Department of Human Services, $963,281,000

Administered Items for the Department of Human Services, $303,685,000

Membership:

Mr Basham substituted for Hon. D.G. Pisoni.

Mr Telfer substituted for Mr Cowdrey.

Mrs Pearce substituted for Ms Wortley.

Ms Clancy substituted for Mr Fulbrook.

Ms Thompson substituted for Ms Hutchesson.

Minister:

Hon. N.F. Cook, Minister for Human Services.

Departmental Advisers:

Ms R. Ambler, Acting Chief Executive, Department of Human Services.

Mr D. Green, Acting Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Business Services, Department of Human Services.

Ms S. Charlton, Executive Director, People and Performance, Department of Human Services.

Ms K. Hawkins, Executive Director, Inclusion and Reform, Department of Human Services.

Ms A. Reid, Executive Director, Community and Family Services, Department of Human Services.

Mr J. Young, Executive Director, Disability Services, Department of Human Services.

Mr G. Myers, Principal Project Officer, Office of the Chief Executive and Governance, Department of Human Services.

Ms T. Mai, Senior Authorising Officer, Restrictive Practices Unit, Community Investment and Support, Department of Human Services.

The CHAIR: Welcome to today's hearing for Estimates Committee B. I respectfully acknowledge the traditional owners of this land upon which the committee meets today and pay our respects to them and their cultures, and to the elders both past and present.

The estimates committees are a relatively informal procedure and, as such, there is no need to stand to ask or answer questions. I understand that the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition have agreed on an approximate time for the consideration of proposed payments, which will facilitate a change of departmental advisers. Can the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition confirm that the timetable for today's proceedings previously distributed is accurate? I will take that as a yes.

Changes to committee membership will be notified as they occur. Members should ensure the Chair is provided with a completed request to be discharged form. If the minister undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the Clerk Assistant via the Answers to Questions mailbox no later than Friday 8 September 2023.

I propose to allow both the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition to make opening statements of about or up to 10 minutes each, if they so desire. There will be a flexible approach to giving the call for asking questions. A member who is not on the committee may ask a question at the discretion of the Chair.

All questions are to be directed to the minister, not to the minister's advisers. The minister may refer questions to advisers for a response. Questions must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget papers and must be identifiable or referenced. Members unable to complete their questions during the proceedings may submit them as questions on notice for inclusion in the assembly Notice Paper.

I remind members that the rules of debate in the house apply in the committee. Consistent with the rules of the house, photography by members from the chamber floor is not permitted while the committee is sitting. Ministers and members may not table documents before the committee; however, documents can be supplied to the Chair for distribution.

The incorporation of material in Hansard is permitted on the same basis as applies in the house; that is, it is purely statistical and limited to one page in length. The committee's examinations will be broadcast in the same manner as sittings of the house, through the IPTV system within Parliament House and online via the parliament website.

I now proceed to open the following lines for examination. The portfolio is Department of Human Services. The minister appearing is the Minister for Human Services. I declare the proposed payments open for examination. I call on the minister to make an opening statement, if she so desires.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I will make an opening statement in this particular part of our committee today. In the last 15 months since becoming the minister, I am proud that my department and the Malinauskas Labor government have embarked on generational reform to shift the dial on disadvantage in our community. The Department of Human Services is a key part of this work, and I thank the DHS staff for their tireless work in moving forward the agenda.

I want to touch on a few brief areas of policy change and commitment that have been the hallmarks of the last year, and I will be as brief as I can—I am keen to extrapolate via your questions. Cost of living continues to be an area of concern for many South Australians, and I would like to talk through the initiatives we have funded to this end. I am pleased that the new $4.8 million Financial Wellbeing Program will commence on 1 July. This program consolidates four financial wellbeing and resilience programs into a single one-stop shop financial wellbeing program to better support financially vulnerable South Australians.

The new program provides budgeting support, assistance to negotiate debts, financial resilience education and emergency financial assistance to deal with immediate pressures such as bills or food. A significant investment in this budget is the $254.4 million energy bill relief rebate. The rebate is jointly funded by state and commonwealth governments over two years and will provide up to $500 for households on income support and $650 for small businesses.

The government is also providing an additional $44 million over five years to index existing concessions, which along with the energy bill relief rebate will put up to an additional $580 next financial year in the pockets of eligible pensioners. In addition, the government is providing an additional $57.2 million over four years to support non-government organisations in the face of higher wage and inflation costs in 2023. I know the organisations funded through my department have been very appreciative of this additional indexation.

The government is currently leading a concessions review, examining 21 concessions delivered by the state government, which assist people with their household bills, education, health and transport costs. A reference group of non-government agencies is meeting regularly as we work through identified issues and possible solutions. Also, a public report of findings will be available later this year.

Government investment supported the permanent establishment of the Child and Family Support System Pathways Service, a strengthening of clinical and cultural governance and the creation of a new region for northern metropolitan Adelaide, which will result in a further 250 families, approximately 625 children, receiving intensive family support services.

The government is investing a further $35.7 million over five years to boost services for vulnerable families. Further, I am pleased that this budget includes $6.1 million over four years for the Strong Start program. This will help at-risk, first-time parents at the earliest opportunity. My department will be investigating how this program can better contribute to improving Closing the Gap outcomes. This is obviously for Aboriginal mothers and their children, recognising that investing in Aboriginal children's early years reaps rewards decades later in both education and employment outcomes.

My department chairs the multi-agency Safety and Wellbeing Taskforce to support cultural safety and wellbeing of remote Aboriginal visitors and reduce antisocial behaviours in Adelaide and regional South Australia. Since its establishment, the task force has engaged with multiple stakeholders in developing responses, including First Nations communities, residents and businesses, councils, non-government and government organisations to help strategies and devise an agreed approach on this complex social issue.

These service responses include assertive outreach, tenancy support, coordinated return to community, rapid healthcare access and discharge, intensive case management and culturally appropriate service delivery. Outcomes achieved in Adelaide include reductions in hospital ED presentations and admissions, improved participation in health treatment and improved outcomes in tenancies.

Between 1 July 2022 and 25 June 2023, 1,481 people have been safely returned to community from Adelaide and Port Augusta. The work of the task force is not limited to Adelaide, with significant resources and effort directed to regional centres, particularly Port Augusta. DHS commenced the Port Augusta Community Outreach Response in November 2022, aimed at reducing antisocial behaviour, violence, rough sleeping and conflict over the summer period. In early 2023, DHS also established a Port Augusta youth response to address escalating antisocial and high-risk behaviour involving young people in the community.

My department is also supporting the community by contributing an additional $2.4 million, an increase of over 60 per cent, to the Community and Neighbourhood Development Program. This will result in an increase in the number of community centres being funded across the state. This will also increase the average funding per centre by more than 40 per cent. These new arrangements, which commence on 1 July 2023, will result in a more equitable spread of funding across South Australia.

Gambling harm continues to be a concern to our community, and in 2023 I was very pleased that the Adelaide Football Club (the Crows) partnered with the very successful Here for the Game campaign to raise awareness of the harms of sport betting but also to challenge the normalisation of gambling in our sporting communities. The Crows joined with the Adelaide United Football Club (the Reds) as well as the Adelaide 36ers and Adelaide Giants in this growing movement of professional sport clubs saying no to gambling revenue and taking a stand against the industry's harmful influence on young people.

Grants SA will continue to provide funding support to community organisations, having this year delivered on the government's election commitment to implement a grant program for community sheds, providing safe places for people to build social connections and learn new skills. I was very pleased to see Grants SA support a wide range of community organisations, particularly Aboriginal community controlled organisations, through the governance and sustainability round. This has provided much needed funding of almost $2 million, so that grassroots organisations who give so much to their local communities can operate well into the future and continue to serve their communities better.

DHS is responsible for leading the LGBTIQA+ inclusion in South Australia. We are driving change across government and the broader community by listening to the LGBTIQA+ communities to shape policies and initiatives, and funding key LGBTIQA+ services to support this important community through the establishment of our ministerial advisory council. Thank you for your indulgence.

I will introduce my officers who are here: to my right, is Alex Reid, the Executive Director of Community and Family Services. To my left is Ruth Ambler, ably acting as Chief Executive. To my far left is Daniel Green, also ably acting as the Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Business Services. Directly to my rear is Katherine Hawkins, Executive Director, Inclusion and Reform. Just to my rear left is Greg Myers, the Principal Project Officer in the Office of the Chief Executive and Governance. Behind him is Joe Young, Executive Director, Disability Services, and to his right is Sue-Ann Charlton, Executive Director, People and Performance. Also joining us on the panel is Trinh Mai, who is the Senior Authorising Officer, Restrictive Practices Unit, Community Investment and Support. I welcome your questions.

The CHAIR: Do you have an opening statement, member for Flinders?

Mr TELFER: As the minister has used her full allotted time, I will just say thank you to the staff who are here, obviously recognising that the department is a complicated beast with many different aspects to it. Certainly, as we unpack a few of these numbers, I appreciate the whole team being here to be able to give an insight into not just the opposition but to the community as to the different aspects of the department. Thank you very much.

Can I turn the minister's attention to Agency Statements, Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, pages 99 and 100, the first aspect there: the statement of the comprehensive income. In looking at the budget papers there is an obvious overspend. The department last year exceeded its budget for 2022-23 by some $20 million. Can you give an explanation as to why?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: In respect to overspend in our department, we service some of the most vulnerable, and there is also a degree of unpredictability within the cohort of people. We take management of our budget very seriously; however, there is a point in time when we have to state that sometimes we need to be flexible in how we deliver these particular programs. I will refer to my finance officer in terms of any particularities with that particular table.

Mr GREEN: If the member would not mind confirming which particular number he was referring to as an overspend?

Mr TELFER: The $20 million from last year's budget to the estimated result.

Mr GREEN: So the increase in expenditure between those two numbers.

Mr TELFER: Yes.

Mr GREEN: Both of those figures are actually budgets, so the difference between them represents approved changes to the department's expenditure. I would not characterise them as overspending but as—

Mr TELFER: Can you explain the difference then?

Mr GREEN: Overall? The approved difference in general will represent a variety of different changes, including things like carryovers and things like the flood relief that was approved early on in the year. Basically, it is things that have been to cabinet and have been approved: responses to remote visitors, additional indexation that the minister mentioned and supplementary indexation. All of those things together add up to the difference between those two budget numbers.

Mr TELFER: The whole lot?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Approved changes in expenditure, I think is what we are saying. As I said right at the start, we do deal with a lot of unpredictability within the cohort and the nature of the work that we are doing and, of course, as we know this year was particularly difficult in terms of some of the flexibility and adaptation that we had to undertake.

Mr TELFER: What has happened to the savings efficiencies that were in the 2022-23 budget?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I understand that we have met our savings targets.

Mr TELFER: You met your savings targets, but there were other approved changes to the budget, which meant that you had $20 million more spent than—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: For specific initiatives, yes.

Mr TELFER: What measures have been put in place to ensure that the overspend that happened—the additional expenditure, perhaps, if you would rather me characterise it that way—from 2022-23 does not occur in 2023-24?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: It is almost impossible to account for some of the measures that do need to change throughout the year, such as things like floods or changes in demand because of particular cohorts that we have to deal with at times during the year, so it is very difficult to actually account for that. At the same time, we do maintain a degree of budget restraint and we look to move other expenditure around within the department to fund different lines.

Mr TELFER: Do you have savings targets for 2023-24?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: In this particular year, we have, as part of a full government suite of measures, some executive savings to be negotiated. Last year, we met our savings target in respect to executive positions. There were two positions we were required to make redundant within our department and we have done that and been able to cover the workload for those. We do not have any additional targets that have been specifically allocated to us, but there is a full executive measure, which I believe is 50 executive positions across government. At this stage, we have no advice on that.

Mr TELFER: That you are going to need to shed any more executive positions?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: No, we have no advice that that is the case for us.

Mr TELFER: Will there be any expected change in headcount? You talked about the executive positions.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: You mean headcount full FTE or do you mean—

Mr TELFER: Yes.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: We have increased our FTE—

Mr TELFER: I am happy to unpack the FTE later on, if you would like.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: We have no further saving measures. I understand that there is still a TVSP strategy across government. Some of our employees have availed themselves of TVSPs. We do not have anything specifically to discuss.

