carryovers into or from the program or fund;

(g) details, including the value and beneficiary, of any commitments already made to be funded from the program or fund; and

(h) whether the grant was subject to a grant agreement as required by Treasurer's Instructions 15.

5. For the period of 17 March 2018 and 30 June 2018, provide a breakdown of all grants paid by the department/agency that report to the minister, including when the payment was made to the recipient, and when the grant agreement was signed by both parties.

6. For each department and agency reporting to the minister:

(a) the total number of FTEs in that department or agency;

(b) the number of FTEs by division and/or business unit within the department or agency; and

(c) the number of FTEs by classification in each division and/or business unit within the department or agency.

7. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, could you detail:

(a) How much is allocated to be spent on targeted voluntary separation packages in 2018-19?

(b) How many of the TVSPs are estimated to be funded?

(c) What is the budget for TVSPs for financial years included in the forward estimates (by year), and how are these packages to be funded?

8. For each department or agency reporting to the minister in 2018-19 please provide the number of public servants broken down into headcount and FTEs that are (1) tenured and (2) on contract and, for each category, provide a breakdown of the number of (1) executives and (2) non-executives.

9. Between 30 June 2017 and 17 March 2018, will the minister list the job title and total employment cost of SA executive positions—(1) which has been abolished and (2) which has been created?

10. Between 17 March 2018 and 30 June 2018, will the minister list the job title and total employment cost of SA executive positions—(1) which has been abolished and (2) which has been created?

11. For each year of the forward estimates, please provide the name and budget for each individual program administered by or on behalf of all departments and agencies reporting to the minister.

12. For each year of the forward estimates, please provide the name and budgeted expenditure across the 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 financial years for each individual investing expenditure project administered by or on behalf of all departments and agencies reporting to the minister.

13. For each department or agency reporting to the minister how many surplus employees are there at 30 June 2018 and for each surplus employee, what is the title or classification of employee and the total cost of the employee.

The CHAIR: Thank you. The committee will now move from the Office for Women to Volunteer Services.

Departmental Advisers:

Ms L. Boswell, Acting Chief Executive, Department of Human Services.

Mr A. Thompson, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Business Services, Department of Human Services.

Ms N. Rogers, Director, Office of the Chief Executive, Department of Human Services.

Mr G. Myers, Principal Coordinator, Strategic Projects, Office of the Chief Executive, Department of Human Services.

Mr C. Karvountzis, Deputy Director, Community Services, Community and Support Services, Department of Human Services.

The CHAIR: Minister, would you like to make an opening statement in relation to Volunteer Services and indicate any change in advisers.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, thank you, Mr Chairman. Ms Fiona Mort has been relieved and I am pleased to welcome Mr Chris Karvountzis, the Deputy Director of Community Services, Community and Support Services.

I have a brief opening statement. This government is committed to supporting and building South Australian volunteers and encouraging the next generation of volunteers: young people, new retirees and people from all walks of life, to get involved and contribute.

Prior to the election in March 2018, we committed to abolishing all fees payable by volunteers for screenings to encourage people, including young people and retirees, to volunteer. I am pleased to advise that free screening checks for volunteers will commence on 1 November 2018. From this date, volunteers will be able to obtain child-related employment, disability services employment, aged-care sector, vulnerable person and general probative screenings at no cost to themselves or the organisation for which they are volunteering.

This is an important initiative that recognises and acknowledges our volunteers and removes a disincentive to volunteering. It will also reduce costs for volunteers and organisations. We have also committed to continue the WeDo app and to extend it to give recognition of the contribution made by employers. Participating employers will be able to use their support of volunteering to market their community contribution in promotions, annual reports and the like. I also acknowledge the excellent partnership work that has advanced under the Volunteering Strategy for South Australia 2014-20.

The government's continued support for the volunteering strategy is one part of our overall election commitments to volunteering. To this end, in May this year the government, through the Volunteering Strategy, co-hosted a highly successful workshop for teachers and educators, focusing on how to run a successful school-based volunteering program to improve student learning and wellbeing through volunteering. I would also like to note that, during 2017-18, 143 Premier's Certificates of Recognition for Outstanding Volunteer Service and over 1,000 South Australian volunteer Certificates of Appreciation were awarded.

