Estimates Vote

Department for Communities and Social Inclusion, $1,090,488,000

Administered Items for the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion, $195,310,000

Minister:

Hon. Z.L. Bettison, Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, Minister for Social Housing, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr T. Harrison, Chief Executive, Department for Communities and Social Inclusion.

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

Mr P. Bull, Executive Director, Youth Justice, Community and Organisational Support, Department for Communities and Social Inclusion.

Ms S. Wallace, Executive Director, Policy and Community Development, Department for Communities and Social Inclusion.

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

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

Ms B. Weis, Director, Community and Organisational Support, Department for Communities and Social Inclusion.

Ms J. Kennedy, Director, Community Engagement and Grants, Policy and Community Development, Department for Communities and Social Inclusion.

Ms K. Tattersall, Director, Screening, Procurement and Stanton Institute, Department for Communities and Social Inclusion.

Ms T. Stephenson, Manager, Strategic Coordination, Business Affairs, Department for Communities and Social Inclusion.

Mr R. Bennett, Acting Director, Youth Justice, Community and Organisational Support, Department for Communities and Social Inclusion.

The CHAIR: Good morning, minister. Welcome to Estimates Committee B. You are appearing today in your capacity as Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion. I declare the proposed payments open for examination. I refer members to the Agency Statements, Volume 1. This is a relatively informal procedure. As such, there is no need to stand to ask or answer questions. I understand you have agreed an approximate time for the consideration of the proposed payments. Has there been any change to that timetable?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: No.

Dr McFETRIDGE: No.

The CHAIR: Excellent. We will stick to that. I will allow the minister and the lead speaker, if they wish, to give an opening statement of no more than 10 minutes. There will be a flexible approach to giving the call for asking questions. As I said, it is relatively informal. However, questions must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget, clearly identifiable and referenced and questions must be directed to the minister.

If the minister undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the committee secretary by no later than Friday 28 October 2016. During our examination, the media and television cameras will be allowed in the chamber. I now call on you, minister, to make a statement, if you wish, and to introduce your advisers.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Can I introduce the Chief Executive of the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion, Tony Harrison, to my left; to my far left, Andrew Thompson, Executive Director, Financial and Business Services; to my right, Peter Bull, Executive Director, Youth Justice, Community and Organisational Support. Directly behind me are Nancy Rogers, Director, Business Affairs and Tracey Stephenson, Manager, Strategic Coordination, Business Affairs.

I do have an opening statement. This government is committed to a socially-inclusive South Australia where diversity is celebrated and where people feel valued and have their basic needs met. The vast range of programs and opportunities delivered by the communities and social inclusion portfolio seek to improve the quality of life for people who may be vulnerable, marginalised and disadvantaged.

Many South Australians are assisted in very practical ways to manage cost of living pressures. Around $170 million is provided to eligible applicants for a range of concessions, including energy, water, sewerage, the emergency services levy on fixed property and to assist with the cost of living. In addition, more than $10 million is provided in affordable living programs, which provide financial counselling, financial assistance, emergency electricity payments, low income support, utilities literacy and micro-finance products.

Achievements in 2015-16 include the launching of the Good Money store in Salisbury. In the coming months, we will be trialling a new micro-enterprise development program in the northern suburbs. There have also been some areas of challenge in this financial year, but we are making progress in key areas such as a reconciliation of concessions and processing of screening applications. I am pleased to say that around 98 per cent of completed screening applications are now processed within 30 days.

Last November, the devastating Pinery fire burnt out 82,600 hectares in our state's Mid North, severely impacting individuals and communities in the area. The Department for Communities and Social Inclusion played a pivotal role in the provision of relief measures immediately after the fire and has continued to provide support to the community through their ongoing recovery. This support will continue in the coming months.

I would like to take this opportunity to again thank everyone involved in the recovery efforts, including volunteers, and acknowledge the generosity of community spirit of South Australians. I note in the chamber today we have the member for Light and the member for Goyder, whose constituencies were both impacted by that fire.

One of the highlights of the past year has been the establishment of a new grants program, Grants SA, which means much simpler and easier access to grants for community organisations. Organisations can now apply for a number of different types of grants through one application. This is a significant reduction in red tape and has been widely welcomed across the sector. In 2016-17, Grants SA will provide $3 million in grants to improve community participation, wellbeing and quality of life.

Working in collaboration with the Human Services Partnership Forum, a range of other measures are being put in place to support the community sector, such as simplified and consistent funding and guidelines processes across government, training and other resources. This government seeks to build prosperous and thriving communities, promote social and economic opportunities and increase community leadership in developing solutions for long-term, population-level change. Through the Thriving Communities initiative, we are already seeing networks and community participation grow in some of our most disadvantaged communities.

Recently, there has been considerable focus on the treatment of young people in detention. I am very confident of our approaches in South Australia, and the successful passage of the Youth Justice Administration Bill in March 2016 will see strengthened protections for young people in detention. It will also enshrine the current service model, which has a central focus on rehabilitation and education as well as on the safety and wellbeing of residents as well as staff.

Earlier this year, the Auditor-General, Mr Andrew Richardson, completed a review of concessions administered by DCSI. The Auditor-General's review report deals principally with the issue of evidence of concession validation and reconciliation processes in the six-year period from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2015. He had a particular focus on the energy concession.

We know that concessions play an incredibly important role and are provided to the most vulnerable people in South Australia. The Auditor-General is right to raise concern about the way in which public money is spent; however, as he himself acknowledged, it is always important to strike a balance between protecting the public purse and making sure that those who rely on concessions receive them quickly and efficiently.

Following the Auditor-General's report, there has been much said about the issue of energy concession payments, particularly in cases where the applicant may not have been eligible at the time payment was made to their energy retailer. The Auditor-General's report included a figure of 4,350 payments over a six-year period made to households where the concession holder was deceased. Let me please note that energy concession payments are made to energy retailers, not to households.

I have instructed my department to complete an audit of these payments to confirm how they occurred and that current processes were sufficient to prevent a reoccurrence. I also asked them to determine whether any funds may be recovered. The results of the audit are as follows:

875 payments in fact represented credit payments to DCSI and not payments to retailers;

520 payments were made where the primary account holder was not deceased, but the concession holder had died. The remaining spouse was still eligible for the concession; and

98 payments were made within the 13-week grace period.

In addition, my department reviewed individual case files and determined that 2,005 payments occurred where a surviving spouse would have been eligible for the concession during the relevant period. This leaves 852 payments involving 305 households where no member of the household has yet been substantiated as being eligible during the relevant period. The total amount of these payments is estimated to be less than $46,000.

In 2014-15, 35 payments were identified with a total value estimated at less than $2,000. The $46,000 over six years, from the $616 million worth of concession payments, is minor. It is also important to note that an active account was being maintained at the address in question with the same retailer. It is always possible to improve further, but over the last 18 months we have begun a major data-cleaning operation, implemented a semiautomated verification and reconciliation process, ensured that proof of validation is entered into the database and increased the number of staff who administer concessions.