Mr TELFER: So you have no savings targets? You have no measures that you are thinking you will need to put in place?

Ms AMBLER: We have plans in place to meet our savings target over the forward estimates and we are confident we can do that. We have no further savings targets in the coming financial year, so these are existing savings targets. As the minister said, we know there are likely to be some executive savings coming, but we have no advice from Treasury yet as to the detail of that.

Mr TELFER: So you are not expecting there to be any services or programs that will need to be cut in this next financial year?

Ms AMBLER: We are not expecting to have to make any other savings than the savings we have already prepared for.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Can I add as well that, having a quick look at the table, I understand that our income was also $30 million more than budget. It is, as you would be aware within—

Mr TELFER: It is a big budget.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: —yes, and I believe the numbers you are talking are a very low, less than 1 per cent, number as well, so I would not categorise it as an enormous amount. There have been some changes in relation to commonwealth revenue. I think, as well, it is worth saying that we feel very confident that we have the measures in place to display restraint when it comes to budget spending.

Mr TELFER: Can you give some reasons for the movement in the operating expenditure between 2022-23 and 2023-24?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: What is the page number, again, sorry? I closed the volume.

Mr TELFER: Sorry, we are on pages 99 and 100. They are the main ones at the moment.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: And, sorry, just repeat the question for me.

Mr TELFER: The difference between the operating expenditure in 2022-23 and 2023-24.

Mr GREEN: You are noting the slight reduction in the expenditure number there. There is one particular adjustment that probably stands out amongst the movements. There has been—and you would see it largely in that 'Other expenses' line—a reduction in the expected state contribution to the National Disability Insurance Scheme owing to an adjustment to the per capita share of that scheme. That was something that has been agreed bilaterally and nationally, that there would be a review after five years and the global contribution would be rebalanced between the states. Owing to our reduced population share, that contribution has been reduced on a per capita basis.

Mr TELFER: That is the main explanation for that reduction?

Mr GREEN: It is easily the single largest, yes.

Mr TELFER: Sure, thank you. Can we go to the headcount discussion we started on?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Page?

Mr TELFER: Budget Paper 4, volume 3, page 85, I think is what I have written down: the overall summary there at the top. You intimated before there is a change of headcount—the increase there from 2,756.1 to 2,782.8. Can you give an explanation for that movement?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I guess, again, to point out it is a very low percentage in relation to the overall headcount, but I think it is fair to say we are investing significantly in our family services and that the number of employees to be attached to that particular program—we see that as a growing area of concern, particularly for a department where we are working very hard, as I said in my opening statement, to break the cycle of poverty and disadvantage. The earlier we start, the better off we are, so some of those programs are certainly front of mind when we look at an increase.

I would say particularly the targeted intensive family support program, where the number there we are looking at is an increase of 62 FTEs, which, across headcount, could be up to 100. It depends on how many hours a week people work. In flexible, dynamic workplaces with skilled people working shared responsibilities across family and community, we would expect there would be a number of part-time workers in there as well as full-time, so headcount and FTE are slightly different.

Mr TELFER: You made reference to the targeted intensive family support services changes, and in Budget Paper 5, page 50, the table gives me that number, the 62 you mentioned. I am a simple man. I know simple maths. I can see there are 62 more there, and the change here is, as you pointed out, an increase of 26. So are there cuts within other parts of the department which are basically balancing out the targeted intensive family support services?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I think as well over time across the department generally it is a moving dynamic. There has been a shrinkage of the background of disability and a range of other services as we are transitioning across to our full NDIS and delivery of services in disability, which is different to what used to happen, so there are changes across a range of departments. To go through one by one we would probably fill up the whole of estimates.

Mr TELFER: I was just interested as that is obviously a new program with 62 staff in particular. It has to be balanced out somewhat.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes. It is short-term contracted positions, I think, is the bulk of that.

Mr TELFER: How many employees are under contracts versus permanent employees?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: We may be able to get you an answer on that.

Mr TELFER: I am happy if you take it on notice and provide that later, if that would be easier.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes.

Mr TELFER: It would just be an interesting number.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes, we will take that one on notice for you. We will try not to take too many on notice.

Mr TELFER: It would be interesting for me. As I said before at the start, it is a complex department. That breakdown by the different aspects of the FTEs and the contracted versus the employed would be an interesting number to have.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Sure. I think the overarching statement would be that there would be more people, obviously, permanent, and the number of contracted positions are reasonably small, generally. Relative to the whole department, it is a reasonably small number, and contracted positions may be attached to a pilot-type initiative or a particular initiative that requires intensive staffing for a short period of time.

Mr TELFER: Thank you. You referenced briefly before the targeted voluntary separation packages, so how many of them are proposed for 2023-24?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: We have been able to use TVSPs in order to reshape the business services. As at 31 May 2023, we within the department had received 150 registrations of interest for targeted packages, and we gave 112 offers with 106 employees accepting that package. Is that enough information for you?

Mr TELFER: Yes, that is a good number to have. Is it envisioned there will be any restructure or redundancies in the next financial year?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: We do not have any plans. Do you have some ideas, Sam?

Mr TELFER: I will wait until I am the minister and then I will make those decisions.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Hang on. Sorry, in disability—I think I have alluded to that before though—let's say there is a change happening—

Mr TELFER: Transition.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: —obviously, in disability. We can talk about that in Disability Services perhaps more specifically, but there obviously is some movement around in that department in order to be able to deliver a new service that is entirely NDIS funded, separate from in-kind. People would be aware that we are transitioning out of in-kind, but you might want to talk about that in disability.

Mr TELFER: Yes. I have to scratch together some questions for that, that is for sure. Minister, you mentioned, with the TVSPs, the 112 offers with 106 accepting. Are there any departments or any aspects of the department that are quarantined from TVSPs? Are there any areas that you are specifically targeting?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: To keep it very succinct for you, so we can get through plenty of questions, frontline workers were not offered TVSPs. That would be across a range of our service provision areas, including disability and including youth justice—active frontline.

Mr TELFER: Active frontline as opposed to passive frontline or inactive frontline?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: How do you describe it?

Ms AMBLER: People who are actively working in our frontline services were not offered TVSPs.

Mr TELFER: What would be an inactive—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I am just getting you a better response. For whatever reason, in a range of departments, this would be the same. There are people who fall out of working in frontline service but they are a frontline service worker. If they are an ongoing active frontline service worker delivering face-to-face frontline support services, they are not offered a TVSP, but if there are people who have, for whatever reason, fallen out of doing frontline work as a frontline worker, then they potentially would be offered a TVSP and the capacity to transition their employment future somewhere else.

Mr TELFER: These employees that have fallen out of frontline work obviously specialise in frontline work. What are they doing if they are not doing frontline work?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: They may have been doing project work or some type of administrative work supporting the transition of a department. For example—

Mr TELFER: More bureaucratic work?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: No, not at all; it is categorised as non-operational work. Perhaps a disability support worker, for whatever reason, is unable to—honestly, sometimes the reasons can be work related, the reasons can be personal, and deeply personal, that they cannot do that frontline work. It could be triggering for whatever reason or difficult and so those people might be doing a project within the department to assist maybe the transition of that whole department's operations and how it is working with it, such as disability support workers. If it was deemed that they were unable to return to doing frontline work and that particular project was no longer being undertaken, it may be that they are offered a TVSP.

Mr TELFER: Out of the 106, what sort of proportion would it be? Are they the main cohort of workers that you—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Again, I will pop that one in the on notice basket, I think.

Mr TELFER: I will cast your attention to page 86 of Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, that we are working our way through. I was interested in the numbers there around the fleet cost increase from $941,000 to $1.7 million for FY 2023-24; why is this?

Mr GREEN: Would you like me to answer that one?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes, sure.

Mr GREEN: Unfortunately, the answer is quite dry but I will give it—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: He looked very excited—

Mr TELFER: He knew the answer.

Mr GREEN: You have excited the accountant. What that represents is the planned acquisition of new leased vehicles. It is a budget for, as you may be familiar with, the government's leasing scheme where every three or four years it is turning over vehicles and leasing new ones. That is part of regular government practice. Under accounting standards, when we enter into new leases, they need to be recognised as a sort of capital acquisition investing expense and we amortise the cost of that over the lease term. Sorry, it is a very dry accountancy number.

Mr TELFER: I love accounting.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Are you satisfied with that?

Mr TELFER: I will unpack that a little bit more. How many additional cars are on lease with that number?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I do not think it is significant. I think we are happy to give that on notice—it is detailed.

Mr TELFER: The near-on doubling—I appreciate the depreciation aspect but that is significant. Is it because there is a change of vehicle preference for the department? Is it additional cost if they are transitioning to an EV or a comparable, more expensive vehicle, because albeit the difference between the depreciated cost of the vehicle, even with a new vehicle coming in, is not going to double if there has not been an additional lease?

Mr GREEN: It would be fair to say that the renewals are not spread evenly across lease periods, so you do get peaks and troughs in terms of when leases are being renewed. They are not nicely flattened out across all the forward estimates years, so some of that budgeting reflects—there might be more vehicles in 2023-24 than in 2022-23. It is not a smooth line, is what I am trying to say, you do get some lumpiness that is not reflecting wholesale changes in fleet or changes in preferences or things like that.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Just to try to wrap that up for you, we deliver quite complex services across large distances in South Australia as well, so people might not be aware of the extent that people need to travel in order to deliver those services into people's homes in remote and regional South Australia.

Mr TELFER: I would be relatively aware.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I think you would and so would a couple of other members and especially the Chair.

Mr TELFER: I will cast your eyes back to pages 99-100, and these are more general questions about some of the arrangements. What leases and office accommodation does the department currently have in place?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: We have taken some action in regard to consolidating a couple of services. The Riverside building is getting the screening unit moved in there from 45 Grenfell Street, which will save around half a million dollars per annum is my understanding. We have some surplus properties as well around the place that are now not being used because of consolidation. We have a couple of those that have been declared surplus, one at Christies Beach and one in Mount Barker, and we expect those to go for sale later this year.

Within youth justice, there is the second campus at Jonal Drive, which we have declared as surplus and will be disposing of once the Kurlana Tapa project is complete. The Women's Information Service is currently co-located with the Office for Women and could be relocated. We are looking at office accommodation, which we will need out in the northern suburbs with the expansion of the Safer Family Services. We are looking into accommodation for northern and southern safety hubs. I think, in terms of many other departments, we probably do not have a lot of different lease arrangements but we are constantly working to maximise those and spend money on service delivery, not on leases.

Mr TELFER: Will there be any expected costs for breaking leases or anything like that in that transition?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Not that we are anticipating. We would try to minimise that as well, of course, and be as efficient as possible. We are timing it with lease expiries.

Mr TELFER: I would like to unpack a little bit about some of the working from home arrangements that the department might have in place. This is probably referencing back to the page before, when we were talking about FTEs back on the workforce summary on page 85. Does the department have a clear plan and time line in place for staff that are working from home to return back to the office and, if so, can you—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I will make a general comment about that. Obviously, I think there is a balance. If COVID has taught us anything, it has taught us that we can have flexible working arrangements for people who need it. I know that our department particularly is very people-focused in terms of ensuring that we provide individualised support for employees who do need to work from home, for whatever reason, and so we would not ever be considering doing something that compromises that arrangement and that feeling of value from an employee point of view. Sue-Ann, perhaps if there is anything brief you would like to share?

Ms CHARLTON: I think just to note that over 50 per cent of our department cannot work from home because they are hands-on with clients, so that is not an option. Certainly, we have consolidated in our office around hot-desking and maximising the space with the flexibility that we offer to our staff.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes, I think that is a fair point. I know that the department certainly listened to government request in regard to people returning to work in their office and sharing ideas and that type of thing as well.

Mr TELFER: You make the point that over 50 per cent cannot work from home. Do you have an idea of the current proportion of staff that are working from home?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: It is very low.

Ms CHARLTON: We have not done an arbitrary, 'You have to be in the office X number of days,' so it tends to probably be a bit more ad hoc. When someone might have a medical appointment, they might do that from home and work home that day but they are in the office the majority of the time.