The state Volunteers Day and Thank You event and presentation of South Australian volunteer awards held at the Adelaide Festival Centre over the June long weekend was a great event, with 1,800 volunteers attending and a very fine entertainment program through the Adelaide Cabaret Festival. I acknowledge the member for Hurtle Vale's attendance there. It was an honour to attend and to personally thank such a strong representation from our volunteer community. I would like to acknowledge all the wonderful work of our volunteering individuals and organisations.

The CHAIR: Thank you, minister. Member for Hurtle Vale.

Ms COOK: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 95, the budget table there. Can the minister advise whether any of the reductions in FTEs on that table include anyone working on volunteer programs or within the Office for Volunteers?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The advice I have received is that there has not been any reduction in that allocation.

Ms COOK: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 94, regarding the Volunteering Strategy for South Australia 2014-20. Are any specific actions being undertaken by the Marshall government in regard to the continued development and implementation of this strategy for South Australia and its priorities?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The continued support for the Volunteering Strategy is one part of our overall commitments to volunteering, which include reducing costs for volunteers by abolishing fees for volunteer screening checks, continued support for the WeDo app and expanding the app to provide recognition of the contribution made by employers, and continued support for the partnership that the honourable member referred to in the next stage of 2021-27. The key outcomes under the strategy in 2017-18 include:

the piloting of a curriculum of giving to embed volunteering practices within the school curriculum at Ocean View College, Taperoo. Based on this pilot, a generic school volunteering program model is being developed to further promote the introduction of volunteering concepts and experiences into other schools;

the launch of an online training module to support the implementation of the Guideline of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment: Volunteers—best practice guidelines for the management of volunteers in the Public Service;

the continuation of the quarterly public sector volunteer policy network to strategically support the effectiveness and experience of volunteers in the provision of public services; and

the continued development of the WeDo app to better connect potential volunteers with volunteering opportunities across the community.

The partnership board has selected the following two priority areas that will inform the strategy's focus in 2018-19: firstly, volunteering as a pathway to youth engagement and, secondly, the role of volunteering in responding to regional economic issues.

A strategy workshop was held in April 2018, bringing together over 80 stakeholders from diverse sectors to scope actions around these priorities. The resulting four key themes were:

1. Curriculum and education: opportunities for school-based learning that can also be regional specific;

2. Data and evidence: better understanding young people's perspectives of volunteering, including in regions;

3. Communication: building better messages that resonate with young people, particularly around life experience and personal development benefits; and

4. Culture development: enhancing a culture that promotes new incentives for volunteering, new modes of engagement between stakeholders and diversity.

The partnership board is now considering the outcomes of the workshop and the next steps.

Ms COOK: Acknowledging the work that has been done around encouraging and continuing to support volunteers, I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3. How many volunteers applied for screening during 2017-18?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Just to confirm with the honourable member, how many volunteers applied for screening checks in 2017-18?

Ms COOK: Yes, in 2017-18.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I can provide that to you and break it down by type. A total of 35,392 applications were approved; child related was 27,018; disability services was 2,136; vulnerable person related was 2,710; aged care was 2,726; and the general employment probity was 802.

Ms COOK: So, of the total of about 170,000 in the budget papers, only 35,000 were volunteer checks. Of the total screenings listed under DHS, 35,000 were actually volunteers; is that correct?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The total number of screening applications for the financial year was 155,000, so about 23 per cent are for volunteers.

Ms COOK: What is the anticipated total number of volunteers that you think will apply in 2018-19?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: There is a slight differentiation in terms of definition. The numbers I have just provided for the honourable member relate to the number of applications approved versus the number of applications received.

Ms COOK: What is the difference in number between the applications and the approved applications? Perhaps do not break it down into different types. What is the total number of applications, and what is the total number of approved applications?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: For volunteers?

Ms COOK: For volunteers in 2017-18.

Mr THOMPSON: Just reading from the activity indicators in the budget paper in regard to the total number of screening applications received, the projection for 2018-19 is 170,000 and the estimated result is 169,156. The number the minister read out in relation to the number of applications actually approved in 2017-18 was 155,304.

Ms COOK: That is not broken down for volunteers?

Mr THOMPSON: The applications approved are, but I am not sure that we have the statistics on the applications actually received in the various categories for volunteers.