The Auditor-General has acknowledged that processes and controls regarding concessions have been strengthened. I have also asked my department to consider ways in which our concessions can be delivered to strike a better balance between the interests of the public purse and the public good. This will assist in our budget process. Our work is ongoing with the Auditor-General, and I will continue to focus on being effective and making sure our validations are supported by eligibility.

The CHAIR: Thank you, minister. Do you have an opening statement, member for Morphett?

Dr McFETRIDGE: I will go straight into it. Certainly, this is a very important portfolio and we need to get some answers on some very important questions. With that, the reference is Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 91, investing expenditure statement. Minister, why would 934,000 be spent on ministerial office accommodation?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I moved office from Terrace Towers to No. 1 King William Street. We consolidated the offices. As I am aware, four ministers are now in that office space.

Dr McFETRIDGE: So that cost was shared over the four offices?

The CHAIR: Sorry, member for Morphett, sorry to interrupt your flow. Sadly, the member for Goyder has asked to be discharged, to be replaced by the member for Bragg, temporarily.

Membership:

Ms Chapman substituted for Mr Griffiths.

Dr McFETRIDGE: When you say 'consolidated'—was that 934,000 for your office or for the four offices? Or is it $4 million for the whole lot?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I understand that is for my office.

Dr McFETRIDGE: For one office. So how many staff are working in the office? I have seen some of the other ministers' offices, they are pretty flash. The reason I ask is that people are doing it tough out there. Is it a good spend of money?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: As the member may be aware, it is a refurbished building and I think that we were unable to continue renting a part floor in the building that we were in. That instigated the move, as I am aware. I have 8.5 centrally funded FTEs in my office, with a budget of $1.61 million.

Dr McFETRIDGE: What do you get for a million bucks in a ministerial office?

The CHAIR: That is a pretty broad question, member for Morphett. Do you want to be more specific?

Dr McFETRIDGE: She must get a nice boardroom with a boardroom table and chair. Anyway, we will move on because there is much more to be covered. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 93, the community connections and support program, net costs of sub-program. No guesses here, minister. CASIS was a rolling disaster. There were eight Auditor-General reports into CASIS. It started at 600,000 and finished at a bit over $7 million and then was dumped to be replaced by COLC (Cost of Living Concessions) and the Cost of Living Information—where the 'in' comes from, let me know—COLIN, as it is called now. There was a 40 per cent increase in FTEs from 220 to 307 to administer the COLC and COLIN. Can you give us some details on why that was necessary?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: With the greatest respect, member for Morphett, we are talking about a few different things. The system that you referred to was the computer system, and COLIN is the new computer system that will endeavour to be fully automated. The focus on COLIN—the Cost of Living Information system—will initially be about cost-of-living concession payments, with the intention that it will be rolled out to all concession areas. My intention is that PARS and the Spectacles Scheme will likely be the first ones on after COLC, and then the other concessions after that.

One of the key things at the moment is that we have a semiautomated system and that is what we do. When we introduced the cost of living concession—obviously this was a new concession—we wanted to be very thorough in how we did that and focus on eligibility and that required some additional staff. With the development of COLIN we will see a decrease in the need for staff.

One of the key things we found is the demographics of people who are eligible. While many do go online to look at things, many prefer to have a conversation over the phone, and I think many of the people here would know that, when the cost of living concession was rolled out, there were many questions, and we endeavoured to answer them over the phone via the concessions line. Sometimes that took multiple phone calls and we made sure that we had the necessary staff to answer those questions.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to the same reference. I thought that CASIS was replacing CARTS (Concessions and Rebate Tracking System). How could you get it so wrong with CASIS and now we are seeing COLIN—there is an increase spend on this of—

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Member for Morphett, you are correct.

Dr McFETRIDGE: It has gone up $4.89 million.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: That was the intention that CASIS would replace CARTS. It is unfortunate that that outcome was unable to be achieved. There has been no cost blowout with the build of the COLIN system. We initially allocated $2.2 million to build COLIN and then a business case identified a range of options of how the COLIN system would operate and how to achieve greater automation. After considering these options, it was decided to invest an extra $1.4 million in COLIN to achieve a fully automated business technology platform to administer the COLC.

To date, all milestones for the COLIN project have been met on time and on budget, and when the COLIN system is fully operational in 2017-18, the additional investment provided in the system will ensure automation of payment calculations, an online portal for customers, reconciliation capacity and a full auditability of administration. I think it is very important for me as the minister, when we are introducing this new technology that it is a staged process, that we get it right, that it is working effectively and then we will add on additional concessions.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Forgive me if I am a bit of a cynic about costings on this. Can you guarantee that tax payers will not end up with a CASIS II, with COLIN at $2.2 million ending up at $3.6 million? Is that going to be the final cost in 2017-18? That is nearly $11 million so far on trying to get a system that is not working as yet—and eight audit reports.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I acknowledge the concern. The build of COLIN is different. It is utilising new, low-risk technologies that are available and widely used. These opportunities were not available at the time that the CASIS project commenced. As I said previously, the system development is staged. Rather than all components commencing at once, the success of each stage will determine moving on to the next stage. The contracts are based on a fixed price basis to contain the costs and the fixed price purchasing of off-the-shelf components was not readily available when CASIS commenced.

As you can imagine, I have a key focus on this working and we have risk management and associated planning—which is a major focus for this project—a steering committee, a senior executive governance group and we have an external representative nominated by the Office for Digital Government, and they are providing oversight on the project.

The original estimated $2.2 million, final build cost, was subject to the outcome of a final business case and identification of high-level functional requirements for the system. This work led to a revised build cost of $3.6 million build, with $800,000 for ongoing support costs.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Can you please give those figures again? Was it $1.6 million for—

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The original estimated $2.2 million final build cost was subject to the outcome of the final business case and the identification of high-level functional requirements for the system. This work led to a revised build cost of $3.6 million build, with $800,000 for ongoing support costs.

Dr McFETRIDGE: So it is $4.2 million, not $3.6 million all-up then?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: No, it is $3.6 million with ongoing costs of $800,000.

Dr McFETRIDGE: So the ongoing costs add on to $3.6 million—is that right—or part of the $3.6 million?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: One would say about a capital infrastructure plus ongoing maintenance costs as we would do with anything—

Dr McFETRIDGE: So the total cost to the taxpayer is $4.2 million.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: —$3.6 million.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Can you guarantee that that is not going to blow out again, because this is just—

The CHAIR: Member for Morphett, hang on, they are just clarifying those figures for you so we can settle this once and for all.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I have been very clear about what our intended costs are.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Because last time, eight audit reports with CASIS, it just kept growing and growing. There was either incompetence or—

The CHAIR: That is not a question, member for Morphett. Do you have any more questions?