Mr TELFER: But not permanent arrangements?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: No, and I also have certainly been really pleased—not just across this department but also in the Housing Authority—to note that people do take the opportunity to work from home and continue being a productive member of the workforce when they are feeling unwell. Rather than taking a day of leave, they are able to still contribute and participate in the workforce, so that is pretty positive as well.

Mr TELFER: So generally would you say as a percentage it is single figures of people who are predominantly working from home?

Ms CHARLTON: In percentage terms it would be low.

Mr TELFER: Do you think, as a comparison to the previous financial year, that number is static or changing? Are there more coming back into the office?

Ms CHARLTON: There are more people in the office post-COVID.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Definitely lower.

Mr TELFER: Than the last financial year?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Definitely a lower work from home ratio. It is well pointed out by my acting chief that the flexible work policy has actually been in place with DHS for a long time.

Mr TELFER: This is part of the structure of the department, I guess: do you have an accurate tried and true measure of staff productivity and efficiency with those flexible work-at-home arrangements?

Ms CHARLTON: We actually find the volume of work we produce in our department is high and people are fully occupied to the extent that we get probably more productivity from people working from home if anything, once you take out travel times and all the rest of it. Working from home is really about good leadership and making sure that people have enough work to do and they are delivering their outcomes. It is really not highly relevant whether they are in the office or not, but certainly where there is collaboration required it helps for them to be present.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Our managers are managing this and we are very pleased with what has been happening across a range of reform processes as described in my opening statement. There has been quite a lot of change occurring within some of the program's philosophical angles and how we are structuring that and that work has been really efficient. Working from home has not negatively impacted that.

Mr TELFER: You mentioned in your introduction, minister, some of the advisory council arrangements that you have put in place. On page 89, in the highlights, there is a reference halfway down, the dot point there, 'Established the LGBTIQA+ Minister's Advisory Council'. Who chairs this council?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: It is fair to say these are still developing their processes and we started with the department leads, under Katherine Hawkins, chairing those meetings in the first few instances, but we have certainly now encouraged all of those committees to seek to put in place a chair from within their group. We have initially asked these groups to nominate their own chair, someone to put their hand up. We have floated different arrangements, whether they wanted floating chairs or alternating chairs. I feel that through our LGBTIQA+ group and our disability group and our youth one, they will come up with different variations on that.

We can go further into it if you want more information, but I think that gives you the flavour. There have been several meetings, and I have attended every meeting of all three of them. If you want, I can bucket all those MACs together. I have at least popped in for half an hour to do some Q&A. In the early stages, they were much quieter, and now they are getting quite confident and starting to really seek to be engaged and involved in various ways with policy, legislation and a whole heap of different frameworks across government. They are developing, and I hope to see all of them by the end of this year being chaired from within their groups.

Mr TELFER: The same goes for the Disability Advisory Council?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: All three.

Mr TELFER: All comparable arrangements?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes.

Mr TELFER: Are there any allowances for the members?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes, all of them have allowances. I can get you the details, but there was a small budget attached to every one of those. It was $20,000 per annum per group, and they get a $177 sitting fee, each member within each group.

Mr TELFER: For each meeting?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes.

Mr TELFER: How many times have these committees met?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: The intention over time will be quarterly. They have had set-up meetings. We have had all of them in for a catch-up session in Parliament House to get a feel for what the parliament looks like. Apart from that, I think they have had two other meetings each or thereabouts, but quarterly is the intent, with very small amounts of out-of-session documentation sent through for them to work on.

Mr TELFER: What is the size of these councils as far as numbers go?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: The membership is a full complement of 12 per group.

Mr TELFER: Twelve per group, $177 per meeting, envisioned quarterly meetings.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes, thereabouts. Does it work out?

Mr TELFER: I am just taking note. How many members of those committees—I point to the disability one and the LGBTIQA+ one—are members of the Australian Labor Party?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I do not know, and I do not think we ask them.

Mr TELFER: Is there no requirement for a declaration of interest?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Are there any Liberals on there? Can you tell me?

Mr TELFER: You are the minister.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Can we share a list and have a look?

Mr TELFER: I ask the questions; you answer them.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Come on, Sam, we can have some fun. Honestly, one does not come to mind; there may be.

Mr TELFER: There is no declaration of interest process?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: They are asked to declare any conflicts of interest in terms of being shown any sensitive material, but it is apolitical. It is attached to the department. If it is not a conflict, they would not have to declare it.

Mr TELFER: Political party membership is not considered a potential conflict?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Not on that sort of council, I would think.

Mr TELFER: When they are advising on policy?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Let me tell you, if they got political, someone else in that group would call them out. I am very happy for you to come to meet with them.

Mr TELFER: Thank you. I am interested in that. You would think with a declaration of interest, a council like that would not be making decisions on things that are hyperpersonal for arrangements as far as ownerships, but political party membership is one I would have thought would be—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I do not know. I have my due diligence captain of all things to my left here. If it raised a flag, I think we would have thought about it. There are a whole range of things in life where people from the lived experience cohort in our community potentially could have a conflict of interest, I guess, but I am not sure that in this particular group, the way they are operating, that would be any different from anything else.

Mr TELFER: It is certainly not included in the terms of reference?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: No, and nothing comes to mind. Possibly there are a couple, I guess, but I would expect there is probably a couple of members of the Greens or any other of those parties. There might just be a Liberal, I do not know. They walk amongst us, Sam.

Mr TELFER: With their heads held high, minister.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Indeed, my friend.

Mr TELFER: I point to Budget Paper 3, Volume 3, page 86, under expenses, the grants and subsidies. Did the minister, her staff or office play any role in causing delays to the approvals processes for this grant?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: In terms of?

Mr TELFER: The governance and sustainability funding.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Are you talking about the latest Grants SA grant round?

Mr TELFER: Yes.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: You have led us a bum steer. Let me find it for you. What was the question again, please?

Mr TELFER: Which page do you have it under?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: You are asking at Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, pages 84 and 91, Grants SA. The question is?

Mr TELFER: Applicants for a recent round of Grants SA, the 2022-23 governance and sustainability funding round, recently received an email on 14 June 2023 from DHS Grants SA team, which reads in part, to give you the context:

The last time you heard from us it was to say that you will be informed of your application for the 2022-23 governance and sustainability funding round by the end of May. We sincerely apologise that the end of May came around without any further notification from us. We aimed for that date but were unable to get all the approvals through on time. Unfortunately there are still some tasks remaining in our approvals process.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I am with you. We had an extraordinary response to this grants round. It really showed the thirst community organisations have to improve how they deliver services and be more sustainable in the long term. This has been a grants round where we have increased the numbers of successful applicants and the money going out the door to pay some sort of homage to the quality of the applications we have. We have rolled out $1.97 million, from memory, to 64 organisations, and in order to be able to get all of that processed it did take us a few weeks longer.

We wanted people to know that it was on its way, and you will be pleased to know that this week all organisations were notified. If you had any in your electorate, I would imagine that your office has been notified of successful applicants to make sure that everyone can get out and visit all these organisations and see what they are doing. All of that is handled at department level, and then the brief is sent up to me to sign off on, which I did last week. All the approvals were done at departmental level, and then we have notified the successful applicants. I signed all the letters off.

Mr TELFER: So they are all done since the receiving of that email from people two and a bit weeks ago?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes.

Mr TELFER: Interesting. I am glad their thirst was quenched.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Indeed. It was a record number of applicants, you would be interested to know, so more money has gone out the door.

Mr TELFER: I am interested in this one actually, minister, and I will give some context.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Same line?

Mr TELFER: No, as something comparable to previous years, Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 96, Sub-program 4.2: Disability Services. In the 2021-22 estimates, minister, when you were a shadow, you named a DHS staff member who was one of the many who gave evidence to the disability royal commission. He had been an area supervisor where some incidents which had been reported publicly had taken place, and you implied that he had some responsibility for failures which led to the incidents.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Sorry, this is in disability, correct?

Mr TELFER: Yes. Do you want to save it until disability?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: We should do.

Mr TELFER: I can kick it down a little bit further, if you like.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Sorry, but it is not in this—

The CHAIR: This is on Disability Services?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes.

The CHAIR: We will be getting to that shortly. It opens at 3.15.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: You do not have long to wait.

The CHAIR: Five more minutes.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: So then I will have the different people here.

The CHAIR: You have rehearsed the question.

Mr TELFER: Yes, sure. I respect that, and there is, once again, the complication of the different aspects—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: It is complex.

Mr TELFER: —of your department. I think that one there goes to disability. Perhaps with four minutes to go on this we might read in the omnibus questions. I hope that one of my colleagues might be able to do that for me.

Mr McBRIDE: The omnibus questions are:

1. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many executive appointments have been made since 1 July 2022 and what is the annual salary and total employment cost for each position?

2. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many executive positions have been abolished since 1 July 2022 and what was the annual salary and total employment cost for each position?

3. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what has been the total cost of executive position terminations since 1 July 2022?

4. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, will the minister provide a breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors with a total estimated cost above $10,000 engaged since 1 July 2022, listing the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier, the method of appointment, the reason for the engagement and the estimated total cost of the work?

5. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, will the minister provide an estimate of the total cost to be incurred in 2023-24 for consultants and contractors and, for each case in which a consultant or contractor has already been engaged at a total estimated cost above $10,000, the name of the consultant or contractor, the method of appointment, the reason for the engagement and the total estimated cost?

6. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, will the minister advise whether it met the 1.7 per cent efficiency dividend for 2022-23 to which the government committed and, if so, how was the saving achieved?

7. For each department or agency reporting to the minister, how many surplus employees are there in June 2023, and for each surplus employee what is the title or classification of the position and the total annual employment cost?

8. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what is the number of executive staff to be cut to meet the government's commitment to reduce spending on the employment of executive staff and, for each position to be cut, its classification, total remuneration cost and the date by which the position will be cut?

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

What savings targets have been set for 2023-24 and each year of the forward estimates; and

What is the estimated FTE impact of these measures?

10. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, will the minister advise what share it is receiving of the $1.5 billion the government proposes to use over four years of uncommitted capital reserves held in the budget at the time it took office and the purpose for which this funding is being used in each case?

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

What was the actual FTE count at June 2023 and what is the projected actual FTE count for the end of each year of the forward estimates;

What is the budgeted total employment cost for each year of the forward estimates; and

How many targeted voluntary separation packages are estimated to be required to meet budget targets over the forward estimates and what is their estimated cost?

12. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how much is budgeted to be spent on goods and services for 2023-24 and for each year of the forward estimates?

13. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many FTEs are budgeted to provide communication and promotion activities in 2023-24 and each year of the forward estimates and what is their estimated employment cost?

14. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what is the total budgeted cost of government-paid advertising, including campaigns, across all mediums in 2023-24?

15. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, please provide for each individual investing expenditure project administered, the name, total estimated expenditure, actual expenditure incurred to June 2023 and budgeted expenditure for 2023-24, 2024-25 and 2025-26?

16. For each grant program or fund the minister is responsible for, please provide the following information for the 2023-24, 2024-25 and 2025-26 financial years:

Name of the program or fund;

The purpose of the program or fund;

Budgeted payments into the program or fund;

Budgeted expenditure from the program or fund; and

Details, including the value and beneficiary, or any commitments already made to be funded from the program or fund.

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

Is the agency confident that you will meet your expenditure targets in 2023-24;

Have any budget decisions been made between the delivery of the budget on 15 June 2023 and today that might impact on the numbers presented in the budget papers which we are examining today; and

Are you expecting any reallocations across your agency's budget lines during 2023-24, if so, what would be the nature of this reallocation?

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

What South Australian businesses will be used in procurement for your agency in 2023-24;

What percentage of total procurement spend for your agency does this represent; and

How does this compare to last year?

19. What protocols and monitoring systems has the department implemented to ensure that the productivity, efficiency and quality of service delivery is maintained while employees work from home?

20. What percentage of your department's budget has been allocated for the management of remote work infrastructure, including digital tools, cybersecurity and support services, and how does this compare with previous years?

21. How many procurements have been undertaken by the department this FY, how many have been awarded to interstate businesses, and how many of those were signed off by the chief executive?