Ms COOK: I am looking for the number of volunteers who applied and who were approved in the last financial year and the anticipated numbers in 2018-19 and 2019-20, for example.

Mr THOMPSON: We may have to take it on notice, but we are checking. The number approved for volunteers in 2017-18 was 35,392. That was the 2017-18 number.

Ms COOK: I am happy for you to take it on notice.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I think that the honourable member is trying to compare apples with apples; is that right?

Ms COOK: I am trying to.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, it is a little bit complicated, too, because there are people who have volunteer screenings who also have employment screenings. Some people have both.

Ms COOK: What budget have you allowed for the next financial year for free volunteer screenings?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: If I could refer the honourable member to Budget Paper 5, page 94, the figure in the budget of $677,000 is provided in this financial year for that particular free screening initiative. It is worth noting that it clearly goes up in future years to account for what is anticipated to be the full-year effect plus potentially more volunteers in the system.

The CHAIR: Minister, do you have anything further to add?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: No, sorry.

The CHAIR: The member for Hurtle Vale.

Ms COOK: Will bringing the screening forward have an impact on the budget now with respect to its being a couple of months additional? Was that budgeted from 1 January?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I will ask our financial guru to respond to that one.

Mr THOMPSON: It will potentially have an impact, and we will need to work through with Treasury in terms of that impact because what is listed there is a half-year effect, as you know, commencing 1 January. It commences early on 1 November. We will just need to work through it with Treasury.

Ms COOK: Is the budget you have worked out worked out at a $60 per screening budget? Is that how it is anticipated? I guess it is difficult to answer the questions on this if you do not have an actual predicted number that is tight, because if that is worked out around $25,000 it is very different from if it is worked out around $35,000. There is quite a significant shortfall particularly over the forward estimates—in the millions of dollars.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I think that we will need to take that on notice and see whether we can get you some more detail on that.

Ms COOK: Thank you. I will move on for a second. I refer to Budget Paper 4, program 1, page 94, and the WeDo app. Can you advise what your vision is regarding this app and what money has been put aside to support this moving forward?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the honourable member for her question. This government has continued the prior government's commitment to acknowledge and reward volunteers through the WeDo app. Stage 3 of the full implementation of the app is currently underway and includes supporter packages being developed by Volunteering SA and NT to increase the variety of rewards available to volunteers using the app. The packages provide information to businesses on how they can benefit from providing rewards to volunteers to redeem through the app. Benefits to business noted in the supporter packages include:

boost to brand recognition;

reinforcement of brand positioning;

improvement in product awareness;

increase in sales through new customers;

enhancement of corporate social responsibility; and

recognition as a champion of volunteering.

That is some of the new functionality we are hoping to achieve through the WeDo app. My understanding of the current utilisation of the WeDo app is that it is quite useful. I mentioned in one of my responses about the focus on young people and that it is quite a useful tool for young people who are prospectively looking for work. It demonstrates a commitment to community service.

It probably has a role in terms of school students who want to get involved in community projects to be able to demonstrate their involvement in such things. It has quite useful functionality, I think, for young people, and obviously young people are a focus. We would love to get more young volunteers.

Could I perhaps just correct one of the statements in part of my response. In relation to the funding I may have said that it would take account of increases in future numbers. I think that our modelling has been based on existing numbers. I just want to make sure that I have not misled anyone on that.

Ms COOK: Sorry, that was in relation to—

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: In relation to the $677,000. I think I made some remarks along the lines that it would take account of future increases. As Andrew Thompson outlined, if we massively exceed the number expected, we will need to seek support from Treasury to cover that.

Ms COOK: We are back at the screening, obviously. In terms of the cost per year over the forward estimates, you are saying that it might not be adequately catered for.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We do not know what we do not know at this stage; it is quite complex. Some people have multiple screenings, some are students and some have employment screenings. We have made provision because we want to fulfil the commitment to free screening for volunteers, but we are not entirely sure how that will be shaped going forward.

Ms COOK: Can you clarify whether modelling was done when you made the election commitment? What numbers was the modelling based on?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I think Volunteering SA came up with a particular figure. I would need to double-check whether their figure is the same as this one, but they certainly had a figure in their election submissions to parties. I am not sure whether or not that is identical, but I think it was in the ballpark.