Dr McFETRIDGE: You are right, and I do have more. Why was an external contractor needed to extract data from CAST, to check if CAST was in fact working?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Can you reference which part of the budget you are referring to?

Dr McFETRIDGE: It is Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 93, Net cost of sub-program, and this is all included in that. The actual information is out of the recent Auditor-General's Report, so it is in there somewhere.

The CHAIR: Can I just clarify something before we go on, and this has come up time and time again: the reason we reference these things is so that the minister has the opportunity to ask her advisers, who have worked very hard and cross-referenced all of this, so we are not just being pedantic, we need to know the reference.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I have been doing this for 14 years now and the ministers have usually been able to come up with the answers, but if we do not know why we are having to review over 600,000 individual files manually, after $7 million and now another $4.2 million then there is something wrong. How many people are receiving cost of living concessions and how many are being manually processed?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: As you know, the cost of living concession was a new concession to support fixed and low-income South Australians to manage their households. What I think is particularly important about this concession is that it gives people a choice in how they spend their money. The number of recipients—pensioners and low-income earners who were home owner-occupiers—who received the $200 cost of living concessions was 153,845. The number of pensioners, low-income earners and self-funded retirees who hold a commonwealth seniors health care card and are tenants who received $100 was 28,973, for a total of 182,818.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Why did we increase the cost-of-living concession?

The CHAIR: What budget paper are you referring to?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: It is the same reference, page 93, the introduction of the cost-of-living concession. I would like to know why we did that.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Member for Wright, I am sure both you and I were both equally disappointed when the national partnership on certain concessions was ripped up without any discussion. We had about $30 million, if I remember correctly, as part of our system. We had some choices to make here and obviously we had quite a substantial concession system, about $170 million a year. It is incredibly important as to how we support our most vulnerable people, so we had to make a decision. Obviously, the first thing was to go back to the federal government to say, 'This is unfair. We had an agreement here and without any discussion you ripped it up.'

To be honest, we were hoping for a review in that budget session after that announcement—that was not forthcoming, so we had to make a decision and that is when the cost-of-living concession was determined as a way of giving people opportunity and choice, but recognising that they had a need and vulnerability and an issue with the cost of living.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I just wish I had the letter from the Speaker, the member for Croydon, to his constituents about this.

Members interjecting:

Dr McFETRIDGE: Actually, it is quite relevant to the last question. Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 93, cost of living concessions. Minister, how can you pay $2.81 million to clients if there is no record of the client? Where has that money gone? You have no record of the client, you have paid out $2.81 million to whom?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I am sorry, member for Morphett, exactly what are you referring to in cost of living concession? We had a very thorough process of validation and eligibility for the cost-of-living concession. I followed it incredibly closely, so I would like you to draw my attention to what you are talking about.

Dr McFETRIDGE: The Auditor-General's Report, page 4, concessions eligibility, key findings, $2.81 million, where DCSI had no record of the client—$1.82 million where the client had not received any concession; I can continue on, if you like.

The CHAIR: But, member for Morphett, we are not here to examine the Auditor-General's Report.

Dr McFETRIDGE: It is all part of the cost-of-living concession.

The CHAIR: So, what is your question? What is your budget reference and what is your question?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I missed it.

Dr McFETRIDGE: For those who have not been paying attention on the other side, it is Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 93, state government concessions, net cost of sub-program: $2.81 million of that net cost was paid to people where there is no record of the client. How can they give money to people? Where has it gone? Who spent that money?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Member for Morphett, the cost of living concession was not addressed in this supplementary report. Can I just go back to our stats again—

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: You have got it wrong, Duncan.

Dr McFETRIDGE: No, no, it is all there—black and white, Jennifer, black and white—you want to read it.

The CHAIR: Order! Let's pace ourselves.

Dr McFETRIDGE: It is not pretty.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Member for Morphett, as I just spoke about, the cost-of-living concession is a new concession. We had no choice when the federal government ripped up our national partnership of certain concessions.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Because you did not negotiate it.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: We had to make decisions as a government, and as a state government we put our most vulnerable people first, and we will continue to do so. As I said, 182,818 South Australians receive the cost-of-living concession.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Well, there's $2.81 million gone to people—we do not even know who they are.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: They are also about to receive their next—

The CHAIR: Member for Morphett, stop interrupting the minister, please.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: In August of this year the vast majority of people who are home owners and eligible received that into their account, and then tenants will receive it early in 2017.

Dr McFETRIDGE: If I seem somewhat frustrated by the information we are getting, that taxpayers are getting, then it is quite justified. We have seen $7 million go down the tube in CASIS, and now we have $4 million plus in the new system for which we have no guarantees that dead people will not be paid and that money will not go to clients where there is no client.

The CHAIR: Before you make a point of order, member for Light, please member for Morphett ask some questions and leave the extraneous comment to a grievance debate.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 93: is DCSI still in breach of the State Records Act by not retaining a record for a minimum of seven years?

Ms DIGANCE: What line?

Dr McFETRIDGE: I know that you are new to this, some of you people—others have been here longer, they should know.

Ms DIGANCE: What line?

Dr McFETRIDGE: Net cost of providing services.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Rubbish.

Ms DIGANCE: What line?

Dr McFETRIDGE: I know you are here to shield—the human shields over there are not working. Answer, minister, please.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Once again, member for Morphett, you are referring to the Auditor-General's Report and not the budget. I understand that there were three incidents out of 418 where this was not maintained. I do not think this is acceptable. I have asked the department to look into why this has happened and make sure it does not happen again. I acknowledge it was not appropriate. I think this is an exception and not the rule, and we will move forward from there.

Dr McFETRIDGE: We will move on to another extremely important area for many people in South Australia, being the cost of employment screening, Budget Paper 5, page 23, Continuous monitoring for screening. When will the new continuous system be fully operational?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I thank the member for Morphett in his continued interest in this area. Since screening was introduced and we obviously widened it to more South Australians, particularly those working with vulnerable people, with children or people with disabilities, we have increased the number of people who are being screened in South Australia. We have committed to a continuous monitoring system for pre-employment screening checks. In late 2015, the government approved a business case and funding for the development and implementation of this in South Australia.

The screening unit is working with South Australia Police (SAPOL) and the Department of Education and Child Development to build and implement the system. This will include the ability to flag offences when they occur and alert organisations that the status of a clearance has changed. This will go live in mid-2017. The government has provided $5.3 million in investing expenditure over two years for this initiative, in addition to ongoing operational support.

There are many other initiatives that we have looked at as well and which have been introduced, including updating the website to improve the ease of finding information, and providing a range of user-friendly material, including fact sheets and frequently asked questions. We have implemented automated communication to advise applicants and organisations about the status of an application. We have implemented BPOINT as a payment mechanism. We want to make screening efficient and effective, and we continue to do so.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Is this system that is being operated by the state government in line with the competitive neutrality policies of the state government?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: My understanding is that that would have been taken into consideration. We made the decision to build it ourselves.