22. How many contractor invoices were paid by the department directly this FY? How many and what percentage were paid within 15 days, and how many and what percentage were paid outside of 15 days?

23. How many and what percentage of staff who undertake procurement activities have undertaken training on participation policies and local industry participants this FY?

The CHAIR: Thank you, member for MacKillop, and I will make my usual comment about the omnibus questions: one day common sense will prevail and we will take this question as tabled and incorporate it into the record. It would save us all that very long question and save the poor backbenchers from having to read it out. Given the allotted time having expired, I declare the examination of the portfolio of the Department of Human Services completed.

Departmental Advisers:

Ms R. Ambler, Acting Chief Executive, Department of Human Services.

Mr D. Green, Acting Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Business Services, Department of Human Services.

Mr J. Young, Executive Director, Disability Services, Department of Human Services.

Ms S. Charlton, Executive Director, People and Performance, Department of Human Services.

Ms K. Hawkins, Executive Director, Inclusion and Reform, Department of Human Services.

Ms K. Brandon, Director, Social Inclusion, Department of Human Services.

Ms S. White, Director, Supported Independent Living, Department of Human Services.

Mr G. Myers, Principal Project Officer, Office of the Chief Executive and Governance, Department of Human Services.

Ms T. Mai, Senior Authorising Officer, Restrictive Practices Unit, Community Investment and Support, Department of Human Services.

The CHAIR: The next portfolio area is Disability Services. The minister appearing is the Minister for Human Services. I advise that the proposed payments remain open for examination. Does the minister wish to make a comment?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I think I will save us all that. I will just introduce my new officers. I have to my right Joe Young, Executive Director, Disability Services. Ruth Ambler and Daniel Green remain in place, as does Katherine Hawkins and Greg Myers. To my rear is Sarah White, Director, Supported Independent Living, Disability Services, and to my rear left is Ksharmra Brandon, Director, Social Inclusion, Inclusion and Reform. I believe Trinh Mai is still here at the rear of the plane.

The CHAIR: Thank you, minister. I call on the lead speaker, if he wishes to make a comment or if he wishes to get on with the questions.

Mr TELFER: I will go straight to questions. We will start with Agency Statements, Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 95. I will open with some questions around staff in particular. Within the disability agency, the headcount decrease from 2022-23 to 2023-24, is there any explanation around that or is that reflective of that commentary you provided earlier, minister?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I would just refer us back to that other conversation. As we transition over to be an NDIS service deliverer, things are changing. We have, through a range of targeted workforce strategies, been attempting also to attract workers to our service and retain them. I think it is fair to say that our numbers will fluctuate depending on the client mix as well within disability. We currently have 296 disability support workers and this year we have recruited 62.

Mr TELFER: Can I get an insight into what portion of staff employed are living with a disability themselves?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: We have a general departmental number, which is somewhere in the high 3 per cents, if I recall. My CE will investigate, but we can come back to that if it is any different. It is 3.7 per cent—that is in the department.

Mr TELFER: In the department as a whole?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes. I know the NDIS itself has a large disability workforce, which I believe is near 50 per cent in their department, which is quite good.

Mr TELFER: Is there a government target for this?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: To do better.

Mr TELFER: Is there a numerical percentage target that the government is—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: There is actually. We are just working on refining that. We will let you know as soon as we get there. There is just about to be one brought through, through the Office of Public Sector Employment. I think that has been much wanted as well, just if I wanted to add a comment. I know it has been asked for, for a long time.

Mr TELFER: I will jump to Budget Paper 5. I want to talk about the disability Community Visitor Scheme.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Are you sure it is in Budget Paper 5? Can I help you out? Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 96 would be a terrific reference.

Mr TELFER: Maybe I have written that down wrong. Yes, page 96—good call. We will jump back to that one. It has words and numbers, member for Elder. That is why it is challenging. That reference there is brilliant. I appreciate that, minister. It is always good to collaborate. There is a commitment each year of $450,000 until 2025-26 to extend the disability Community Visitor Scheme to improve safeguarding and oversight for people who receive disability services. What target does the government have for new visitors to join the scheme in 2022-23?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: You would understand that the community visitors operate across disability and mental health as well. I will give you some broad information about it. It is an election commitment and it is something we are working on and checking in on quite regularly in terms of our relationship across our state and federal relationships. The department is currently still awaiting the reporting of the royal commission into neglect and abuse of people with disability, and we are also now waiting on the outcome of the NDIS review more broadly.

Throughout the last year and a bit, we have been working really closely with the Quality and Safeguards Commissioner and also with the federal minister and the department in relation to the vision of the future around community visitor schemes. There are a range of community visitor schemes across the country. We are committed to delivering a Community Visitor Scheme that ensures that there are as many eyes on as can be throughout all service delivery agencies.

In terms of the current commitment and the funding of such, which is being used now to recruit and train community visitors through the Office of the Public Advocate, we will be working to currently expand that. For the period 1 July 2022 to 3 June 2023, we were expecting around 442 visits to have been completed, which is 148 to Disability Services, including as well the 261 homes and 614 disability clients.

On top of that as well, because this traverses into the Minister for Health's domain, there were 246 visits scheduled in 387 mental health units. There were 48 visits conducted to the Office of the Public Advocate, with 39 of those residing in DHS Disability Services and nine in NGO organisations. There were requests for mental health advocacy and a whole range of other domains and actions. There is no set target for the new Community Visitor Scheme when we in fact get to roll it out, but there is this really active new recruitment strategy that we are delivering on in readiness to be able to do increased visits.

Mr TELFER: You talked about the number of visits. Do you have a target for the number of visitors that you want to join the scheme?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: We have discussed this, actually, because I meet reasonably frequently with the Office of the Public Advocate, which is also the Principal Community Visitor. I do not think there has been a formal target yet. We have just been recruiting as many suitably qualified and engaged people as are putting their hands up at this particular point.

Once we do formally design the new scheme, given that we are waiting for the review federally and the royal commission to see whether or not there will be consistency around the approach nationally, we made that decision in the last six months to not proceed with doing anything different here in South Australia until we get those findings.

Mr TELFER: So you do not have a target for new visitors?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: No.

Mr TELFER: What is the current visitor number? Do you have that?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: We will take that on notice.

Mr TELFER: So we do not know the number of visitors. Hopefully we can get that, but you do not have a target for how many you want to get to?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: No. We would expect that we would be doing at least that 450 to 500 number of visits.

Mr TELFER: Is that total or is that just disability?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: No, that is total. It would depend on—

Mr TELFER: So, not increasing. It is 442—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: At least.

Mr TELFER: At least, okay.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: It will depend on the design of the new scheme. How that scheme looks in the future will depend on the review, the report from the royal commission and how the national disability ministers council works together with the federal agency to formulate this scheme. There are multiple different schemes; there are no two schemes that are alike. This is part of the issue that we will try to address. The council has met seven times since June 2022, which is probably more than it met in six years.

Mr TELFER: There certainly has been a lot of public attention in this space. I am surprised there is not more urgency.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: How do you define that?

Mr TELFER: Because last financial year was 442 and your target is starting at 450. It is certainly not an escalation number. Are you concerned that there is a risk that there could be a case like the—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Annie Smith, who passed away in her own home?

Mr TELFER: I was not going to name her, but yes, the terrible case of Annie Smith.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes, it was dreadful, and it probably kicked off all of this.

Mr TELFER: It absolutely did. This is what has given it the attention. Without a quicker escalation, are you afraid, as the minister, that there is a risk of this being replicated in other cases?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I think it is fair to say there is always a concern about adverse events when people are living with significant and complex disability, mental health and medical conditions. I think that is a fair blanket statement. There is absolutely a very urgent and very deliberate piece of work going on with the federal government and the Quality and Safeguards Commission. There has obviously been the Adult Safeguarding Unit.

There is significant investment happening into the Community Visitor Scheme, where we have been actively advertising for new visitors and recruiting for that over the last 12 months. There was $150,000 invested to review the digitisation of the volunteer training program, renewed training modules, making sure that we have the best possible service available to deliver the Community Visitor Scheme as well, and redevelop the reporting format for visits as part of a reporting and recording project. That has been trialled as well.

I think there has been an awful lot going on to make sure that the service we are able to roll out, once the report has come in federally, is going to be able to be responsive to the need. There is absolutely an enormous amount of urgent work that has been occurring across not just South Australia but Australia in regard to this.

Mr TELFER: But we are yet to see that culminate in significant increases in visitors or visits?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I think there has been an increase in visits. I do not have the number, but I understand from speaking with Anne Gale that there has been an increase in the number of visitors.

Mr TELFER: You have taken that on notice. I am happy with that.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I think honestly as well, if we consider the challenges that have been happening over the past few years—again, I do not have the numbers—but we would have lost visitors. I know volunteering broadly has lost a significant amount of people through COVID. The fear to come in contact in and out of people's homes still remains. We are still in the recovery phase.

Mr TELFER: You talked about the work that has been done at a federal level. Indeed, there have been a number of calls to implement a national community visitor scheme. Are you aware of what the attitude is of your federal colleague the Hon. Bill Shorten around the potential for a national community visitor scheme?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: There is definitely a consensus that there needs to be a national scheme. There certainly does need to be some consideration in terms of that consistent approach across jurisdictions but, again, that will be informed by the recommendations of the review and the royal commission. I understand both reports are expected in October, which will coincide with a disability reform ministerial council around the same time. October is going to be extremely busy and also will provide us with some insight into where this goes.

Mr TELFER: Are you satisfied with how long it has taken?

The CHAIR: Although the questions are worthwhile, we are floating off into a bit of a general area—the intentions of the federal government—so if we can tie it a little bit back to budget lines, that would be appreciated.

Mr TELFER: Sure, we will continue to look at page 96.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: It will inform the state piece.

Mr TELFER: Are you satisfied with how long it has taken to get to this point?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: On balance, I am a person who likes to see things happening as quickly as possible. I am very aware of the consequences of things that do not go right, but I also know that it is really important if you are looking for long-term change that you get the reform right. It is really important that we work cooperatively with our federal colleagues in terms of getting this right.

There are other regulations under the NDIS that do safeguard. There are regulations within the NDIS provision that make sure that people do not have single providers, so that there is more than one group of people coming in to provide support. There is a new NDIS participant safeguarding policy that will increase monitoring across all participants. There are a range of things going on and I think the CVS will be the icing on the cake.

Mr TELFER: Has your department provided any advice about extending the CVS into private homes?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I have not recently sought advice on that. I know there has been some advice previously offered around that. I think our view has been to say that that should be an opt-in kind of process. If people wish to have a community visitor to participate in safeguarding and visiting their private home, then they could opt in to that type of system. If I am not wrong, that is the Victorian model. I understand there are some private home visitations that occur interstate. I think that is where we have landed with that but, again, we are just waiting on the review now. The advice will come from the royal commission and the NDIS review.

Mr TELFER: So there is not any intention at the moment for the extension of the CVS program into private homes?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: As I have said, we are waiting for the review and the royal commission and are working nationally to try to get something that is as consistent as it possibly can be.

Mr TELFER: The budget summary, which refers to supporting communities, states that the Disability Community Visitor Scheme has $1.9 million over four years:

…to extend the Disability Community Visitor Scheme to ensure safeguarding oversight in government-run homes, non-government disability support services and where necessary in private homes.

Regarding that last line, within the budget, is there scope for CVS in private homes or not?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes. We are looking at it as an opt-in in the future, but we are on hold waiting for the review and the royal commission and working with federal counterparts.

Mr TELFER: So where it says 'where necessary in private homes', that should be—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: 'Where appropriate', 'where requested'.

Mr TELFER: But that structure is not in place at the moment?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: No.

Mr TELFER: It probably should not be in the line, really, because at the moment, within the structures you are talking about, it is in government-run homes but not non-government.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: We are preparing for it in anticipation if it should happen.

Mr TELFER: Has it been budgeted for?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: The $450,000 has been budgeted for since last year. It is being used for training and recruitment and building up the capacity of the community visitor workforce to be able to provide these visits.

Mr TELFER: Out of that $450,000 or the $1.9 million over four years, how much is envisioned to be for the extension into private homes?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I do not know how many people will ask.

