Estimates Vote

Department for Communities and Social Inclusion, $1,015,896,000

Administered Items for the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion, $190,374,000

Minister:

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

Departmental Advisers:

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

Dr D. Caudrey, Executive Director, Disability SA.

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

Mr N. Ashley, Acting Executive Director, Financial and Business Services, Department for Communities and Social Inclusion.

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

Mr G. Myers, Principal Coordinator, Strategic Projects and Business Affairs, Department for Communities and Social Inclusion.

Mr N. Lombardi, Chief of Staff.

The CHAIR: This is the first estimates committee for you for this year, I believe, minister, so I advise that this is a relatively informal procedure. As such, there is no need to stand to ask or to answer questions. I understand that the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition have agreed an approximate time for the consideration of these proposed payments, which will facilitate a change of departmental advisers. The timetable we have in front of us has not changed. Is that right, as far as you are aware?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Not that I am aware of.

The CHAIR: Changes to committee membership will be notified as they occur. If the minister undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the committee secretary by no later than Friday 30 October 2015. This year, estimate committee responses will be published during the sitting week of 17 November. There will be a flexible approach to giving the call for asking questions, based on about three questions per member, alternating each side. Supplementary questions will be the exception rather than the rule.

Questions must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget papers and must be identifiable or referenced. A member who is not part of the committee may ask a question at the discretion of the Chair. I will allow the minister and the lead speaker, who I assume is the member for Morphett, 10 minutes by way of an introduction.

We are starting with Disability. I declare the proposed payments open for examination and I refer members to portfolio statements, Volume 1. I now call on the minister to introduce his advisers and make a statement if he wishes.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I would like to first of all introduce the senior public servants with me today. Well known to people around here would be Joslene Mazel, the Chief Executive of the department. I have David Caudrey on my right, the Executive Director of Disability SA. I have Nick Ashley, Acting Executive Director of Financial and Business Services; behind me I have Greg Myers, who is our Principal Coordinator; Nancy Rogers, Director of Business Affairs; and one behind is Lynn Young, Executive Director of Disability and Domiciliary Care Services.

Thank you for the opportunity to make a few introductory remarks and I will try to keep them as brief as I can; I am unlikely to use my 10 minutes. In the past 12 months, Disability SA has continued to reform disability services in South Australia. Clearly, much of our focus has been on delivering increased dignity, choice and control for people living with disability and, importantly, preparing for the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

South Australia's NDIS children's trial is now in its third year. From 1 July 2014, eligible children aged from birth to 13 years were able to access support through the NDIS. According to the March 2015 NDIA quarterly report, 4,538 children have been deemed eligible for the NDIS in South Australia. Of these eligible children, 3,212 have approved plans. This equates to 82 per cent of South Australia's bilateral target for this point in time. When fully operational, the NDIS will include every eligible South Australian with a disability under the age of 65 and will benefit more than 32,000 people.

The 2013-14 budget set out South Australia's full disability funding commitment over seven years in preparation for the full commencement of the NDIS in 2018-19. In 2014-15, total state disability funding was $540 million and this is budgeted to increase to $723 million in 2018-19. The increase will result in state funding being in line with the path required to deliver South Australia's contribution towards the full implementation of the NDIS in 2018-19. Full implementation of the NDIS will see South Australia contributing 48.6 per cent to the total cost of the scheme, with the commonwealth contributing 51.4 per cent.

I would reaffirm that South Australia remains committed to achieving full scheme implementation by 1 July 2018. As part of this preparation, we are continuing the important phase of reshaping the disability services sector. Using a staged approach, we are assisting government service providers, non-government organisations and individuals to effectively transition from existing systems to the NDIS model. This includes identifying the state-funded specialist disability services and funding that will be transitioned to the NDIS and considering the future model for government-run disability services in South Australia. That is something the member for Morphett has raised in previous meetings, and I am sure he will ask me about those matters again today.

I would also like to note some of the highlights for 2014-15. New disability services employment screening assessments commenced on 1 July 2014. This obviously provides an important safety measure for people with disability and deters inappropriate people from being engaged in disability-related work. The Disability Senior Practitioner continues to work with the disability services sector to reduce or eliminate the use of restrictive practices and improve rights protection for people with disability. The Community Visitors Scheme continues to provide an advocacy and monitoring service for people with disability living in state-funded accommodation.