Dr McFETRIDGE: If private organisations can do it better, cheaper and much more quickly, why would you not consider them?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: As I am informed, because our system does not just look at CrimTrac, it does look other areas of screening. Private companies at this point do not have access to information in DECD records.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Will the cost of screening go up as a result of the $1.4 million annual operating cost?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: That is not the intention that we have.

Dr McFETRIDGE: It might be the end result, though.

The CHAIR: Member for Morphett, you are asking the minister to speculate. She has speculated, and you cannot argue with her speculation.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Perhaps I could talk a little bit about how continuous monitoring will work. We will maintain a register of all people who have been screened, which would be updated daily. Notifications will be matched against names maintained in the register. This matching will be undertaken by the relevant agency and confirmed or not confirmed as a genuine match. For example, if new criminal history were available, SAPOL would confirm this was a match with the relevant person in the register.

Prior to sending the notification for DCSI to follow up, this step must be undertaken by the relevant agency, with the authority to deal with the sensitive information. Confirmed matches will be sent to the DCSI screening unit for review and reassessment as required. The status of the screening assessment will be updated in the register, which will be accessible to employers, volunteering and student organisations via a secure website.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Moving on, I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 103, Domiciliary Care Services and Community Care, and the net costs of providing services. Has Domiciliary Care kept up to date with its financial reporting requirements to the commonwealth Department of Health? If not, why not?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I have no reason to believe that they have not adhered. One of the key things that we have is a massive change to our system of how we support people as they age. Domcare has been an icon here in South Australia for some time, providing that care to the home, but the commonwealth made the decision, I think perhaps a few years ago, to take responsibility for those over the age of 65 and the state for those under 65. We moved to a new system, a system that is in transition. Domiciliary Care provides the Commonwealth Home Support Program and continues to do so.

We have an agreement with the commonwealth to 2018. We continue to work with the commonwealth within the focus that they have for the delivery of our services. Just so we understand how many people we support, there are about 9,400 Domiciliary Care clients, with 251,000 service hours.

Dr McFETRIDGE: On that same budget reference and a similar question, has Domiciliary Care kept up to date with its data reporting requirements with the federal Department of Health?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I do not have a specific issue in regard to that; perhaps you would like to detail—

Dr McFETRIDGE: If you could get back to us on that. I understand that there have been some concerns about the data reporting requirements that the commonwealth Department of Health has and that Domiciliary Care has had some issues. That is what I understand. If it is wrong, I would like to hear.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Member for Morphett, I am assured by people from my department that there are no issues in regard to data. Perhaps if you would like to write to me separately or to speak to me, I would be happy to follow up. Can I just talk about how we are reorienting our services to meet the new arrangements in the program. Part of the delivery of service in the Commonwealth Home Support Program guidelines, is looking at the most appropriate care. We know that that might mean transitioning some of our existing clients, which might mean to a different package or residential care or a home care package. Just to be clear to people, the Commonwealth Home Support Program is what you would call the initial area of support for people; personal care and maybe assistance with shopping. If they need further assistance, then they will be assessed through an ACAP process for a home care package.

This is a fairly new system and although the commonwealth has taken responsibility, under my other hat as Minister for Ageing, and with my interest in Domiciliary Care, we have addressed to the commonwealth gaps that we see as we transition with My Aged Care. Let me be clear, we needed to do things differently. We know that we have an ageing population and, of course, South Australia has the oldest ageing population in the mainland state so I want to work well with the commonwealth government about how we support people as they age.

We know that there is going to be more emphasis on ageing in place, so that means that we need to know that we are providing those services in a timely manner, but also we know there is going to be a massive expansion, so we have to, as governments, determine how we are going to pay for this, and that is where the new system in My Aged Care is being developed.

We will continue to work closely with the commonwealth. I have raised with them some gaps about the accessibility. Many of us here might have had constituents who have gone to log on to My Aged Care and found it quite a complex process, and we endeavour to talk to the commonwealth about that. We also know that some of our culturally and linguistically diverse constituents have found it very challenging and they need interpreters, and Multicultural Aged Care and I have worked together to lobby the commonwealth about how that can happen.

Just so we know, there was a change, because we did have a contract with the commonwealth government for Access2HomeCare that expired on 30 June 2015, and that went to another part of the industry, and we did not receive that contract. We know that from 2018, all funding under the Commonwealth Home Support Program will be through a market-based and client-driven agenda, and those are some of the movements that we have in this space.

Ms CHAPMAN: Minister, I have some questions on youth justice as the newly appointed youth justice shadow minister, on page 91 and also the portfolio section at page 96. Firstly, in respect of the youth training centres—

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Which volume?

Ms CHAPMAN: Page 91, same volume; it is all community services. With the Adelaide Youth Training Centre—Major Security Works for last year, I see the $4.2 million was not spent and it is explained there. This was at Jonal Drive Security Upgrade and I note then the new project is Major Security Works. Is that also the $2 million to be spent at Jonal Drive, the old Cavan site for younger children?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: That is correct.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is the continuous monitoring of screening for the security of employees or residents, or both? That is the $3.3 million.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Yes, that covers all people, but I am not sure of your reference to youth justice and continuous screening.

Ms CHAPMAN: No, here we have 'continuous monitoring of screening'.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I think there might be a lack of clarity on what we are talking about.

Ms CHAPMAN: So the screening issue is not the prison?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: No, that is about the continuous monitoring that I have just spoken about between SAPOL, DECD and DCSI.

Ms CHAPMAN: If I can go back then to Jonal Drive, what are the security works that we are going to spend $2 million on, and why wasn't the $4 million spent last year?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Perhaps I can detail those projects for you. When I became the minister, it was raised with me that there were some areas that needed improving, including the upgrading of servers to increase capacity and storage and air conditioning at the Goldsborough Road server room to cater for increased demand to support both campuses.

Ms CHAPMAN: If I can just interrupt for a moment, I think we are at cross purposes. I am not talking about Goldsborough Road. That is a new facility, it is a different matter altogether. This project—

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Can I perhaps be clear to you that we have a one training centre two-campus model, so when we talk about the Adelaide Youth Training Centre we talk about both campuses. The majority of that spend will, of course, be on Jonal Drive but part of that is the connectivity to Goldsborough.

Ms CHAPMAN: Connectivity of?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Communications.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is there any upgrade to be done at the new site on which we have already spent $75 million? If so, how much of that $2.04 million—

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Are you referring to Goldsborough now?