Ms COOK: Do you stand by the $1.4 million approximate cost per year figure, which is estimated over the forward estimates for the screenings?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I think it is pretty consistent that we have made a provision for the volunteering checks. We anticipate that a lot of that demand will be managed within that, and if there are any additional demands on the system we will work through it with Treasury. We will get back to you about the details of the modelling.

Ms COOK: I assume the department does not make any money out of volunteer screening, and that is why there is such a heavily reduced fee. Now that volunteer screenings are free, with 35,000 volunteer screenings at $60 each, there would be a shortfall of at least $2 million over the forward estimates, and $2.1 million per year will be the program cost, not the $1.4 million that you are estimating. If that number then increases to 50,000 per year, there will be a shortfall of $9 million per year. Can you confirm those numbers?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Would you like me to take that one on notice?

Ms COOK: Yes, and confirm that figure. It seems there would be a significant shortfall, given an increase in volunteer screening. As we said before, if free screenings for standard volunteering through SA Police do not continue, I would attest that tens of thousands of additional screenings would come to the department.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We will see what we can get you.

Ms COOK: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 95. There seems to be a reduction in grants and subsidies from 2017-18 to 2018-19. What is the anticipated reduction of grants for volunteers within that pool?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The advice I have received is that the decrease in the 2018-19 budget for grants and subsidies is primarily due to once-off funding for the community infrastructure investment fund (CIIF) in 2017-18 and annual grant programs that are yet to be finalised, such as the APY lands funding provided through Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation.

Ms COOK: Still referring to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 95, will the minister confirm the continuation of the Young Volunteer Scholarships program?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: My colleague is across this issue, so I might ask Ms Boswell if she could respond to that one.

Ms BOSWELL: This year, the volunteer partnership board, as the minister said, has a focus on promoting youth volunteering. I have agreed to go on the volunteer partnership board this year, and there will be a discussion about the types of youth programs that will be run as a result of that. Whether or not that changes from the past I think is an important discussion to have with the partnership board rather than just say that things will roll on, because they clearly have a focus and they want to look at what the future will be.

The CHAIR: That seems to be a particularly good segue into questions on youth services.

Ms COOK: I have one very quick question.

The CHAIR: We are past the allotted time.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The acting CE wants to add something to the record, if she may.

Ms BOSWELL: It is actually adding something to the record on disability, if I may. I said that I would come back to the member with voluntary separation packages. In addition to the nurses, which I spoke about, there have also been three voluntary separation packages for domiciliary care staff and two for disability services officers, and they each have quite individual circumstances.

Ms COOK: Can I just ask quickly when the Premier's certificate for volunteering service round for 2019 will be open?

The CHAIR: You managed to get that one in.

Ms COOK: I am sure you would like to know. It is very important to the community.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We can get back to you with that particular detail. In 2017-18, they were awarded in May 2018.

The CHAIR: Thank you, minister. For questions relating to youth services, will there be a change of advisers?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, there will.

Departmental Advisers:

Ms L. Boswell, Acting Chief Executive, Department of Human Services.

Mr A. Thompson, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Business Services, Department of Human Services.

Mr M. Homden, Executive Director, Youth Justice, Department of Human Services.

Ms N. Rogers, Director, Office of the Chief Executive, Department of Human Services.

Mr G. Myers, Principal Coordinator, Strategic Projects, Office of the Chief Executive, Department of Human Services.

The CHAIR: Do you wish to make an opening statement, minister?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We have returned Mr Michael Homden, who is the Executive Director of Youth Justice. It is a great privilege to be the minister responsible for youth services. Whilst most young people across South Australia are thriving and well supported by families, schools and communities, we know that others face challenges and disadvantage. This government's commitment to young people is clearly demonstrated through funding delivered in the 2018-19 budget, and I would like to highlight a few of those commitments.

On education, our commitments include $15.5 million over four years for engagement and wellbeing programs, including early intervention approaches to address bullying, truancy and substance abuse. We have also committed $20.9 million over four years in a comprehensive program to improve literacy and numeracy. A strong foundation in literacy is clearly vital to success in life.

We have committed $202.6 million over four years to create an additional 20,800 apprenticeships and traineeships. We are providing $109.8 million over five years in additional support for TAFE SA and $274,000 over two years for a 12-month trial to expedite driver's licences for apprentices. An amount of $1.3 million over four years has been committed to establish the Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People and $8.8 million over four years to extend foster and kinship support for young people up until 21 years of age.