Mr TELFER: It is potentially taking budget allocation away from the government-run homes and the like if there is a sudden influx of people wishing to opt in to the extension to private homes.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: We would have to adapt to that as well. There is a degree of flexibility and agility required in a frontline workforce that is not in any other. They are prepared to adapt and ready to adapt. There is a line in highlights that you might want to refer to on page 98 in sub-program 4.1, which says:

Increased funding for the Community Visitor Scheme in line with the government's election commitment and completed a jurisdictional scan to inform potential future models.

In simple terms, I think that says that they have had a look across all the different models, and we stand ready to implement.

Mr TELFER: I will jump back to the Agency Statement, the budget line as a whole, page 85. The net cost of services was $791 million in 2022-23. The decrease we spoke about: is that a reflection of the changing of allocation to the more national structure?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes.

Mr TELFER: In light of those changes, will there be any potential cuts to frontline services?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: No, not as a result of that.

Mr TELFER: As a result of the change in the net cost of services?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: The balance will be different. The balance will vary according to the demand. It relates to the state's payment to the national scheme, and it is a proportional payment.

Mr TELFER: Will there be a reduction in grants being issued?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Grants from or to?

Mr TELFER: From.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: From the federal government?

Mr TELFER: No; because of the change in that budget line, from the department.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: It is service delivery, not grants. Do you mean like a payment for service?

Mr TELFER: Yes; funding, like NGO funding.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I will hand you to Mr Young, who you might have met before.

Mr TELFER: Once or twice.

Mr YOUNG: That budget line is the state's contribution to the NDIS as required under the commonwealth bilateral, and within that bilateral it requires a proportional share based on population share across the country. South Australia had a reduction in the numbers in that space and therefore that payment has been reduced.

Mr TELFER: But the net impact on NGO funding will not change?

Mr YOUNG: That is the total contribution to the NDIS. They then distribute the amounts per plans that is reasonable and necessary. That is South Australia's contribution to that, and every participant in the scheme gets what is deemed reasonable and necessary from the NDIA.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I have a number for you. The $450,000 in the Community Visitor Scheme that has been put in compares with what was being put in under the previous government of $319,000, so it is a 40 per cent increase in funding to the Community Visitor Scheme and it is providing additional resourcing to recruit, retain and train. We have 35 appointed community visitors, and we are pretty sure all—but at the very minimum most—do disability visits.

Mr TELFER: So 35?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes.

Mr TELFER: But you do not have an aspirational target?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: No. Do you want to volunteer?

Mr TELFER: Time will tell whether I have time to be able to do that. I have a kind, soft heart, I am sure. Can I turn your eyes perhaps to page 95 and talk about the line for grants and subsidies, one of which is to Uniting Communities Incorporated for disability advocacy services, and noting that last year in your answer to questions there was expected to be $100,000 of that grant remaining to be acquitted in 2023-24. Can you advise the current status of this grant, the contract and funding to Uniting Communities Incorporated for this independent advocacy service?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: The first statement is that there is a huge reduction in numbers of people having to go to the tribunal to challenge their plans. That has happened since the federal Labor government came in and stopped the nonsense that was going on, so there is a huge reduction in this, although there still obviously are difficulties with some people with the plans. In the future, you will always have some people who will need some assistance, it is fair to say.

Uniting Communities did receive the $1.2 million over three years to support the advocacy required to help people access NDIS and community supports. This is run by the UC Law Centre, a separate entity to the NDIS services being provided by Uniting Communities. Is Community Legal providing that assistance? I am not sure of their current status with respect to acquittal, but this current episode of funding comes to an end in December 2023. I have not heard anything recently in regard to this, but I am sure, as is the process generally, there will be a discussion very soon because that is in about six months' time.

Mr TELFER: It will be at that point that the contract with Uniting Communities will conclude?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I do not have any information regarding that at the moment.

Mr TELFER: Not December 2023, that is when the current arrangements—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: That is current arrangements. There has been significant change to the number of people requiring assistance to go through the tribunal. I would imagine that some of this would be informed by the work being undertaken by the NDIS review, the recommendations of the royal commission and, I would expect, some of the federal policy that has changed.

I have the number in front of me: the 2022-23 October federal budget provided $21.2 million in additional funding over three years for the NDIS appeals program. That has started flowing to providers since December last year. I think we will probably do a bit of a root and branch review of all of that and see where we are at.

Mr TELFER: Do you have any insight into that decrease in utilisation you talked about? What are the numbers of—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I think it was about 30 per cent, if I remember rightly. I am happy to correct that. I am sure someone will Google it.

Mr TELFER: The decrease?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes.

Mr TELFER: What are the numbers of people using the service?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: The Uniting Community service? I do not have the most recent report of it. I can report that for six months of last year they had 115 client calls seeking general advice or assistance: 111 from metro, four from regional. Four were referred from other services. They made six referrals to other services. There were 23 successful NDIS resolutions. There were 27 legal representations on behalf of individuals lodging appeals. That was in a six-month period, I understand.

Mr TELFER: Which six-month period?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Last year, June 2022 to December 2022. For their cumulative client numbers, which was two years of data, it looks as though they had 505 clients—that is inquiries, I think, and sessions—across 382 sessions. Again, I do not want to obfuscate over things, but this is a bit like the CVS thing. At the moment there are two massive review pieces where we are a little reticent to make broad policy decision changes or decision sets without seeing what the royal commissioners are going to recommend, or the NDIS reviewers.

Mr TELFER: Do you have a process for receiving feedback from those 115 client calls?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes, I understand there are contract management reports. I definitely do not have that in my possession.

Mr TELFER: Are they periodic? Are they annual?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: We would have thought quarterly or six-monthly but, again, let's take that on notice and provide you with something that is a bit more meaningful.

Mr TELFER: Yes, I appreciate that. I need to have a full understanding of that.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Here we go—six-monthly.

Mr TELFER: Through that quarterly reporting of the contract, have there been any changes or adjustments made? Has the feedback led to something different being delivered, or is it business as usual for the service?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I have met with the team. I was really impressed by what they were able to articulate in terms of how they were offering assistance and the process, but I am not sure about any changes—not that I am aware of.

Mr TELFER: Further to the budget line I am referring to on page 95, given that the service we have just been discussing is the only one currently receiving any government support—which is different to other states in Australia—taking into consideration the Productivity Commission's 2017 costs study report, which supported a fifty-fifty split in the responsibility to fund independent disability advocacy organisations between the commonwealth and the states and territories, can you please advise the following: how does the South Australian government intend to fulfill this responsibility in the financial year 2023-24, and in the forward years of the budget to 2026-27?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Again, the review, the royal commission—there are a range of different types of advocacy services that we do fund through adult safeguarding, and the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner. At the last ministerial national council we signed off on the draft advocacy framework as well, so that is a piece, as we said, being led by the feds. Again, we do not have anything further to go on with there, just that we will be working across our jurisdictions to put in place the best possible service we can.

Mr TELFER: So you do not obviously have an insight then into what will replace the service that Uniting Communities is currently providing when the contract ends?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I do not have any information whether or not that is continuing or changing, morphing, being replaced, growing or shrinking. I have no information on that at all for you. That is most definitely something as well that we will work closely on with Simon Schrapel and all the other good roosters at Uniting Communities to make sure they are satisfied with what is going on.

The CHAIR: That was the last question. The allotted time having expired, I declare the examination of the portfolio of Disability Services completed.

Sitting suspended from 16:00 to 16:15.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr M. Buchan, Chief Executive, SA Housing Authority.

Mr N. Symons, Chief Financial Officer, SA Housing Authority.

Ms F. Curnow, Executive Director, Customer and Services, SA Housing Authority.

Mr S. Pritchard, Executive Director, People and Strategy, SA Housing Authority.

Mr M. Hayward, Executive Director, Property Services, SA Housing Authority.

Ms C. Burgess, Director, Office of the Chief Executive, SA Housing Authority.

The CHAIR: Welcome, everybody, to Estimates Committee B. The proposed payment portfolios are the South Australian Housing Authority and Affordable Housing. The minister appearing is the Minister for Human Services. I advise that the proposed payments are open for examination. Has the minister any opening comments?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: No.

The CHAIR: Excellent choice.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I will introduce my team. Is that alright?

The CHAIR: Yes, take this opportunity.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I will take the opportunity to thank the department for the exceptional work they are doing delivering generational change in public housing. I am very proud to be part of it. To my right, I have Michael Buchan, Chief Executive. To my left, I have Nick Symons, who is the Chief Financial Officer, and to his direct left we have Fiona Curnow, who is the Executive Director of Customer and Services.

To my rear, I have Shane Pritchard, Executive Director of People and Strategy. Could I mention as well Shane Pritchard's incredible job state coordinating during the floods. He did such an amazing job for the people of South Australia. It was much appreciated. Thank you very much. To my rear left, I have Mark Hayward, who is Executive Director of Property Services. In the third line, holding up the team, is Catherine Burgess, who is the Director in the Office of the Chief Executive. They are all exceptional people. Over to you, Mr Telfer.

The CHAIR: You can go straight to questions, if you do not have an opening statement.

Mr TELFER: I will make a bit of a general comment before I start, Mr Chair. Obviously, this is a complex area that we are going to unpack, and I am sure we will only touch on the edges. It is also an area which, unfortunately, has seen a bit of back and forth politically and is often used as a bit of a political football with some of the numbers that are thrown around, I am sure, by each side.

Those of us within this game will dispute some of the different aspects and some of the claims that are made, but it is very clear that the challenges for public housing at the moment are significant and there are significant challenges for public housing not just here in South Australia but across a lot of the country. We have ageing public housing stock, from my perspective, and there is a need for smart decision-making by government and efficient financial decision-making by government to ensure the taxpayer gets appropriate bang for their buck and also that the need which is within the community is appropriately met by the department.

I certainly appreciate those public servants being here today to start to be able to unpack some of these numbers that are here and for me, as opposition lead speaker, to be able to challenge the minister in some of the statements she has made and some of the aspects within the budget, so thank you very much for that opportunity.

I will lead off. I will start with some discussion around the domestic and family violence program and the dedicated beds. I think probably the best reference is right at the back of Budget Paper 5. We are looking at the Housing Authority as the reference point on page 75.

I listened with interest on the radio this morning to your discussions about how you had extended the Marshall government's successful 40-bed DFB program in the budget. This had already been allocated funding under the former government's Homelessness Prevention Fund. Further, the former government was also in the process of extending the 40 beds to 100 beds.

A media release from 6 March advises of the expansion, which had received cabinet approval and was funded at $1.1 million per annum out of its 10-year $20 million Homelessness Prevention Fund. Given that this program was approved by the previous government's cabinet before the election, why has this government decided to cut these important domestic violence beds?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: There is no cut. Our component here within housing is the asset and tenancy management component, and the Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence will do the funding of the support service, so it just sits across multiple portfolios. You will have to cobble the two together to get your value.

Mr TELFER: Right, so that funding—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: It is actually more annually.

Mr TELFER: As a fulcrum it is more, but it is interagency.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes, that is right.

Mr TELFER: Since becoming the minister, has the demand for the emergency accommodation program exceeded supply; in other words, are the hotels full to the point that people cannot get in and have to make alternative arrangements, sleeping in cars, tents and backyards—those sorts of unfortunate things?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: It is a function of what is available at any point in time. To be fair, I think we cannot look at things in isolation. We have done a review of this program, and we will be prepared to release some of those findings and recommendations and act on those actually really soon. Also, this is sitting alongside a piece of work that we are doing under the older women's housing security task force. This is also sitting alongside all the election commitments we have made in terms of building long-term, secure, safe and stable housing for people, for families, for individuals.

It is fair to say that there are, most certainly, more people who are reaching out to seek advice and support earlier in terms of the homelessness services. Those numbers are reflecting that people are very concerned with the current housing situation. I think the more that we talk about it publicly, two things: the more people will reach out earlier to get support and assistance before they fall into homelessness, as being advised to do so, but also it does shine a light on this situation, and it makes people more aware of the possibility that they may become homeless if their tenancy or their lease does not get extended.