Ms CHAPMAN: No, you were. What I asked is this: the item there for $2.04 million, which last year was $4.257 million but was not spent, you say is now being spent at Jonal Drive, the old campus where the younger children are. We understand that. It is been around for 30 years so it may need some upgrades. However, you are saying that that $2.04 million is at Jonal Drive but that some may be spent at Goldsborough to receive a communications system. Do I have that right?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Can I just re-emphasise that there is some very minor stuff at the new facility. Obviously, once we go back we will have a one system, so we need to make sure that there is connectivity. There will be an upgrade of the Jonal Drive campus radio system from analog to digital, and that will connect to Goldsborough so that we have that connectivity. There will be a duress-activated sound recording system linked to controls, some upgrade to sally port and admissions, the existing units and the exercise yard. The Jonal Drive campus will be modified to become the new admissions sally port enabling the secure transition of young persons in and out of the Jonal Drive campus and to holding rooms.

For the security systems at Jonal Drive, we will be looking at biometric access control with new airlock arrangements in the foyer to include the redesign of the administration and reception areas and a key and radio safe for storage, including Goldsborough Road for radios. We have an upgrade of the current commercial grade keys and locks to the same correctional standard as Goldsborough, an upgrade of the perimeter lighting to LED for Jonal Drive, digital CCTV cameras and holding rooms and bedrooms, an upgrade of the ICT system control, personal protective equipment, web cameras and infrastructure and the replacement of the emergency standby UPS generator at the Jonal Drive campus.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is there anything in the budget under youth justice, pages 96 or 97, that makes provision for the security for residents in any other way, and in particular I refer to equipment such as the spit restraints that have been used in the Northern Territory. I note that your CEO has been on radio saying they are not used in South Australia, which I am pleased to hear. Is there any provision for any other equipment, apart from a new radio system, for the restraint of residents?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: That is not my understanding, but I will ask for details from the executive director.

Mr BULL: We would not be looking to buy any of that type of mechanical equipment, apart from just replacing our existing equipment. There would not be anything additional.

Ms CHAPMAN: In your existing equipment, are there any restraint hoods or spit hoods, as they are called?

Mr BULL: There is a spit protection that we use, which is very thin nylon material that comes down just below the nose, so that eyes are not impeded, with a thicker material around the bottom to prevent the spread of bodily fluids and blood.

Ms CHAPMAN: That is a different model, but it is a spit restraint. It is a different model to the Northern Territory.

Mr BULL: Yes, it is. The one in the Northern Territory was more of an all-over mask—

Ms CHAPMAN: A full hood.

Mr BULL: —which obviously offered some impediment to the vision, which is not what we have.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is there any other equipment you have currently that is used in these extreme circumstances?

Mr BULL: We would use handcuffs and maybe some leg straps if the person was lashing out quite violently, but they would be used very rarely.

Ms CHAPMAN: Have they been used in the last 12 months?

Mr BULL: Absolutely.

The CHAIR: Member for Bragg—

Ms CHAPMAN: I just have one final question, which I think the minister will want to hear.

The CHAIR: To the minister, yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Minister, the human rights commissioner Gillian Triggs has actually called for an expansion of the Northern Territory inquiry to all other states and territories to investigate any potential issues in respect of their matters and those that have been raised in the Northern Territory. Have you had any correspondence with the Prime Minister's office yet in respect of that?

The CHAIR: The minister may choose not to answer this or—

Ms CHAPMAN: That is fine.

The CHAIR: No, I am being fair. The minister may choose to answer this or not. It is irrelevant to the budget but, if the minister chooses to answer, she can.

Ms CHAPMAN: It is if they have made some provision for submissions to the Northern Territory inquiry.

The CHAIR: That was not your question.

Ms CHAPMAN: If I had not been interrupted, I might have got to that.

The CHAIR: Well, I am giving you extra time, member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you, sir.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Member for Bragg, at all times, I welcome the attention paid to how we support young people in residential care and in the training centre. We have not received any correspondence from the Prime Minister. Just recently we have enacted the youth justice administration bill, which was debated in this house and which contemporises our legislation, and we are about to put forward the regulations. I am confident that we have a focus on rehabilitation and education but, if this process is to go forward, I welcome it.

Ms CHAPMAN: And do you condone the use—

The CHAIR: According to the agreed timetable, I am moving on now to Housing SA.

Membership:

Mr Griffiths substituted for Ms Chapman.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr T. Harrison, Chief Executive, Department for Communities and Social Inclusion.

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

Mr P. Fagan-Schmidt, Executive Director, Housing SA.

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

Mr P. Reardon, Director, Property and Contract Management, Housing SA.

Mr G. Slack, Director, Strategy and Reporting, Housing SA.

Ms K. Broderick, Senior Parliamentary and Project Coordinator, Department for Communities and Social Inclusion.

The CHAIR: Minister, do you have an opening statement regarding Housing SA?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I do, but let me please introduce my team. To my left is Tony Harrison, Chief Executive, Department for Communities and Social Inclusion; to my far left is Andrew Thompson, Executive Director, Financial and Business Services; to my right is Philip Fagan-Schmidt, Executive Director, Housing SA. Behind me, on the right is Nancy Rogers, Director, Business Affairs, and on the left is Kate Broderick, Senior Parliamentary and Project Coordinator for the chief executive's office.

The government has a responsibility to provide people with housing support, and the social housing portfolio plays a critical role in fulfilling this responsibility. During 2015-16, many thousands of South Australians received assistance through this portfolio.

Around 67,000 people live in public housing properties and many more in properties managed by the community housing sector. In addition, during the year, Housing SA provided more than 33,000 customers with financial assistance to access the private rental market, and over 22,000 people received support due to homelessness or domestic violence.

In December 2015, Housing SA finalised the implementation of a new service delivery model. This model improves Housing SA's capacity to respond to the increased risk and vulnerability of customers, including proactively identifying children at risk. Housing SA also implemented a number of initiatives to improve support for those who are vulnerable and at risk, and strengthen service delivery while maintaining a strong focus on compliance. I would like to highlight a few of these areas.

There have been initiatives to support victims of family and domestic violence. These include the extension of the Staying Home Staying Safe program delivered by the Victim Support Service in partnership with Housing SA. This program plays an important role in enabling women and children who have experienced domestic or family violence to remain living safely in their own home. Additional commonwealth government funding of $1.2 million over the next three years will allow this program to increase the number and type of security measures that assist victims.

During 2015-16, the South Australian Housing Trust also spent $1.6 million from its maintenance budget on safety upgrades for tenants experiencing domestic and family violence. South Australia has also secured commonwealth government funding for the next three years for two new local support coordinators who will provide support to women aged 15 to 24 years who are victims of domestic and family violence. These positions will be part of Housing SA's regional response team. This is in addition to the support provided through the homelessness sector to people who experience domestic and family violence. More than 8,000 clients were assisted in the last year.

My department has also been focused on addressing the challenges relating to the complex needs of remote Indigenous South Australians. During the financial year, Housing SA completed construction of 15 new houses and upgraded 34 houses in the APY lands. A further 10 properties were acquired in metropolitan centres through the Employment Related Accommodation program to assist people moving from remote Aboriginal communities for education and employment opportunities.