Young people need and want jobs. They want better services and lower costs. As is clear, most of the government's dedicated investment in young people is in other portfolio areas. However, as Minister for Human Services, I and my agency will continue to identify priorities and strategies, build partnerships and collaborations and, importantly, listen to young people to ensure their voice is heard.

One of my priorities for the next four years is to develop a more sustainable approach to youth funding through the Department of Human Services. We will move away from annual youth strategies and frequent program and funding changes. We will build a planned approach to investment and look at where we can make the most impact. To this end, the Department of Human Services has begun scoping the development of a longer term youth strategy that will be codesigned with young people, the sector and key government agencies.

I will also build on our role as collaborators. We will strengthen our relationships with the many organisations and partners across our community who are passionate about improving opportunities for young people. We will work together to develop a shared long-term vision, and 2018-19 will be a year of transition in the youth services area. It will also be an exciting year, and I look forward to reporting back to the committee in 2019 on our progress.

The CHAIR: I invite questions. Member for Hurtle Vale.

Ms COOK: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 94, and the Youth Safety Strategy. What youth stakeholders has the minister engaged with since the election to help inform the path forward?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I refer to the Youth Safety Strategy. In 2016, the Youth Strategy for South Australia, Connected to YOUth, committed the former government to a multisector round table to explore collaborative opportunities for better supporting homeless young people or those at risk of homelessness who may be vulnerable to relationship and family violence. The consultation process included cross-sector round tables and a youth engagement process in which 100 young people participated. These included secondary and tertiary students, international students, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, refugee or migrant communities and young people with lived experience of violence.

The draft framework was made available for public consultation in late 2017, and the strategy was launched in February 2018 alongside the 2018 youth strategy, 'Your Future—Your Way'. The strategy addresses policy and service issues across three core areas: services (improved recognition and responses); systems (improved coordination and integration); and society (improved awareness through primary prevention initiatives.) The Office for Women and the Community Services Directorate are closely working together on this strategy.

We are also committed to a three-year youth strategy. Together with the member for Reynell, we attended a number of forums in the lead-up to the election where it was put to us by the youth sector that a longer term approach would be welcomed, rather than short-term initiatives, which has the capacity for real planning and thoughtful investment over a longer period. This is to be codesigned with the sector and young people, which will deliver a more strategic, sustainable and systemic approach and support coordinated for longer term investment towards the best possible outcomes for young South Australians. The Department of Human Services will work closely with YACSA, the peak body for the youth sector and young people, in this work.

Ms COOK: Who have you consulted with?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The formal consultation on the strategy takes place through the department. I have a range of meetings with a range of stakeholders on a fairly regular basis, and the ones that come to mind include YACSA, which is related to not just this matter but a range of areas. There is the youth worker forum, which the member for Reynell is familiar with; she has attended that. There are youth homelessness services, St John's. There are a number of stakeholders that we have engaged with, but the formal engagement process—

Ms COOK: So there is more engagement at a departmental level; is that what you are saying? You have not met with those people.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, the department does that formal engagement. I meet with stakeholder groups on a regular and semiregular basis on a whole range of matters, including these as well.

Ms COOK: Are you able to give any particular details regarding whom you have met with and how often?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I have provided a few examples. I would have to go back through my diary in detail to work out who absolutely everybody was. Even then, that is probably not actually the full list, because I have always said to them that they have my phone number if they ever need to ring me on particular issues.

In this portfolio area, there is a great deal of crossover as well. We have the housing portfolio and there are a number of youth organisations, so that prompts me to think that the Service to Youth Council is another organisation. I am not sure whether I mentioned St John's Youth Services. The member for Hurtle Vale and I were at the event that one of their staff members coordinated for Homelessness Week earlier this year. There is a range. Whether or not they tick the box of youth specifically and whether they are necessarily members of the YACSA, I could not tell you off the top of my head.

Ms COOK: In respect to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, program 1, page 94, the three-year youth strategy, when does the minister expect that this youth strategy will be implemented? How much funding has been allocated to the implementation of the youth strategy?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the honourable member for that question. As I mentioned, we are looking less at the sort of short-term investment and strategy approach and more at the long-term strategy approach. In terms of what it will look like into the future, that is something that we are consulting on within the scope of current allocations. Yes, we will be able to provide more information on that as the strategy develops.