So there are quite a lot of challenges. I think it is also fair to say that we are looking at how we change the face of the emergency accommodation programs. We have already piloted the Peppertree Place program. That is now in place—has been for six months—which is more of a supported housing-first type model, where people are not going into hotels; they are going into supported tenancies where there are I think nine units on site out there.

We are looking to change what we are doing, because we are concerned that there is often a demand that cannot be met. This is not a new thing. This has been a thing for a very long time, and it has been exponentially increasing with it being very obvious that between 2017 and 2022 there was an increase from I think it was $4 million right up to $11 million being spent annually on emergency accommodation. I cannot remember the date, and my chief will be very angry at me, but $20,000 were being spent some couple of decades ago on this, so it has become very difficult and very challenging.

Mr TELFER: You talked about that report, that piece of work, being completed really soon.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes, the emergency accommodation program review in full, I believe, has pretty much been completed now, and I am just waiting for the report.

Mr TELFER: So are you expecting that to be—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Imminent.

Mr TELFER: Imminent. Is that something that is going to be public?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes. It is actually work that has been done through the alliances. I think that is absolutely a fair question, and I look you in the eye and promise you that will be public.

Mr TELFER: Thank you. I look forward to that being tabled in parliament.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I do not think it will be tabled in parliament. I do not think there is an obligation to table in parliament.

Mr TELFER: I look forward to it being published.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I can do. I can put it in your hand or on a table.

Mr TELFER: Thank you. I will very much appreciate that. Continuing on, and once again it is probably best placed on page 75 of Budget Paper 5. This is about the Homelessness Prevention Fund. On coming into government, as minister you would have had access to over $16 million from the previous government's Homelessness Prevention Fund, which was a 10-year $20 million fund. What has happened to that funding?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: It is being used for services now when we need it, rather than parked into the ether.

Mr TELFER: Right, so it has been brought forward, and that means that in the future there is not that same fulcrum?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: No, but there is over $400-odd million being spent on housing by us and the feds.

Mr TELFER: Something that I have asked you about in parliament, and I would like to unpack a little bit more, is the Hutt St Aspire Program.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: A terrific program.

Mr TELFER: Probably. I have down here Budget Paper 1: Budget Overview, page 6, the Aspire homelessness program, one of the highlights there. There is a reference to $1.7 million for the Hutt St Aspire homelessness program. The question is that the Aspire Program is only being funded for less than 20 per cent of what they requested. What will the impact be on staff who might be attracted to work for other services due to that uncertainty of funding?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I do not have any evidence of that actually being the case. I am advised by Hutt St that they are very glad that there is certainty for their staff moving forward in terms of that being another intake. As you would be aware, an intake is four years' worth of funding for that. On top of that, we have also provided the indexation money that is going out the door and as well we have given—this is on top of the money, the half a million per year, that we already gave last year, so there is quite a significant degree of confidence in the sector, in terms of they have a government here looking after their best interests and the interests of the people who need them to be looked after.

We have also made a commitment this year to work with Hutt St, which is now again, thankfully, part of the Toward Home Alliance. Moving forward, we will look at how these, for want of a better word, case management focused, outcome focused services do get funded and are delivered going forward.

You may not be aware, but the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement is also under review by the federal government. The federal minister and the team provided a year of funding and, in partnership with the Treasurer and our government, we have said to the sector, 'We want to give you some certainty, so we will back you in for two years, even though the national agreement only has one more year to run.'

The national agreement will be up for review this year, and I will be working as part of that housing ministers' team to make sure we get the best results for the new agreement moving forward into a new world. As we know, things change. I am looking forward to being a part of that review, but our state government has provided an additional year of certainty for the sectors, which have gone through a lot of change recently, and we felt that was the right thing to do.

Mr TELFER: We understand in the opposition that the Hutt St Centre sent a letter to the Premier requesting $9.2 million as opposed to the $1.7 million which they were provided. You have obviously had the conversation with them since, that you speak about. Have you had an insight into what impacts that might have on their service or potential service without that higher level of funding that they requested?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: It is fair to say they know that we need to sit down and work out where we are going moving forward, but they are now part of the Toward Home Alliance, which under the previous government they were not. So they do have a degree of confidence moving forward that they are in the tent and they are part of the trusted service delivery model and we will be working with them to ensure a future.

Mr TELFER: At what point in time, if ever, will the government consider the larger quantum of funding which they have requested of the Premier?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I will not get the Funk and Wagnalls out and give you a history lesson, but it was birthed under the Weatherill government as a social impact bond. The pure funding model, by design, is a different model from what we would expect moving forward, so we will need to work with them on how we structure that.

Mr TELFER: In recognition of what you have been saying, do you recognise that there is a need for further reform in the homelessness and social housing sector?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes.

Mr TELFER: Is the need—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Always.

Mr TELFER: Is the reform that is needed going to need to be significant?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: It depends whether you mean significant as in meaningful and getting better outcomes or whether you mean significant as in disruptive and a lot of change that is poorly planned and is not good for the sector. The latter, no; the former, yes. I will be working with the sector, with the national housing ministers' council, and we will work to ensure that we have an outcomes-based person-centred responsive homelessness sector that I hope—I am sure all of us are on a unity ticket that we want to get people out of the cars, out of the streets, into homes.

Mr TELFER: Obviously, the outcomes are what is key in this space. The question probably is: are there significant structural reforms that you think need to happen?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I believe in the alliance structures. I believe in the idea of having a geographically aligned, tailor-made suite of service providers that can do place-based evidence-based informed service delivery. I believe they are getting to a point where they have now been settling in. It is fair to say they are still quite challenged with some of the processes but I believe that, moving forward, alliances are the way to go. I am on record criticising the rollout of them and I back that, I stand by that statement—I do not believe that was a good way to roll them out. We have spent the last year or so helping them to repair those relationships.

Mr TELFER: Are there any specific reforms that you as minister are undertaking or are championing?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Building houses.

Mr TELFER: I am talking about the—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: You cannot uncouple it. It is absolutely together. You cannot uncouple it. It is so intrinsically linked: the building of homes, the provision of homes, the working with the federal government on homes, the pipeline of homes, the affordability of homes and services to get people in them—that is the biggest reform. This will be a generational change in the delivery of public housing.

Mr TELFER: But not within the management of it, if and when those houses come on board?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: You mean tenancy support?

Mr TELFER: The structure of the management of the housing.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Do you mean like bureaucratic structure in the department?

Mr TELFER: And with NGOs.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: There are about five different things there. We believe in strong social housing partnerships across public and community housing providers. We believe in ensuring that we can provide the best possible support to tenants, as complex as many of them are, to maintain their tenancy. We do struggle, along with community housing providers, to ensure that the harmony and the amenity exists within tenancies that provide a quality of living that is what people expect. It is a challenge.

If you want to know: is there reform that is needed and being undertaken to ensure that that is happening—yes. We are philosophically driving an approach that puts the tenants at the centre of what we are doing and we are also creating a much more agile way of thinking within the Housing Authority so that they feel the permission to be innovative and also they have absolute permission to reach out to us as elected members to assist us in formulating policy that is going to change the way public housing and community housing interact with the community for years to come.

Mr TELFER: Thank you. I would like to unpack a little bit about the public housing improvement program referenced in Budget Paper 1: Budget Overview, pages 6 to 7, and also in Budget Paper 5: Budget Measures Statement, page 8, A Better Housing Future. Last year, in estimates, you stated that none of the new 400—and now 560—properties would be built through demolition of existing properties or through purchasing land. Do you stand by that statement?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Effectively, yes. I am just trying to work out whether there would be anything new to add. There are a whole range of ways that we are delivering our properties. These are not the only properties we are building. Underneath that as well there are renewal programs that are happening within our stock levels and our standard building program. What the election commitment and what the Mid-Year Budget Review and the accelerator fund from the feds and one day, if the national Liberals and the Greens stop drinking the Kool Aid on thinking that a HAFF will not work when it will, we will have more.

All of these things cumulatively together, as well as reviewing where we are from a financial position, reviewing what was estimated to be required in the future to maintain financial viability of the Housing Trust—which, shamefully, was a continued sell-off of houses—we have reviewed and changed all of that, which will give us additionality in housing in the next few years, in the hundreds and hundreds.

We are committed to using land we already have. We are committed to using land that has become available to us through land releases. We are committed to partnering with community housing providers to accelerate or increase what we are able to offer from a social housing point of view. Within the budget that we have, we do not have a budget to buy land so we are using the land that we already have. In saying that, I understand we have been able to secure some land in a regional area, but we cannot share any more on that yet.

We are looking at how we can leverage and acquire land through purchases or swaps or whatever way we can do it. The simple math of stopping 580 sales and adding the election commitment plus the Mid-Year Budget Review gave us a predicted amount of 1,144 additional homes to what was expected under the previous calibrations that were left to us by the previous government. That is very exact and precise. I am nervous with numbers that go down to the one.

Mr TELFER: Exact and precise.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes, that is very exact and precise. I hope that now—and I am confident now—with the federal accelerator money, which is $135.8 million that I proudly signed the papers for yesterday and that will appear in our bank account very soon, that will assist us through our partnership with the feds, through our hard work with the Treasurer, with the Minister for Housing and Urban Development and Planning, with the Minister for Family Business and Consumer Affairs, to work together with the Premier to deliver a vision of many more houses and more affordable rentals going forward.

Mr TELFER: I will double back to the federal Social Housing Accelerator stuff and unpack that a little bit more with you, minister. I am still concentrating on the public housing improvement program election commitment. You are highlighting that, at the moment, you are not envisioning having to purchase new land. With the demolition of existing properties out of that new 400, you are still sticking to that, that it does not need to happen to be able to achieve that new build?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: As you stated in your opening statement, there are many older homes. The average age of our Housing Trust or public housing is between 40 and 50 years old. I think the member for Giles, who is chairing this committee, would like to tell me about the many houses that are much older than that in his electorate, which I have visited several times. Some of those are mighty fine solid homes, are they not?

The CHAIR: We are all solid out there.

Mr TELFER: The ground does not move much.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: But they are not good from an electricity point of view, an energy point of view, an accessibility point of view and we want to do better. We need to do better. Member for Flinders, there will absolutely be homes that are standing that will need to be demolished. What will happen is they will become one, or two, or three homes. I guess what we have said clearly—and I will re-articulate this—is we have not said we will sell no homes. That would be foolhardy, because there are some properties that are in locations which are not near transport, not near schools, not near shops, not near the community, and not fit for purpose anymore for public housing.

They may well be in a place where a private person might want to buy a home or whatever, but if we were to sell a home, I can guarantee you that will become at least one more home somewhere else. We will at least replace it and I am guarding those proceeds. They are going straight into the build the houses bank account. We have a high level of monitoring on this and also there is a board that is watching everything we do in regard to this. There is a bit of land purchase available through some of the programs, but the PHIP did not have any budget for buying land. You can give me some if you wish.

Mr TELFER: You are the minister with the budget, so you can use it as you see fit and I will question every step of the way.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Good on you.

Mr TELFER: I am happy to note that aspect. Can you rule out using sites which had been allocated to the Affordable Homes program for that new builds promise that was made?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: The economics move and change. We have made sure that the Affordable Homes program fits within the future and the future mission of what we are doing, given the changing dynamic of the community and how the community is. We cannot say that there will not be some movement around where planned homes were going to be done for the Affordable Homes project, but now that there is more land being released, those homes may actually appear in some of those other areas and we may put public homes there.

Any opportunity for me to get a public home for either a family, a single, a couple, or whatever, in a place where there is a community of like-minded people, near a school, near the shops, near the train line—we will take it. There may be some moving around, but you will not see numbers being played with.

Mr TELFER: In the full gamut of housing, I think that the Affordable Homes program is important for new builds for people obviously to have affordable homes, as long as that is not cannibalised—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Correct.

Mr TELFER: —to try to achieve outcomes for an election commitment on new builds.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: All supply is good supply. The people on either side of me will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand there may have been an allowance in the Mid-Year Budget Review money so that we could potentially acquire some land if we so need to, but I am not 100 per cent sure. There is some allowance around that but, again, that is not our primary mission here: it is houses, houses, houses.