Like the NDIS, individualised funding promotes choice, control, person-centred planning and personal budgets for people with disability requiring disability services. It also aligns disability support spending with that anticipated by the NDIS, using NDIS purchasing guidelines. Approximately 5,000 people now have a personal budget, including 242 people who have chosen to self-manage their services. The government continues to support the move from institutional care towards home and community living, and that is a very important policy of the government to give people more choice.

Central to this approach is the closure of large-scale residential facilities, such as the Strathmont Centre, and the diversification of housing choices for people with a disability. I would say that the rollout of the full scheme for the provision of housing is probably one of the biggest challenges facing the disability sector right across the country and we look forward to the commonwealth perhaps playing a more proactive role in this area. In the coming year, the remaining 20 residents of Strathmont will be assisted to move into community-based supported accommodation, with supports to enable them to live successfully in the community, and this will complete the Strathmont devolution process.

The state government has continued to work on a number of projects to increase housing options for people with disability. This has included the construction of 19 new specialised disability dwellings. During 2015-16, site works will commence on a new mixed-use housing apartment complex in the city that will include an 18-apartment purpose-built disability respite facility. That will also honour a commitment promise made by the government at the 2014 election. This development will reduce the current waiting list for centre-based respite, relieve pressure on existing respite facilities and provide much-needed flexible accommodation options for people with disability, their families and carers and can be tailored to meet individual requirements.

This year I have been actively engaging with people with disability, their families and carers on the important issues that impact their lives. I have hosted one roundtable discussion and three smaller focus groups on key disability topics, such as community inclusion and wellbeing and the proposed northern suburbs disability hub. We are looking to improve the capacity of the disability register in the coming year, with an aim to grow the membership to 300 people by the end of June 2016. These important initiatives continue to enable people living with disability to participate in decisions that affect their lives and living dignity. I will rest there.

The CHAIR: Member for Morphett, do you have an opening statement?

Dr McFETRIDGE: Just a brief comment, thank you, Mr Chairman. This is one of the areas where the opposition does not have a lot of opposition to what is going on, other than just trying to accelerate the number of people who are coming into the NDIS across South Australia and also making sure that the funding is being put in place so that the expectations we have all raised are able to be delivered.

The recent report last week from the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) on the progress report for year 2 is one of the most lightweight documents I have read, but I was delighted to see that South Australia was ahead of the pack in providing assistive technology support and that there is a statement in this progress report, on page 11, which says the full scheme costs are still expected to be within the funding envelope. Other than that, there is no real indication of the actual numbers that are being provided; whether that is in another report, I have been unable to find. I can say that we are all working closely together and I have enjoyed the relationship with the minister and his officers in this portfolio to try to make sure we do deliver.

With that, I will move straight into questions. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, Sub-program 2.2: Disability Support, the NDIS transition arrangements. I think it was last estimates, or it might have been in questions without notice in question time, when we were chasing the actual number of eligible South Australian children to come into the scheme. It was estimated at 5,000. There has been a lot of argy-bargy about the actual number and who is responsible for the number of participants. Last year the committee was told that it went from 5,000 to 8,000, from memory 8,750, I think. Is that the actual number we are dealing with now; if so, what is the progress that is being made in transitioning these kids across to the scheme?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Thank you for your question. I also would like to put on record that I have enjoyed the bipartisan way in which the member for Morphett has approached this area of policy. He has done so since I became minister in this area and we work together very closely. Like him, I would clearly like to see the rate of children moving into the scheme accelerate, so I agree with him. Also, like him, I agree that we need to make sure the funding is in place. On both those two points, I can assure you that the state government is honouring its commitment in the agreement with the commonwealth. I am not sure that the same can be said for the commonwealth at this point in time.

What I can say in terms of your question specifically is that you are quite right in relation to the figure I gave last year: we anticipated that about 5,085 children would be eligible for the scheme. That figure has been revised and we anticipate that the best estimate at the moment is about 8,500. That in part—and I think you have raised this both in questions and in last year's estimates—is that in the end the commonwealth used a slightly different definition of children who might be eligible and our figures were based on a more global development. The commonwealth went slightly differently, which it is entitled to, but certainly that explains the difference in figures.