Ms COOK: Given the extensive consultation already undertaken by the Commissioner for Children and Young People, will that be a particular focus for you, minister, to work with that commissioner on the creation of the strategy moving forward?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, the commissioner is somebody else I have caught up with in the context of the Duke of Edinburgh Awards, I think it was. Everybody will be consulted. We want to make sure that it is a broad discussion that addresses a whole range of issues that young people raise with us. Certainly whenever any strategy is raised with me, I try to be mindful and look at the list of who has been consulted and ensure that it is as exhaustive as possible. I am quite confident that the commissioner is somebody who is on that list of people who will be consulted.

Ms COOK: In respect to Youth Justice, Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 100, minister, have you consulted or received any advice regarding the impact on young South Australians with the increased prosecution costs before the Magistrates Court? There is an increase in fees. Have you consulted or received advice about the impact on youth?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I have to say that is not something that I am personally aware of; it rests with the Attorney-General and is one of her responsibilities.

Ms COOK: In terms of the imminent increase in costs for the courts system, will the minister undertake to engage with young people around the impact this will have?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am not sure that I understand the premise of your question, so I think I might have to refer that one to the Attorney-General.

Ms COOK: Will you come back to me with that?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: No, I think that is a matter for the Attorney-General.

Ms COOK: Regarding increases in the cost of living, and that being one of them for young people in Youth Justice and their families, is that not concerning to you?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I think I have already outlined that I am not familiar with the matter the member is talking about so I cannot really comment.

Ms LUETHEN: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 94. Can the minister please provide the committee with an update on the development of a three-year youth strategy?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the honourable member for this question. Since 2015, the department has released the annual Youth Strategy for South Australia. The strategy identifies priority areas for government focus and provides a platform for collaborative work. Informal feedback from the sector over the past few years has praised the practical approach and commitment to transparent action demonstrated through annual strategies. However, the allocation of funding through an annual youth strategy has predominantly been for short-term or one-off initiatives. This has limited the capacity for real planning and thoughtful investment over a longer period.

Going forward, we will be taking a different approach and developing a three-year youth strategy for South Australia that will be codesigned with the sector and young people. This will deliver a more strategic, sustainable and systemic approach, and will support coordinated and longer term investment towards the best possible outcomes for young South Australians. The Department of Human Services will work closely with YACSA, the peak body for the youth sector and young people in this work, and I look forward to updating the committee next year on what has been achieved.

Ms COOK: With respect to Budget Paper 5, page 91, what consultation did the minister undertake—

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Budget Paper 5?

Ms COOK: Yes; page 91, human services budget initiatives. What consultation did the minister undertake prior to the budget of Marni Wodli Youth Accommodation Services being cut?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the honourable member for her question. Marni Wodli is an Aboriginal youth homelessness service providing long-term transitional accommodation for young Aboriginal people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. As noted in the budget papers, the state budget includes a budget measure that will provide savings of $232,000 in 2018-19 and $472,000 indexed thereafter from a restructure of Marni Wodli Youth Accommodation Services, which will be accompanied by a reduction in FTEs.

The advice I have received is that it is not optimal to have a separate, stand-alone Aboriginal youth homelessness service (which is what Marni Wodli is) located only in the metropolitan area and which sits outside the broader youth homelessness system. Aboriginal young people are best served by access to culturally appropriate connected homelessness services across South Australia than one stand-alone metropolitan service. The South Australian Housing Authority is currently developing a statewide Aboriginal housing and homelessness plan.

Funded homelessness services across South Australia are all required to provide culturally appropriate services for Aboriginal young people and support their transition into longer term housing. It is intended that the funds left after the implementation of this budget measure, which is approximately $450,000 per annum, will be redirected appropriately to the non-government organisational sector, with the model and approach to be determined in consultation with the South Australian Housing Authority. There will be a transition to the new model in 2018-19. All current clients will continue to have a safe and secure place to reside during the transition of this service and any affected staff are being supported via the standard public sector processes.

Ms COOK: Was consultation done with the Aboriginal community to determine this?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The new Housing Authority is working on a specific Aboriginal housing and homelessness strategy, which is going to provide a much more comprehensive approach to Aboriginal homelessness, including in the youth sector; going forward, the redeveloped model for Marni Wodli will be consistent with that.