Since 2009-10, $22 million has been released for capital investment in ERA. With this funding, the program has acquired 41 properties in regional centres across South Australia and metropolitan Adelaide, and constructed accommodation to support the APY lands trade training centre. We have also successfully renegotiated funding for the new Remote Housing Strategy, which will allow us to continue to build on achievements in providing housing for remote Indigenous communities.

Housing SA has also maintained a strong focus on compliance. For example, Housing SA recently recruited two additional officers to increase its ability to investigate and, where appropriate, dispute bond claims against South Australian Housing Trust bond guarantees. During 2015-16, Housing SA reclaimed over $650,000 as a result of these investigations.

In 2015-16, Housing SA also established the property ownership review team. This team was formed to identify and investigate cases where public housing tenants were suspected to also own residential property. This project was very successful, with 32 households vacating public housing due to property ownership. These properties can now be directed to those most in need. A further 74 households were identified as needing to pay full market rent. This ensures public-funded rental subsidies go to those who need them.

South Australians should be encouraged by the actions taken by this government to address the service delivery and compliance challenges of providing social housing and affordable housing options. This year has been a year of change, development and opportunity for public housing in South Australia, and the year ahead promises to continue that trend. My department will continue to adapt and respond to community needs to ensure South Australians have access to housing services and supports.

Membership:

Ms Sanderson substituted for Dr McFetridge.

The CHAIR: Member for Adelaide, I understand you are the lead speaker. Do you have a statement or are you going straight to questions?

Ms SANDERSON: Straight to questions, thank you. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 107, Social Housing, Description/objective, Housing SA tenants housed. Can the minister outline the total number of people on the Housing SA waiting list and the total number of people who were housed, by category, for the 2015-16 year and also note how many of those were 25 years and under?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Thank you, member for Adelaide. The housing register, as we now refer to it, has 20,974 people, and the number of customers that was allocated housing was 2,160. Obviously, our focus is on category 1 tenants—those that have the greatest need—and 88.5 per cent of category 1 tenants were allocated. I know you have a particular interest in the number of customers under 25 years. We have 2,724 on the housing register and allocations of 383 this year.

Ms SANDERSON: Is it possible to get the breakdown later, for categories 1, 2 and 3, and exact numbers, rather than just one percentage of one—

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I can supply those to you. In category 1, the number of people on the housing register is 3,534; in category 2, 5,562; in category 3, 11,784; low demand is 38; pending is 56—and that gets you a total of 20,974. Numbers of customers allocated housing is: category 1, 1,911; category 2, 140; category 3, 109 to 2,160. When we consider specifying the number of customers under 25 years on the register: category 1, 552; category 2, 317; category 3, 1,827; low demand is 2; and pending is 26, for that total of 2,724. The housing allocation's number of customers under 25 years is: category 1, 366; category 2, 11; category 3, 6, for a total of 383.

Ms SANDERSON: I refer to Budget Statement, Chapter 5, Government business, page 76, Capital Investment Program: can the minister confirm that the One Thousand Homes in 1000 Days program will not add a single additional home to the Housing SA stock?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The project of 1,000 houses in 1,000 days is responsible to the minister for renewal.

Ms SANDERSON: Can the minister then confirm whether there will be less bedrooms at the end of the program than there were at the beginning?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Less bedrooms, member for Adelaide?

Ms SANDERSON: Yes, because I believe larger houses are being—

The CHAIR: Fewer. Fewer bedrooms.

Ms SANDERSON: Fewer. I guess one of the—

The CHAIR: Hence the misunderstanding!

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Thank you. There has been a focus on utilisation in the past and it is my expectation, where we have more than 70 per cent of our tenants who live alone, that that utilisation rate would be higher than it is currently.

Ms SANDERSON: At the end of the program, which you are not responsible for, are you expecting, as the minister who is responsible for the people, that there will be less people on the waiting list, or the waiting list will not be affected by this program?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I think the key thing, when we think about the housing register, is about how we support people. So, when someone is on the waiting list, I think the impression you have is that they are not receiving any support. That is actually not accurate. More than 80 per cent of people who are on that housing register do receive a form of support—usually private rental assistance. They come to us and we perform a risk identification tool. We understand the needs of that person on that housing register, and we endeavour to support them with our private liaison officer or by looking at them being category 1, 2 and 3, but in the meantime offering them other areas of assistance.

When we look at our social housing system, public housing and Housing SA properties are a major part of that, but so is the community housing sector. When you go on the housing register, you are also open to eligibility and accessibility for those community housing providers as well. What we want to provide is a one-stop shop. When someone goes online on Housing SA, or comes into one of the offices, we want to talk about how we can help them to look at the issue of housing. So, whether it be the potential for Housing SA, community housing or private rental assistance, that is how we will support vulnerable South Australians.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I draw the minister's attention to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, pages 107, 108 and 109. Can the minister advise the committee on how the department has assisted vulnerable tenants and customers to access secure housing and other services, which you mentioned in your previous question.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Can you repeat—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Can you advise the committee of how the department can assist or has assisted vulnerable tenants and customers to access secure housing and other services: the new delivery model.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The new delivery model, which was fully implemented in December 2015, better meets the needs of communities and customers. We are transforming our business to make it about the people. It is connecting people to place. I sit in this room with two former ministers for social housing and we know that we have an increasing vulnerability within our tenancies. We feel that we need to be far more proactive in identifying risk and vulnerable people, particularly women and children. So, we have increased our capacity to respond to complex needs. We have targeted specialist services, provided to integrate a multidisciplinary approach, where customers are connected to support services in their local community.

If I can be frank, I think sometimes in the past we have focused on the bricks and mortar of Housing SA. It has played an enormous role in the development of our economy. Many people still come up to me today and say, 'I grew up in a Housing SA house, a trust house; and it was great stability for my family', particularly those who migrated from England or other post-World War II migrants. They came out, they had a house, they worked and they built wealth within their families. What it provided was stability, and in fact I had a conversation with a constituent of mine who was originally born in England. He now lives in Brahma Lodge and owns his house. He went back home and his brothers and sisters and their children are still renting, whereas he had the opportunity to buy a house; but his initial support here was through the Housing Trust.

The model supports the changing needs of Housing SA's customer profile, and what we are allowing is for staff to invest more intensely at the beginning of a customer's tenancy by assessing need, providing information, delivering appropriate products and services. We know that many of our customers have experienced neglect, abuse or trauma and they often have complex personal and family circumstances and lives marked by disadvantage and social exclusion. We have had specialised training that has been delivered to our staff, under the new model, covering a range of topics, including child protection, cultural awareness and family and domestic violence.

Overall, the new service delivery model takes a proactive approach to address the underlying causes of issues that can impact on a person and their family. The key change is a whole-of-community approach now, because we want people to thrive and flourish and participate in their communities. We know that housing is central to that.