Having said that—and there has been quite a bit written in the media lately—at this point in time we still have not met the top amount. My concern is, and this gets back to the comment you made earlier, member for Morphett, that there is no excuse at this point in time for any child not to be in the scheme because the number who have been assessed to be eligible is still below the total amount. It is not a case of the commonwealth actually spending more money than it would have budgeted for. As you said yourself, the NDIA report (the year 2 report just put out), states that the NDIA still anticipates that the scheme will fall within the funding envelope previously announced. So we—and I know I have your support on this—really do need to make sure the commonwealth makes the funding available.

The answer is that at this point in time, from 1 July 2013 to 1 March the most recent published figures we have available are: access requests, 5,171; requests determined as eligible, 4,538; eligible children with approved plans, 3,212—in other words, 88 per cent of people who have requested have actually been determined as eligible; 71 per cent have approved plans; 317 requests are in progress; 270, or 5 per cent, are deemed ineligible; and 1 per cent, or 46, have had requests withdrawn, closed or revoked.

As you may have heard today in the media, nearly half of all the participants with plans in the South Australian trial have autism and related disorders; a further 14 per cent have developmental delay, and 10 per cent have a global development or delay. Does that provide the answer you sought to the question?

Dr McFETRIDGE: Thank you, yes. The number of kids with autism and epilepsy is a concern. I know that Dr Caudrey said to the Economic and Finance Committee, but I do not want to verbal Dr Caudrey and he can correct me if I am wrong, that people were 'morphed' from the health sector into the disability sector and that that is where people, children in this case, with psychiatric illnesses and certainly autism and epilepsy are a concern.

How many of those children are we dealing with at the moment? It was interesting that you said that there were 5,171 applications with 4,538 eligible. Those who are not eligible, why is that? Is it that they are in the health sector still or in the disability sector?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The ones who were not eligible of those who requested were 270, or 5 per cent. There would be a range of reasons, but in terms of specifics I will see if Dr Caudrey or one of the officers can give us more detail on that.

Dr CAUDREY: No, we do not have any further information. This is NDIA information, and people would be rejected for a range of reasons, but in order to meet the definition of 'disability' they have to have a permanent and ongoing disability. It is very hard to determine when it is a young child, so there are comparatively few people who get rejected. As time goes by, we anticipate that the number of people being rejected will probably shrink because people have a much better idea of what is likely to be acceptable, but we can try and find out the reasons for those 270 rejections.

Dr McFETRIDGE: What is the relationship between the department and the NDIA like? Is there constant feedback on why people are being rejected or there are delays?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I will answer the first part of your question and ask Dr Caudrey to provide the second. In terms of the relationship between the NDIA and Disability SA, I have actually met with the state manager on a number of occasions. Certainly, the feedback I get from both NDIA and my own officers is that the relationship is very good. There is a lot of sharing of information, and it is a very productive and collaborative relationship, and certainly that is also reflected in what I hear on the ground from parents who deal with the system. We assist parents to transition, and the NDIA do the best they can with the funding available to do a good job, and certainly both the agencies work closely together to resolve any disputes.

In terms of the children who may not, we will probably have to go to the NDIA to get information because it is now a scheme and we need to make sure that we also give out information based on certain protocols because the information is now commonwealth information rather than ours. Certainly, we would have some information about those children who transition. As to new children, as you know, under the scheme those children in the age group who have not been in a state scheme previously can just go directly to the commonwealth scheme. We would have very little data on those new children because they were not part of our state scheme. I will ask Dr Caudrey whether he can provide any more insights.

Dr CAUDREY: Certainly, the relationship is very strong and ongoing both with the state officers of the NDIA and with Geelong, the head office, and of course we have a lot of relationships with the Department of Social Services in developing transition arrangements and so on, so that side of it is very close.

Children who are currently receiving services from the state will continue to receive services from the state until they transition. They will probably get a bigger service when they transition because they will get reassessed and they will get probably all their reasonable and necessary supports met, but we are not leaving them to no man's land if they have not transitioned. We basically continue with services until the point of transition, and we work very closely with the NDIA on that.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Just for the sake of the committee, on the disparity in numbers between the original numbers that were put up by the state and then those that were put up by the commonwealth, can the minister tell the committee perhaps what were the differences in the things that the actuary used to say, 'These kids are in and these kids are out'?