Mr TELFER: Do you have an insight into what you are budgeting for the current cost per dwelling for those new homes?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: It does vary. There is an average amount that you could calculate, but also it is fair to say we have been considering what built form can look like. Two bedrooms, three bedrooms, four bedrooms, single storey, townhouses, regional—they all have different costs. I think to put an average price would be skewed because a house in a more remote area with four bedrooms might cost us $700,000 or more, whereas were that house close to the CBD we could be spending $350,000 to $400,000.

Mr TELFER: But within the budget process, you would have had to have worked out an average, what you are trying to achieve with the dollars you have.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: We have not gone, 'Okay, we have $500 million'—this is just a furphy—'What can we do? We want to build 500 homes. Okay, $1 million each.' That is not how we are operating. We are saying: what do we need, where do we need it, how many can we fit and what does that look like with that? We are not saying our average spend is $450,000 so we are going to do 10 at $500,000 and 10 at $400,000. We are saying: these are the types of homes we need, this is where we need them, what can we do with what we have, and how do we go looking for more? We went looking for more and we won—because we have more.

Mr TELFER: Do you have an average? I am noticing the difference for city versus regional.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: We can provide you with some calcs on it. For example, we have just done 10 or 12 homes in Mount Gambier, and they average about—

Mr TELFER: Even the ones you have done, you do not know. That is a worry.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I am devastated. A two-bedder regionally is about $335,000 and a four-bedder is about $478,000. If we do a metro home, a two-bedder is about $271,000, so about $64,000 less. There is a significant difference between metro and regional and between product and form. This is a snapshot of one tender package.

Most recently, we have released a tender package for 103 homes. They will vary, and they will be different from the next lot, which will be 48 homes going out in August. They will be different as well because they have different locations and types. We are trying to address waiting lists, too. There is a big difference between a waiting list in Whyalla and a waiting list in metro Adelaide in terms of the mix of people, so we are trying to do it smarter.

Mr TELFER: Are the average costs that you quoted for the building only? They are not for the land?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: No, because we own the land.

Mr TELFER: It is existing land.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: We have the land.

Mr TELFER: In the election campaign promises and policies that were made, you quoted that 350 homes currently sit empty. How many have received upgrades in the time since you have been minister?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: About 70 or 80 in the PHIP so far. About 54 or thereabouts, give or take a couple, have been tenanted—51 are fully upgraded. In the next week or two, there will be another 30, so that is 80. We are already just over a quarter of the way in.

Mr TELFER: Around 80. Did you say how many were tenanted?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes, 51.

Mr TELFER: So 51 are the ones that are tenanted and the 30 additional will be—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: It might surprise you to know that other homes have become empty since then that we are now working on.

Mr TELFER: Outrageous! Within that policy position you talked about a blitz.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: The 3,000?

Mr TELFER: Yes, the 3,000.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Again, it is varying. Building homes goes out in tender blocks and builders apply. Some of that PHIP major upgrading is a similar sort of process. The blitz, through our multitrade contractor service—and I am sure it is no surprise to you that it changed. From 1 January, there was a brand-new multitrade contractor service provision model. In order to maintain doing as well as we could in terms of the other maintenance work, we have started slower with the blitz work, but that will ramp up now as the multitrade contractors are improving.

We are only down in the hundreds out of 3,000, whereas we are overperforming in the other areas. We are looking at black mould—which is a perennial—painting, insulation, air conditioning and energy efficient water pump heating as part of that as well. There has been a later start on it, but we expect to accelerate that. We will identify additionally the 950 homes per year to get those up. We will tweak our expectations. It will be done, though, do not worry.

Mr TELFER: I am not a worrier. I am just one who holds people to account. You said I might be surprised about housing that may become vacant. Do you have any idea about the current vacancy rate of public housing properties?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I do. I just so happen to have it here. As at 31 May, 237 properties were offerable and up for tenancy, which has reduced by 151 since 31 May 2022. There are lot fewer properties sitting there turning over. In 2021, at around a similar time, it was 621. So, at 30 June 2021, 621; 31 May 2022, 388; 31 May this year, 237—so a lot fewer properties are ready for tenanting, sitting vacant. There is a total vacancy, so that includes the ones not ready to tenant, maybe undergoing maintenance and what have you and also maybe in the lot that we say, 'They are rubbish. We need to do something with them.' There are only 1,495, and that is down in the last two years from 1,912.

Mr TELFER: So that 1,495 is the total, including the 237, or is it in addition to?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: No, that is the total vacant properties.

Mr TELFER: As a proportion of the total stock?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Less than 5 per cent.

Mr TELFER: I will double back to the subject matter you brought up before—the Social Housing Accelerator fund, and the reference of Budget Paper 1: Budget Overview, pages 6 and 7, the housing package with reference to the National Housing Accord. You started to unpack a little of what it might be. In relation to that $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator fund, you spoke about the $135.8  million.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes, signed yesterday.

Mr TELFER: As a percentage of federal government funding pools, South Australia usually sits around that 7 per cent.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Thereabouts.

Mr TELFER: Why are we less than that for this $135.8 million?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Because the small states—Tasmania, ACT and Northern Territory—got a guaranteed funding minimum of $50 million, no matter what their population was. That means that the remaining $1.85 billion was divided by population ratio amongst the rest of the states, so it will be slightly less than the nation's share, yes. Are you with me?

Mr TELFER: Can you unpack that a little bit more? The smaller states, including Tasmania and the Northern Territory, are actually going to be getting less than their ordinary percentage—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: No; more.

Mr TELFER: —per head of population?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: More: they have got a minimum of $50 million.

Mr TELFER: Yes, but our percentage of the $2 billion is less than 7 per cent, which we ordinarily would—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: We are getting a percentage of $1.85 billion.

Mr TELFER: Can you say that again slowly for me, and we will get our millions and billions right?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I will not do it slowly because it will sound ridiculous. The small states, irrespective of their population share per head of population, are getting a minimum of $50 million. If their population was 2 per cent—he is the money guy, right? This guy we are trusting with one job—

Mr TELFER: Out of the $2 billion.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: One job: $150 million goes to three smaller states even if they are only entitled to—

Mr TELFER: Yes, that takes us down to 1.85.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: —on a population share of $30 million. So they have $50 million each which reduces the base funding which now becomes $1.85 billion instead of $2 billion, divided per head of population amongst Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, WA and us, so we are all getting our population share of $1.85 billion, not $2 billion.

Mr TELFER: Which are the smaller states; we are not one of the smaller states?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: No, three of them: Tasmania, ACT and the Northern Territory.

Mr TELFER: Those three states are getting a higher proportion of the national—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes, because they were given a guarantee of a minimum of $50 million, so they are getting above, yes.

Mr TELFER: Why are they treated differently from the normal—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I am not the federal minister. You will have to put your—

Mr TELFER: Have you asked that question of the federal minister, perhaps?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: It is a matter for the Treasurer, I think. I am focused on what we can do with what we are getting. I am content with that amount.

Mr TELFER: You are satisfied with less than our normal pro rata?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I am satisfied with much more than you would have got, and I am satisfied with putting in more new money into housing than the previous government even dreamt of.

Mr TELFER: So you do not reckon our state has been short-changed?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: No.

Mr TELFER: Will the funding go towards the state government's public housing improvement program that we talked about earlier?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: There is a line in there somewhere that says it has to be additionality.

Mr TELFER: Additionality from the state's budget?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: We have to grow.

Mr TELFER: Or additionality from what the policy was without a budget allocation from the state? Let me unpack it a little bit. Coming into government you had a policy position that you were going to do this, this and this.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes.

Mr TELFER: You may not necessarily have had a budget allocation which sufficiently covered those amounts. The federal funding then comes in—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I think we did, but anyway.

Mr TELFER: Yes?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes.

Mr TELFER: The money that is coming in is going to be over and above the promises that were made in that 2022 election campaign.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Because when we came in we promised 400, then we managed to squeeze out 437, then we got 55.2 and then we made it into 564, and now we are getting 135.8. I have not even done the maths on that yet because I am just too excited.

Mr TELFER: I do not think even the next door—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: He is; moneybags here is, he has taken his shoes off and everything.

Mr TELFER: I do not know if he can do the calculations or not, but that is interesting to know. The federal money is going to be over and above anything that was already promised within the policy in the election campaign on the public housing improvement program.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Sorry, member for Flinders, can I just say as well, let's make sure that we are very clear: this accelerator is a social housing accelerator and the decisions are subject to our cabinet working out how these things will be done across government, and this could include community housing partnerships. In fact, we would be bonkers to not think about that because they can accelerate and have greater additionality leveraging other funding arrangements, which is why they are good to partner with. It can be used for renovations as well, so we could add to the PHIP and do some good work. In fact, I was in Ceduna last week and I am looking forward to talking about that with you at some point.

Mr TELFER: Hear, hear! You introduced the concept of the community housing sector. Is there a proportion of that 135.8 that you envision would be provided to—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I am not being funny, but these decisions are yet to be made.

Mr TELFER: You have not got to a point where you are deciding which way you are going to slice up the 135.8?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: It will be led by the Treasurer.

Mr TELFER: Sure. Have you had a mind to envisioning the process that the community housing sector might be able to engage, notwithstanding that you are not going to know the fulcrum of a dollar figure? Is it going to be a grants program? Is it going to be an expression of interest? Is it going to be—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Again, to be perfectly fair and honest, this would be a premature conversation. We have a good track record in working with our community housing providers. We assured their peak body of funding going forward last year for a period of time where that had not been the case and they had been left swinging in the breeze because we knew how important it was to have a strong community housing sector to work with going forward, knowing the policy of the Labor federal government and once that became a reality. We knew this is where they were heading: partnerships, changes, the HAFF, all of those things.

I have woken up at night dreaming about Bob the Builder and houses and all of the things. There are many ways to cut it up. I am keen to hear suggestions as well from other members. If you have any ideas, I can feed them back. But we have not made any definite decisions, so I am not going to pre-empt process either.

Mr TELFER: Thank you.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: No worries.

Mr TELFER: I certainly do not dream about Bob the Builder.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I do.

Mr TELFER: Can I turn your mind to the Affordable Housing Initiative, Budget Paper 3, Budget Statement, page 73, Capital investment programs. I am a study of Hansard and noticed on 3 December 2020, before you were minister, that you made the following contribution in a speech regarding the then Marshall Liberal government's Affordable Housing Initiative. I will quote from the Hansard:

In terms of the affordable program and its pricepoint, $400,000 is pretty high. I have an adult daughter who is on a low to middle income and there is no way she is looking to purchase a house for that price.

Further down in the speech you say:

I hope that the pricepoint is looked at…

Now that you are in place in the minister's role, you have reviewed the pricepoint upwards by some 57,500 to 479,550.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: In a market where housing itself has gone up 25 to 40 per cent, this increase is low.

Mr TELFER: Do you think that aforementioned adult daughter is more likely or less likely—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: She is still not in a home of her own actually, just so you know.

Mr TELFER: —to be able to purchase a home under the Affordable Homes program? Do you think that affordability line which you—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Obviously, the world has changed significantly since then as well. We are in a shocking state with houses and affordability. That is why there is a whole suite of measures that have been put into place, including private rental reform, increased assistance with private rental and, obviously, huge investments in public housing and social housing. All of these things are so important because housing affordability, not just here but globally, is worse.

It is terrible for people, especially young first-home buyers, and we acknowledged that in the last budget. We removed stamp duty for new first-home buyers and properties. We changed the qualification levels around this. We have done a whole range of reforms. We have a very committed team across ministerial portfolios who are delivering a huge suite of measures across housing. As I said, depending on where you are the cost of a home has gone up 25 per cent to 40 per cent or more in many areas. I am not telling you anything you do not know.

That rise—we pontificated over that, let me tell you. It is not done easily. I remember making those comments in the context of—this was all the last government was pretty much putting on the table ahead of just the standard building program. There was no will or desire to invest in increasing the public housing stock.

We are hoping to change the face of housing affordability by releasing all of this land. It is about supply, and then it is about supply, and then it is about supply. We hope to improve all of that, and then behind the scenes all my other good friends are working on jobs, the economy, all of that growth, to make people's capacity to afford better.