Ms COOK: So the decision to cut the service was made before consultation was undertaken; is that correct?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The advice that I have received is that this service was viewed as being a disconnected service. Going forward, we want to ensure that services are properly integrated and more planned, therefore the Aboriginal housing and homelessness strategy that is being developed through the Housing Authority, which is going to include the appropriate youth elements, will pick up any of those matters.

Ms COOK: Just to clarify, was the opinion that it was disconnected, etc., the opinion of the department staff or people working in that department or was it the opinion of the Aboriginal community?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The department advised me that this was a disconnected service and we think that there are better ways of providing a similar service.

Ms COOK: So you cannot confirm or deny whether or not the Aboriginal community itself was consulted with about this decision?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I think I have responded to this question.

Ms COOK: How many people who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander work in the Department of Human Services?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We have that figure, but we do not have it to hand.

Ms COOK: Will you take it on notice?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We will take that one on notice and it will be recorded in our annual report.

Ms COOK: In regard to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 99, can the minister inform us what the skills mix is working in Youth Justice, particularly front-line staff working out of youth training centres? Do you want me to expand on that?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I invite Michael Homden to respond to that. He is the director responsible.

Mr HOMDEN: In relation to the staff who work in the Youth Justice sector, they come from a range of backgrounds, from a social work background, some from Correctional Services and a general base around youth support and youth development.

Ms COOK: In terms of FTEs in Youth Justice, they remain approximately the same from 2017-18 to 2018-19. Is there any explanation for any perceived need not to grow that sector, given the ongoing issue of youth recidivism?

Mr HOMDEN: The number of young people actually reduced. We have maintained a fairly stable workforce in that time, so we benefit from long-term experience and expertise.

Ms COOK: Has there been a consultation or a review regarding the approach moving forward to address youth recidivism in terms of identifying models of practice, such as increasing the focus on restorative justice or trauma-based approaches. What is happening in that space?

Mr HOMDEN: Yes, that is correct. Part of connected youth justice is to embrace all of that, so we have been working with partners across government. We are now going out with consultation across communities as well to ensure that we get the most up-to-date and contemporary practice in this area.

Ms COOK: In regard to young people presenting to Youth Justice programs, what is the strategy regarding young people who are non-binary in their identification?

Mr HOMDEN: There are a number of complexities that exist in the environment. Part of our broader strategies are around therapeutic interventions and programs that sustain development and through a case assessment process, where there is ongoing assessment for the needs of the young person and the child whilst they are with us. That leads on to further programs and case management after they leave us.

Ms COOK: If a young person presents to a Youth Justice program as non-binary and needs to spend time at the youth detention centre, for example, what process is gone through in terms of safe allocation of accommodation?

Mr HOMDEN: In terms of the ongoing assessment process, it is under a criminal justice mandate as well, and the court itself would look towards those sorts of release criteria and ongoing support for the individual.

The CHAIR: I remind the committee that we need to finish by 1 o'clock.

Ms COOK: I do not think I am getting the answer.

The CHAIR: Member for Hurtle Vale, this will be the final question.

Ms COOK: The final question—for goodness sake, what am I going to do? In regard to youth who identify as non-binary, there are particular risks associated with where they sleep at night, for example, but in regard to youth generally. If there is a Code Blue called in the city, what happens to a young person and their welfare should they present at a Code Blue situation?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: There are a range of non-government providers in this space. A Code Blue, in fact, is determined by the non-government sector, and it is something they agree to. I assume that particularly the youth providers would be quite mindful of those particular things. Safety is clearly one of the really critical issues for all homelessness service providers to take into consideration, regardless of what the potential safety risk might be for that individual. They all need to have that addressed somewhere in their policies. I think the question is actually for the Housing Authority in terms of their individual policies. I would be very surprised if we have operators in this space who are not mindful of those particular things as being important.

Ms COOK: I have one tiny little question.

The CHAIR: I am sorry, we have to finish at 1 o'clock. Having reached the allotted time, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the portfolio of the Department of Human Services to be completed. Thank you, minister, and thank you, advisers. In accordance with the agreed timetable, the committee stands suspended until 2pm.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00.