It is more than a cost overrun. In fact, it is not a cost overrun, it is a doubling of the actual base numbers, so there seems to be a fundamental difference there. If there is that sort of difference existing right from the word go, I am concerned that those differences may continue. Can you just tell the committee the sort of difference in attitude or the protocols or criteria that were used?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: My understanding of, if you like, the differences, and I will clarify it in a second and Dr Caudrey can correct me if I am wrong, is that our state scheme was actually based on global developmental delays. The commonwealth scheme actually looked at individual developmental delays in different areas, broken down.

If you take global, it means a whole series of things which actually impact on the child's ability to function rather than one thing, and I will just give you an insight. One might be a speech matter, which is an isolated thing, whereas we actually took a more global view. As a result, the commonwealth eligibility scheme, in the end, actually has more people being available to enter the scheme.

Having said that, our figure was lower. Based on the current figures we have, our scheme is not as big as the commonwealth or some media outlets are suggesting the commonwealth has said. It is about 8,500, which is higher than the 5,085, I agree, but what is very important is that the scheme recognised, early in the day, that some of these things are going to be hard to guess because it is a first-time scheme. Each state had different criteria, for example. I will quickly just quote from the bilateral agreement because this is very important:

In recognition of the uncertainty about the impact of the definition of developmental delay—

so, there was an agreement between the commonwealth and state saying that there may be some differences in the way we do this and, because of that difference—

that has been agreed as part of the eligibility for the NDIS, both Parties agree that the client numbers will be reviewed after twelve months…this review may result in a change in the client numbers for the purposes of this agreement.

The commonwealth understood that the numbers could change, so the agreement was up-front about that. It is very important. Despite what has been said at the national level, like 'shock horror', the agreement itself recognised that the numbers could change because this is a first for the commonwealth.

However, any increases to South Australia's contribution from an increase in client numbers will be limited to existing state funding for the additional client numbers.

In other words, the commonwealth has said, 'We are keen to get this scheme on the ground.' The state was very keen to get this scheme on the ground. The commonwealth has said, 'We understand that. We also understand there may be a difference as a result of the way we do things across the country. As a result, the commonwealth will, if you like, warranty that any additional costs which are not anticipated will be picked up by the commonwealth during the trial period.'

Very importantly, during the transition period, those arrangements are actually reviewed, so there is a built-in mechanism to review it. What really upsets me and upsets the parents of children in this state is that the commonwealth somehow are starting to say we need to somehow fork out more money because this is unexpected—that is just a nonsense.

The agreement itself made it very clear that, because this is new territory for everybody, this may happen. In the end, the children who require support will get support. At some point in time, that will be renegotiated with the state but, for the trial period, it is very clear who is responsible for that. It is unambiguous, and for the commonwealth to somehow say this is unknown to them or unexpected is just nonsense. Dr Caudrey, would you like to add anything?

Dr CAUDREY: Only to say that when we originally came out with the 5,085, that was based on the best information we had, using the report on government services and our own activity levels, and we did it with the commonwealth officers, so we arrived at that figure as being the best figure we had available. That has proved to be a lower figure than the actual but, in a sense, we always knew that the best evidence that we had at the time may be proved wrong by facts, and that is why it was a trial.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Did other states or other jurisdictions have the same discrepancies in the numbers initially coming into the trials or was it unique to South Australia?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am not sure that unique is the right word, but it is different. We are the only state which actually has stayed with children. As Dr Caudrey said a bit earlier, when you have very young children it is very hard to predict what the long-term impact is because one of the requirements for the scheme is that the disability has to be an ongoing, long-term disability. The other states and jurisdictions have taken on intergeographical areas, right across the board, or, as in the case of Tasmania, they have taken 15 year olds to 19 year olds, from memory.

Having said that, certainly children are picked up in the New South Wales and Victorian schemes in their trials but not children alone so their portion of the population pickup will be smaller. Whether there are any trends there I am not sure at this point in time but certainly there are in South Australia.

What I can say, in terms of the ACT, where I think from memory the whole jurisdiction is under trial, is that that actually picked up 900 extra children which were not known to Disability. The only way we can compare ourselves to it would be the ACT because it is a whole jurisdiction, and they have 900 extra children. Clearly, they are going through the same process that we are going through. Why the commonwealth has targeted South Australia I am not clear—but certainly the commonwealth has. However, at the end of the day, we have put our money up and we will make sure that the children and families are supported.