Ms SANDERSON: I refer to Budget Statement Chapter 5, page 79. Can the minister provide a total net debt position for the Housing SA clients as at 30 June 2016, and also provide a breakdown of that debt for the year? It is page 79, government business, net contributions.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I would like to start with what we are doing about debt, because this has been a key focus of mine. In September 2015, we established a debt management steering committee to implement new strategies to reduce and manage the debt. This includes senior representatives from both Housing SA and Renewal SA.

Several initiatives have been implemented. This year, two debt blitzes were conducted in each of the Housing SA metropolitan regions which were led by our compliance officers. Staff made contact with tenants and successfully implemented repayment arrangements in a number of cases. These officers also provided regional staff with strategies to identify customer debt to be written off and cases requiring referral to the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal for recovery.

We have had improved weekly debt performance reports and have improved and developed a new weekly debt report. That report provides high level statistics as well as information on accounts overdue enabling proactive action. We have had several reforms to the debt policy and procedures, including increasing the minimum repayment for non-tenant debt from $10 to $15 per week; introducing the internal benchmark requiring that 70 per cent of debt arrangements meet the minimum repayment amount unless the tenant has demonstrated financial hardship and does not have the capacity to repay the minimum amount. We are reviewing the existing debt policies and procedures to align with the new service delivery model.

We have introduced SMS for customer communication. In March 2016, we trialled an alert to customers of new debt on an SMS or of broken repayment arrangements. The results indicate that the trial has been positive providing a low-cost approach to proactively contacting customers to support debt recovery. We are looking to expand the use of SMS for other customer communications. Training was delivered to Housing SA staff by an industry expert to develop customer engagement and negotiation skills, and additional training was provided to supervisors and managers to develop coaching skills.

One of the more innovative ways is to actually understand when debt accrues for our residents and tenants. We know that when people move it is a time when additional debts are raised. We see that there is a significant cost associated with rubbish removal from Housing SA properties. One of the key things we have done is to make a postcard saying, 'If you leave rubbish behind, you will get a debt of X amount,' and it states the costs they will incur if they leave rubbish and belongings when they vacate a property. The postcards encourage the tenants to use low-cost services to dispose of rubbish, such as the local council hard rubbish collection. We have used that vacancy charges postcard since May 2016.

In relation to additional resourcing, we have two additional officers to review the legitimacy of bond claims made by landlords and we have also put in additional resources to concentrate efforts on establishing repayment arrangements with customers who owe more than $1,000. We have had an internal review of the compliance and collection unit and the final report will be making recommendations on how to improve efficiency—and I will continue to do so.

Your question asked about the total, and it is $28.532 million. We have 8,686 tenants with a debt and 8,201 non-tenants with a debt. Non-tenants relate to people who have a private rental assistance program, a bond guarantee that they would have provided and rent in advance. The key thing that I have always focused on is the fact that 83.9 per cent of people have an arrangement to repay this debt, so we know who this debt belongs to and we continue to pursue that debt and will continue to do so.

One of the key things is that 77 per cent of tenants do not have a debt. Can I just re-emphasise the fact that often we hear comments about Housing SA tenants regarding concerns about disruptions and concerns about high needs, but we also have a considerable amount of tenants who have the most immaculate houses I have ever seen and who treat the houses as their own and who pay all their money on time and always have. I just want to put on record: 77 per cent of Housing SA tenants do not have a debt and have never had a debt. While I am actively pursuing debt and looking at how we can prevent it by understanding when people accrue debt, it is important to realise that the vast majority of our tenants do not have debt.

The other thing to understand is that those who do have a debt, most of them (about 69 per cent, I think) owe less than $1,000. One of the key things is to understand the triggers for these smaller amounts of money, why that debt has accrued and how can we reduce that.

Ms SANDERSON: Can the minister please outline the amount of debt that was waived and written off, and the amount also that was reinstated in that same financial year?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: In 2015-16 the reinstatable debt that was written off was $5.13 million, non-reinstatable debt, $2.04 million.

Ms SANDERSON: So, the waived debt was $5.13 million—waived as in not reinstatable or written off? Which is written off and which is waived—which are the normal descriptions you give?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Reinstatable debt is debt that is written off as legally recoverable, but can be reraised and deemed to be reinstatable. Non-reinstatable is debt that is written off, as not legally recoverable, cannot be reraised and is deemed to be non-reinstatable.

Ms SANDERSON: So previously what you called waived, you are now calling written off but reinstatable?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I do not think there has ever been a misunderstanding of these two areas.

Ms SANDERSON: They have always been called waived and written off in the past?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Perhaps I can clarify when you are considering this: debt that is written off as not legally recoverable cannot be reraised, and that occurs when a customer has died.

Ms SANDERSON: And how much is that?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: It is $2.04 million.

Ms SANDERSON: So, the reinstatable in the future is the $5.13 million. How much was reinstated during the year from previous years?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: While I find that detail about reinstatable debts, we would classify debts in that way as debts that remain outstanding after a debt settlement agreement has been accepted, debts owed by customers who are serving a prison sentence greater than three months, debts that have been recalled from a private debt collector due to the collector determining that it is not economical to pursue legal action to recover them, debts of $10 or more that have been recalled from a private debt collector due to the collector being unable to locate the customers—that is reinstatable debt. I think your question is about the differences within these categories.

Ms SANDERSON: We have them now. I just want the reinstated figure, because we are running out of time. I have a lot of important questions.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: In 2014-15 the reinstatable figure was $5.35 million, and in 2015-16 it was $5.13 million.

Ms SANDERSON: I refer to Budget Paper 5, Volume 1, program 3, page 107, maintenance. What was the total and the breakdown for repairs and maintenance by category or even just the total, given the time we have available.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Just before I detail the areas, let me talk about our maintenance program. It is to fund the repair and maintenance of the properties to ensure standards are met in relation to condition, amenity, quality, health, safety and security. There are different types of maintenance programs. There is responsive maintenance that responds reactively to health, safety and security issues. It includes horticultural work, addressing urgent building maintenance and repair. There is programmed maintenance, which proactively maintains the condition, sustainability, quality and serviceability.

Ms SANDERSON: If you are going to read them out, you might as well give me the figures as you go through. That will save time if you want to do that.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I will have to take that on notice. I do not have it broken down. We know that tenanted properties was $37.609 million—

Ms SANDERSON: What was just the total then if we get the rest later?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: My apologies, member for Adelaide. The estimated result is $121.7 million.

Ms SANDERSON: And how much of the repairs and maintenance budget was transferred to the community housing providers from that current 2015-16 year, which should then diminish your own figure?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I will ask the executive director, Phil Fagan-Schmidt, to answer that.

Mr FAGAN-SCHMIDT: What occurs is that the 1,100 properties have been transferred. The arrangements are that the full rents are now made available to the community housing organisation, which out of that provides for all the maintenance arrangements. In respect of the reduction, there is a reduction in the accounts of the Housing Trust that reflects the 1,100 properties' income coming in, and there is a similar reduction or a pro rata reduction to the level of maintenance made available to the trust in recognition of that 1,100 property reduction.