Dr McFETRIDGE: If the ACT has 900 extra, how many did they have initially? Do you know?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No.

Dr McFETRIDGE: That is only a small jurisdiction so that seems—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It is, yes.

Dr McFETRIDGE: There seem to be some fundamental errors, do there not, in the way kids are being assessed?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Not so much a fundamental error but perhaps a slightly different way of how people assessed, and that is what the agreement, if you like, anticipated. The agreement made it really clear because it is a national scheme now and because each jurisdiction did its own thing—you may recall that one of the criticisms of South Australia was that we spent less money on a person with a disability than the other states, when you looked at the roles, but our eligibility criteria were broader and therefore it went to more peoples and therefore the rate looked lower.

When you are trying to get X number of jurisdictions to have a common scheme, and everybody is doing it slightly differently, this is where we end up. That is why I think the agreement was appropriately worded in a way to recognise that to make sure it worked. At this end I know it is going to sound like I am buck-passing, but I am not. It is very clear from the agreement which was signed by both the commonwealth and the state that this could be anticipated, as the ACT have now found, but the commonwealth would pick up the trial.

In the transition period, and these discussions have started, we are now trying to agree on a new bilateral agreement. My concern with a bilateral agreement is how can we actually sign up for the transition, which is to get to the 32,000, when we have an overhang from the children? How do we treat those children who are not in the scheme yet? That is a real concern.

Dr McFETRIDGE: The initial agreement was 2013, that we signed—and I am saying 'we' because it was in a bipartisan way—the review of the funding that was built into that, does that have obligations for both the feds and the states?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Basically the agreement states that once we have gone through the trial we review how the scheme has gone. If the scheme is different then the commonwealth and state will renegotiate the transition arrangements. In other words, for the post-children cohort, and that was anticipated. That review and that work is being done at the moment.

We need an agreement in place to make sure that next year we can start rolling out the scheme to actually meet the deadlines. Unfortunately, the commonwealth's inability to come to grips with what we need to do with the children's scheme is that it is holding up, if you like, the renegotiation of the transitional agreement. In direct answer to your question, it was reviewed in late 2014 and that is where we gave the commonwealth the figure of 8,500 children. As I understand it, that has been agreed to now.

Dr CAUDREY: It was agreed with commonwealth officers, yes.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes.

Dr McFETRIDGE: What sort of delays are we seeing at the moment in the under sixers?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: We are running around about a year late.

Dr McFETRIDGE: A year late?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: We are running a year late, and that is a concern because if that carries on, the whole scheme could potentially be a year late. The concern is twofold: one is that families are not getting the support they deserve, the children deserve; secondly, it means we are paying into a scheme and double paying. We are still paying for children who are on our state scheme who should be supported by the commonwealth.

Dr McFETRIDGE: We are putting money into the NDIA?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That is right.

Dr McFETRIDGE: As an advanced payment almost, are we?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Not so much an advanced payment, but we are paying as you go. What happened is we are paying as you go, but the kids are not transferring at the same rate. There was a whole range of children expected to be transitioned, we made payments, we made budget for that, and we continue to budget for that. That is one thing I have raised with the commonwealth minister, namely, that it is an untenable situation because the state is being disadvantaged.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Just to be sure: those families, those children, are still obviously being funded by the state services?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: They are still being supported by the state but, as you can imagine, given that the scheme almost doubles the amount of funding, those families are saying, 'Hold on, why aren't we on the new scheme, why are we being held back?' Part of the problem has been that new entrants can go straight in, children who were not previously on our state scheme are now on the scheme, but children who have been in the scheme and are of the same age group are not in the scheme. Basically, new entrants to the scheme can go in at the appropriate year level, whereas we are running behind with existing clients and, therefore, you have this problem occurring and it is causing quite a bit of heartache in the community.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I am hearing a lot of not anecdotal evidence—or some anecdotal evidence—but certainly firsthand evidence from children who should be in the scheme as well as their families, particularly in the country where the delays are a serious worry for them. My concern is that the whole scheme looks like it is going to be slowed right down and not delivered by the target dates. Is that of concern for the government as well?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Very much so; it is of much concern. Last week, I met with National Disability Services at the state level and I also met with National Disability Services at the national level. The reason I met with them was that their members are the key providers; the people in the organisation are the key providers of services in the not-for-profit sector and invariably they will take a much bigger role in the post-state scheme.

In addition to the concerns I have for the state government as a provider of services now, but also as funder, they are finding it very hard to plan for growth because they are not sure when to take on new staff and train staff and it is causing quite a bit of difficulty for them. Like myself, they would like some strong indication from the commonwealth of where we are at.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I will move onto something else. I am conscious of the time and this is almost a Dorothy Dixer, but you mentioned it in your opening statement about the review of government-run disability services. Can you update the committee on what is happening there and perhaps some of the costs of reviewing the current model?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes, I am happy to do that. I recall that on two previous occasions you have asked me questions about this matter.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I have.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: And quite rightly so; it is important. It would be fair to say that each jurisdiction has taken on this role quite differently. Some have decided to opt out completely from the provision of services. I have said on previous occasions that we would not do that in a unilateral way because we want to make sure that not only children initially in the trial period get support but also people get support. Our concern is given that we are a major provider of services, particularly in this children area, but also other areas, and that if we withdraw unilaterally there would be market failure. In other words, the market could not actually pick up the additional numbers required.

Also, there will be some areas where the not-for-profit sector, for whatever reason, will not be able to provide the services required by the community and, certainly, I would see the government provided services providing a very important safety net in the marketplace. But, as you and I know, it is a market-driven scheme. In other words, the consumer is at the centre of the scheme and they can take their disability dollars where they want. We need to be competitive, but I would say competitive within the prices set by the commonwealth. We are undertaking a major piece of work within the agency at the moment, a major project.

That project is looking at those areas where we can continue to provide a competitive service and where we believe we can compete in price and also in terms of not having to subsidise and, therefore, honouring the national competition rules, and also where we believe we can be cost-effective. We are looking at a range of services from respite to accommodation to direct provision, etc. Early indications are that we will not be competitive in some of the areas; partly because of the scale of the service provided, we cannot do that. We are at the moment negotiating with consumers and their families and also talking to a number of not-for-profit services about how we might transition those people to a non-government scheme.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Just on that same topic, what financial assistance is the government giving the NGOs to help them transition across to the NDIS?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: There is, from memory, some money available through the commonwealth scheme under the sector development grants. We have provided some moneys, too, but in terms of the specifics, I will get Dr Caudrey to provide some more information on that.

Dr CAUDREY: Yes, the commonwealth has the Sector Development Fund, and they have funded us for three projects. Two years ago, we spent $1 million on a number of projects, particularly involving national disability services in order to assist them to be more ready for the NDIS. The whole service sector knows that the market is changing dramatically, and there are already a number of mergers, takeovers and so on that have gone on in the sector, and we anticipate the interstate providers will also join the sector. We are working very closely with them ourselves, spending a lot of time with particularly some of the smaller agencies, agencies that are in unusual spaces—for example, carers support services, arts agencies, and recreation and sports agencies—to assist them through the process. So, there are quite a lot of initiatives going on to assist the sector, but it is an enormous change for them.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I noticed the multinational company Serco was mentioned in the media last week about wanting to enter this sector. Has the government had any discussions with some of these large multinationals, or approaches at all?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Certainly, I have not had any discussions. My understanding is that some companies have written to the department to be kept in the loop about our progress. To give you an indication of the magnitude, roughly, at the moment, we provide about 40 per cent of all disability service in the state, so it is a huge chunk. What is important is that in the end the consumer will take their disability dollars where they wish. Companies can certainly put their hand up to be a provider. As to where they go, it will be up to the consumer and the carers, etc., to decide. That is one of the strengths of the system. As Dr Caudrey mentioned, we certainly would help and support all we can the not-for-profit sector to be ready for that change.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I understand there has been some argy-bargy with the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion and some of the private providers of screening services, and there has been legal argument about the state government being in breach of the competitive neutrality policy. Can you assure the committee that the state disability services will not be unfairly competing with the NGOs?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Can you just clarify your question? I am not clear what the question is.