Ms SANDERSON: I am told that there was an average of $4,000 worth of repairs—

The CHAIR: Member for Adelaide, you are not here to cross-examine the executive director. Your questions are to the minister.

Ms SANDERSON: To the minister, I am told that roughly $4,000 worth of repairs and maintenance per home was transferred to community housing, which would equate to $4.4 million of repairs and maintenance. Has that reduction of $4.4 million been included in your new $121 million of repairs and maintenance that is still in your debt?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I will ask the executive director to detail that to you.

Mr FAGAN-SCHMIDT: As such, there is no transfer of maintenance to the non-government sector. There is information provided to the non-government sector about the maintenance records on those 1,100 properties, but the ownership of that remains with the Housing Trust, and the long-term maintenance responsibilities shift across the non-government sector. Because of the treatment of various commonwealth subsidies, such as commonwealth rent assistance, and some minor treatments around the way GST works, the non-government organisations could expect to pick up approximately $2,000 per property per year in additional rent while the tenant's after housing cost disposal income remains the same.

Whereas if those properties were in government management, the government maintenance would be constrained to the level of rent collected, the non-government organisation can benefit by having that extra $2,000 in funds and that typically goes into maintenance and additional service delivery and the like.

Ms SANDERSON: Through the minister again, you are saying that the drop of $2 million in the repair and maintenance debt is not due to the 1,100 houses that were transferred; you have suddenly done a lot more repairs and maintenance and got that figure down, or there was a figure that was transferred out?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The reduction in the debt?

Ms SANDERSON: Yes. It was $123.6 million last year for repairs and maintenance outstanding and this year I believe you just quoted $121.7 million, which is approximately $2 million less, so it is either due to transferring it out or that you are a little more on top of your repairs and maintenance.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Sorry, the figure I gave to you is about expenditure and that is how much we spent. I think that was the question that you asked me.

Ms SANDERSON: Yes.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Which is in those different categories.

Ms SANDERSON: How much debt is outstanding? What is the liability outstanding on your balance sheet for repairs and maintenance?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I am not sure that the question is accurate. Can you detail it a little further?

Ms SANDERSON: That is alright; we can go on to another question.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: We will move on.

Ms SANDERSON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 107, Sales of goods and services. Can the minister please advise, firstly, the total number of houses that were owned by Housing SA or South Australian Housing Trust as at 30 June 2015 and 30 June 2016?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: My understanding is that you are asking about the total number of properties that we have responsibility for. It is 40,022.

Ms SANDERSON: In which year was that one?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: In 2015-16.

Ms SANDERSON: Do you have the figure for the 2014-15 financial year?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: In 2014-15 it is 41,912.

Ms SANDERSON: I am happy for this to be taken on notice as it was last year, but I was provided with a breakdown of the total number of houses that were occupied, the total number that were leased, the total vacant and tenantable houses, the total waiting for sale or redevelopment, rental stock vacant and untenantable that requires major works, houses empty waiting on repairs and maintenance, stock vacant and untenantable for acquisitions, capital projects, rent stock, vacant tenantable and under construction (that is under the jurisdiction of Renewal SA), Renewal SA responsibility and Housing SA responsible for. That was a table that was taken on notice and presented later.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I can talk about that now. When we are looking at our occupied rental stock, 39,215; and the rental stock vacant and tenantable 642, which is 1.6 per cent, and that is the kind that we will turn around quite quickly. I think you have heard me speak in the past that I work on a KPI and we are trying to work to five weeks turnaround time, and we are trying to use some innovative techniques of how we have people look at the property, more like the private sector. We had a longer process and we have tried to turn that around a lot more quickly. There is rental stock vacant and untenantable, 165, which requires major maintenance; maybe they might need a new roof or a new kitchen and they will take a bit longer. That takes us to the 40,022.

Ms SANDERSON: Again on page 107, can the minister please outline the total number of evictions for both 2014-15 and 2015-16 year and the reason for the evictions?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Let me give you a breakdown of that. The number of evictions due to debt in the last financial year was 34; for abandoned properties, two; access, eight; breach of conditions of tenancy, one; the expiry of lease, 14; illegal activity, three; non-residing, 13; property condition, three; property ownership, one; section 87 (a serious breach), eight; section 90 (disruption), 13; and tenant versus tenant, three. The total number of evictions is 103, which is an increase from 90 in the previous year.

Ms SANDERSON: How many applications for eviction or termination of lease were made to SACAT in the same year, and how many of those orders found in favour of Housing SA?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Where a tenant fails or refuses to rectify a breach—because we like to give tenants the opportunity for that—Housing SA may apply to SACAT to have the tenant evicted from the property. Now SACAT, not Housing SA, will make the decision whether a tenant should be evicted. Not all Housing SA applications to SACAT are successful. Last year there were 213 initial SACAT hearings and, of these, 48 per cent resulted in an eviction decision.

Ms SANDERSON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 89, Workforce summary. Is a formula used by the department for the staff to tenant ratio and are more staff allocated per ratio in the country branches to accommodate for the long distances involved in accessing their clients?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I will ask the executive director to talk about ratios per se. I want to talk about our new system and our connecting people to place because one of the key turnarounds I have had in the last few years is us talking about tenants and their needs. We are actually changing the mix of the type of staff that we need in Housing SA. What we need is people with community skills to support people who are vulnerable. While we have required, I guess, more traditional property management type skills in the past, we are looking for more people with skills in the social work and community development space. I will ask the executive director to detail that question.

Mr FAGAN-SCHMIDT: Thank you, minister. We allocate staff according to regular workload studies. The number of public housing units in a region would be one indicator, as would matters like distance. For example, in the APY lands we would see a higher ratio of staff to properties than in non-remote areas simply as a result of the long distances travelled and the fact that we may have two staff travelling rather than one in some circumstances due to the safety requirements around remote areas.

There are significant other circumstances. For example, the Adelaide office in Pulteney Street tends to operate more as a statewide office, where we get a lot more inquiries for generic housing services or non-public housing services, private rental and the like, so we will have a waiting there that responds to the community. So in broad terms, yes, distance and public housing units are input, but there are a wider set of inputs and these are adjusted annually based on workload studies.

Ms SANDERSON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 109, Activity indicators, the number of rough sleepers. What was the total number of individuals, either homeless or at risk of homelessness, who sought assistance? We know the number that were helped, but how many were not able to be helped due to a lack of resources? How many actually applied for help?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The number of clients who received assistance from specialist homelessness service providers in 2015-16 was 22,541. The support periods were 29,058. We often see clients presenting on multiple occasions within one year.

The CHAIR: The agreed time has expired.

Sitting suspended from 10:30 to 10:46.