Dr McFETRIDGE: With screening services for volunteers and DCSI people, there are private providers of screening services, but at the moment the government seems to have not quite a monopoly but almost a monopoly, and there is argy-bargy about competitive neutrality.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I will be very brief on this one; this is not my area of responsibility, it is minister Bettison's. However, what I can say, and what I have been advised, is that we are not comparing apples with apples. The screening provided by—

Dr McFETRIDGE: It is not so much about the screening, but more about the future for disability services. From memory, last year you told the committee—and, again, I am not verballing you—that people were free to take their dockets wherever they wanted, that if they chose not to use Disability Services SA they could go to an NGO and that it was a level playing field. I think you and I disagree and that perhaps there is not a level playing field with everything from workers compensation to legal advice, but we will not go there.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: But in terms of the screening—

Dr McFETRIDGE: I am not worried about the screening at the moment. I will ask minister Bettison about that tomorrow morning, and I am sure she will be aware of that, but now I am just concerned that the NGOs are not going to be competing with the state government and that we are comparing apples with apples.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Very much so, and what I just said a few minutes ago was that the project we are undertaking internally is to make sure that we can provide those services competitively and that those areas where we believe we cannot compete are withdrawn because we will not subsidise those services in an anticompetitive way. It will be open to the not-for-profit sector to compete amongst themselves for that. Where we believe we can compete, we will continue to compete, but it will be an open book; in other words, people will see our books and we will compete like everybody else does both on price and service.

Only a few weeks ago, I visited one of the services we provide in the children and youth services area. When families have a lot of confidence in the government in this area, even though they have been able to move already, some people are making the conscious decision to stay with the government provider. This is one area where we are competitive, and we have to do things differently to make sure we remain competitive.

I can give you that reassurance because in those areas where we cannot compete we will not subsidise. I will qualify that because in some areas there may be no alternative except the government provider, and in that case we will have to provide the service which is required at the cost required, but certainly in those places where alternatives do exist we will make sure that we comply with the national competition laws.

Dr McFETRIDGE: When did you say the review you are doing at the moment is going to be complete? I might have missed that in your answer.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It is an ongoing review and I get ongoing advice, and I am required to accept certain recommendations on an ongoing basis. For example, some of our services are already under potential transition now because we believe that we cannot provide that service at the pricepoint provided by the commonwealth under the national scheme and because we are not allowed to subsidise and compete unfairly; those things will be available to take to market. We are working with those families to make that transition. It will be a challenging transition. A lot of people do not wish to leave the government service.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Will there be reductions in government staff numbers in that case?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That will be achieved initially through natural attrition. Some staff will choose to go with the service because that will be a service provider and some will go through attrition.

Dr McFETRIDGE: So there have been discussions with the NGOs about transitioning Public Service staff across to the private providers?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes, certainly at officer level, but not at governmental level. As you can imagine, there are certain challenges to be addressed with the transmission of business, etc.

Dr McFETRIDGE: You mentioned a minute ago providers of last resort almost. The APY lands is a classic example. How is the NDIS rollout going in the APY lands?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I do not have specifics. I have not had any exception reports; in other words, it is not going as well as elsewhere, but the APY lands do pose some initial challenges. I do not have to tell you that, as you probably know better than I do, since you have been a regular visitor to the lands and a great supporter of the work being done there. What I can say with the reports I get is that there are no exception reports, so it is progressing, but as you have indicated yourself in the question that will pose some challenges to the not-for-profit sector.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I have one last question on behalf of the Hon. Kelly Vincent. Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 101, Sub-program 2.1: Non-government and Individualised Funding. Can the minister provide more information about stage 3 of the individualised funding program for clients in the government and non-government sectors living in group or shared accommodation?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I assume the question refers to a group housing arrangement, where there might be three or four people, and what happens if one person decides to have different arrangements from others and how you actually achieve that. Invariably, up until now the support services have been provided by one agency. In the same group home, how will you deal with different agencies providing services to different individuals? That is being worked on.

I do not have a definitive answer for you today, but up to 2016 we will be working on how we will achieve that, because it will certainly be a challenge. The challenge will be about how you allocate notional allocations; in other words, how do you allocate a person? I do not have an answer for you, but we are working through that and we will need to work out some way of doing that.

It has been indicated that, because of the complexity involved, there is some delay in an anticipated completion date for stage 3. This is due to the level of change currently occurring for non-government organisations and people with disability, with the rollout of the NDIS. At the moment, both for us as a provider and for the NGOs it is posing a bit of a challenge, but we will get there.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Thank you minister.

The CHAIR: Thank you minister, thank you member for Morphett. I declare that the examination of the proposed payments for the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion in part and Administered Items for the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion be adjourned until tomorrow. I thank the minister and his advisers.