Mr TELFER: It is a long way to not really answer a question, but that is fine.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I liked it.

Mr TELFER: In the last 12 months do you think either yours or another fictional adult daughter is—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I beg your pardon?

Mr TELFER: I am happy to—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: She is a real adult daughter.

Mr TELFER: No, I am saying I do not need you—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: She cost me a lot of money, if she is a fictional adult daughter.

Mr TELFER: —to reflect on your own; I am saying someone in a similar circumstance.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I was going to say: she is a very expensive fable.

Mr TELFER: Someone in a similar circumstance, not referring to personal—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: You mean someone else's daughter or whatever?

Mr TELFER: Someone else—it may be. Do you think that the last 12 months has seen housing become more affordable for someone to get into the market—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: No.

Mr TELFER: —or less? So when do you see that change? You talk about supply—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I tell you what: if the Libs and the Greens federally vote for the HAFF there will be a lot more supply and things will get better.

Mr TELFER: It will be interesting.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: It really surprises me why the Coalition team is now so opposed to a futures fund when they in fact had their own. What is the change of policy, or is it just political bloody-mindedness? I do not get it.

Mr TELFER: I refer next to Budget Paper 5, the Budget Measures Statement, and the interactions of the minister's office, specifically the housing aspect and the response. As minister, how long do you think a vulnerable person should have to wait to receive a response from your office?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: You mean, like a letter?

Mr TELFER: A response, so a—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Or answering the phone?

Mr TELFER: —vulnerable person reaching out to the minister: what is your expectation, from your office, of a response?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: There are a whole range of levels of vulnerability. Are you talking about someone who is threatening self-harm, or are you talking about somebody who requires assistance with securing advice about a future rental property, or—

Mr TELFER: So your response time changes, depending on the level of vulnerability?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Absolutely. It is called triage. French word. Very meaningful.

Mr TELFER: What is the gold standard for someone who you would triage as someone who is the most vulnerable you can get? What is that response?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Immediate.

Mr TELFER: Immediate?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Immediate. Someone is threatening self-harm: immediate.

Mr TELFER: On a sliding scale: what is the extension to what you see as an acceptable level of response for someone who you say is triaged in a different way?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Member for Flinders, there are so many different options and extensions. There are some people who are responded to very quickly, because the response is able to be provided by the minister's office directly without having to go through departmental processes. There are some people who have provided other context via other means. We have some people who have reached out to different offices, so the files are all pooled together. Honestly, it is very different.

We would always endeavour to ensure that the person is connected with the homelessness services immediately, if that is what is required, and then there may be a next step to the offering of advice. Do you have a specific example that you would like to—

Mr TELFER: No, I am looking at the general response within the minister's office. Obviously, immediate is immediate.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes.

Mr TELFER: What is the full extension to what you would accept as minister for a response time?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Again, I am not being tricky or anything, my friend, but I cannot give you an answer without a specific issue.

Mr TELFER: Three days, one week, two weeks?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: All of those.

Mr TELFER: Four weeks?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: All of those.

Mr TELFER: Six weeks?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: And that.

Mr TELFER: Eight weeks?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Again.

Mr TELFER: Four months?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Depending.

Mr TELFER: Six months?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Any further bidders? Whatever is appropriate for the particular situation. We do our very best to get back to people immediately, straightaway, and, as you know, across the chamber to you.

Mr TELFER: Who does the triaging within your office?

The CHAIR: Is this related to a particular budget line?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I have no idea. We are having a great chat.

Mr TELFER: Yes. The reference before, back to page 75, Mr Chair, which is the general operations.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: We cannot find that, but we are happy to discuss this. I tell you what I do not do. I do not round people up and put them in someone's lounge room and talk to them.

Mr TELFER: Can I get an understanding into that process? You talked about a triage process. There is a process within your office by which you make the judgements on urgency and significance of vulnerability.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: And people in the office have had a level of support and training to be able to identify critical turning points in people's lives, to be able to work out whether or not these issues need to be dealt with on the spot or they have weeks to allow them. Honestly, I have trouble answering the question because someone threatening self-harm is different from someone who is—I can give you an example of a letter I received from the person formerly known as minister.

We were reached out to, to provide support for someone who was losing a rental tenancy, so we had to seek further advice on that. We went to the department. The department reached out and had a look at what was going on. The person was in a nursing home. They had been placed in a nursing home and did not require attention and support.

There is a variety of different things and responses that need to happen. It is very difficult. We appreciate all the letters we get from members, and most of the ones from members of parliament have quite a level of work that has generally been done before they come to us, so they can often be responded to quickly or sent off to the department and responded to quickly or we can respond to the individual within days to a few weeks. Some of the other ones take a lot of work to get the background because things are not always as they seem when they come straight to you, but if there is anybody whose life is at risk, my expectation is that that is immediately attended to.

Mr TELFER: With that process, is there a periodic internal review within your office to ensure that the judgements that are being made by the highly professional staff who you referred to are accurate and appropriate, or look at whether there needs to be a change to those processes?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: It would be fair to say we have those conversations regularly and our office internally also does that.

Mr TELFER: Has that led to any changes in the way you are responding or the way you are triaging potential cases?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: There is sort of a layered approach that happens as well with the department and the department officials when the request for a brief or a draft response or whatever goes through, so it does vary. I think we have a very stable team in my office, very stable, and watching those skills develop over the last 12 months has been pretty good.

Mr TELFER: We are getting closer to the end of the time, but can I refer you to the Budget Statement, Budget Paper 3, page 80, in reference to the FTEs of SAHA. We see in 2023 there is an estimate of 824.2. The 2024 estimates are 798.5, so a decrease of 25.7, and it keeps decreasing over the forward estimates.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes. We have lost a bunch of staff because the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing was cut, so that will come to an end. That was ended under the last government.

Mr TELFER: There is an increasing decrease in the FTE over the—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes, they are grant-related and capital-related programs. As we do capital programs, we might need to employ staff to manage those and deliver them, so that will change. We have grants—

Mr TELFER: Which programs are being cut to provide such a significant decrease in the FTE?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: The Affordable Homes initiative to deliver the remaining hundreds of homes will happen over the next three or four financial years and then they will stop, so that loses 15 or 20 staff. The Neighbourhood Renewal initiative is going on for another two years. That loses eight and three staff.

All of these programs that are grant-funded programs like the PHIP—we anticipate our PHIP will be finished in the financial year 2025-26 and we have 16.1 staff allocated to that. But the current PHIP finishes in 2025-26 so you lose 16 staff there. These are project funded and we do not yet have the allocation bedded in there for the $135.8 million because we have only just signed the paperwork and these papers were done in advance. So there will be a change already to the anticipated amount.

Mr TELFER: Even before it is in place.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes, so it is grant stuff.

The CHAIR: With that response, the allotted time having expired, I declare the examination of the portfolios of the South Australian Housing authority and Affordable Housing completed. The proposed payments for Administered Items from the Department of Treasury and Finance are referred to Estimates Committee A. Thank you for the very civil manner in which this was all conducted. Thank you to the public servants for all the effort leading up to estimates and for all your effort leading into the budget. Thank you very much.

Membership:

Mr Teague substituted for Mr Telfer.

Departmental Advisers:

Ms R. Ambler, Acting Chief Executive, Department of Human Services.

Mr D. Green, Acting Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Business Services, Department of Human Services.

Ms K. Hawkins, Executive Director, Inclusion and Reform, Department of Human Services.

Ms A. Reid, Executive Director, Community and Family Services, Department of Human Services.

Ms M. Fernandez, Director, Communities and Justice, Community and Family Services, Department of Human Services.

Mr G. Myers, Principal Project Officer, Office of the Chief Executive and Governance, Department of Human Services.

The CHAIR: Welcome everybody. The portfolio is Youth Services. The minister appearing is the Minister for Human Services. I advise that the proposed payments remain open for examination. I call on the minister, if she wishes, to make a statement and, if not, to introduce the advisers.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Thank you. I will not be making an opening statement. I will just welcome our team back. This team does an extraordinary job, often in very challenging circumstances. To my right I have Alex Reid, Executive Director, Community and Family Services; to my left, the Acting Chief Executive, Ruth Ambler; and to my far left, Daniel Green, who is Acting Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Business Services.

To my rear, I have Katherine Hawkins, who is the Executive Director, Inclusion and Reform; sitting to her left, Greg Myers, Principal Project Officer, Office of the Chief Executive and Governance; and in the rear here, holding up the team, is Mellanie Fernandez, the Director of Communities and Justice, Community and Family Services. It may be her first estimates with us, I think. Welcome.

The CHAIR: Does the lead speaker for the opposition have an opening statement? If not, we can go straight into questions.

Mr TEAGUE: I will go straight into questions, Mr Chair, if I may. Minister, I direct my questions to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 94. I have in mind also, for context, an answer that the minister provided to me in question time on 14 June, which might run in parallel to the line of questioning.

I am here primarily focused on FTEs as of 30 June, which is at about point 2 or 3 on the page. The bottom of the table at the top of the page sets out there the estimated result for FTEs at 329.5 for 2022-23, and the budget FTEs at 316.8, and I might say that is coming off a 2022-23 budget of 331. There are around 14.2 less FTEs than budgeted for last year, and there are about 45.2 less than the actual result in 2021-22, so I am interested to know what the reason for that is.

Mr GREEN: In terms of the first part of your question, which is the 2023-24 budget versus the 2022-23 estimated result, if I may just begin by highlighting that all of the programs in the Budget Statements have overlays or allocations of corporate overheads. That is pretty normal practice in the budget papers, to spread the cost of the corporate support in the department across all of its programs.

Some of the FTE movements and budget movements you see in the program statements do reflect changes in the composition of corporate overheads. Certainly, in the case of the youth justice program, a meaningful part of that reduction is actually the change in the level of corporate overhead FTEs, and not at all reflecting a change in anticipated frontline FTEs working in Kurlana Tapa or other parts of youth justice.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: So it is not a frontline thing.

Mr TEAGUE: If that is about moving FTEs back and forth across the department, do we see any net reduction—this is reflecting; it might have been covered earlier in other aspects of the department—or are we seeing a net FTE reduction that is expressed particularly here at that part of the table?

Mr GREEN: Again, because of the overlaying of corporate overheads, yes, there is a reduction in FTE count that relates to those corporate overheads, which is mostly driving that reduction. In some senses, you could say, yes, there is a reduction in FTE. It is just not one that is occurring or aimed at or budgeted for within the service delivery context.

There is a small number of temporarily funded positions within the 2022-23 estimated result. Some of those will have their funding renewed and the budgeted FTE will go up again as those funding arrangements are confirmed, but, yes, very much not a function of a reduction of budgeted frontline staff within that program.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Just to add to that, there is a small handful of FTE that is related to the national partnership with the Office for Women, the KIND program, a specific program, and also I think some of those temporary spots were funded as a COVID measure in order to provide additional supports in the vulnerable community there, screening for COVID and stuff like that. The KIND program is going to continue.

Mr TEAGUE: Just while we are interpreting the table, there is a footnote (a) that we will see is describing the penultimate column to the right, the 2022-23 budget figures. The note indicates that amounts may differ from the 2022-23 Agency Statements due to internal reforms and the realignment of corporate overheads across the agency. I do not know if that addresses part of what you are saying.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes, I think that is what we were just trying to articulate.

Mr TEAGUE: You have addressed it to FTE, but it appears that the note applies to all of the amounts in 2022-23 that go back over the page to page 93. Is there anything to add to what you have already said about FTEs?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: All of the budget numbers it pertains to, yes, the footnote in that column.

Mr TEAGUE: It does?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes, not just—

Mr TEAGUE: Is there anything you would like to add in terms of explanation of how that is affecting those other items in rows other than the FTEs?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: The net cost of services primarily related to the TVSPs taken across as well—employee expenses; is that correct?

Mr GREEN: In relation to the footnote and the way that the 2022-23 budget is presented in the Agency Statements, the footnote is addressing a case where either the net allocation of corporate overheads are shifted slightly or we have moved a function or a program around the Agency Statements program structure such that if you were to look at last year's budget papers you would not see the amount referenced in that column.

Mr TEAGUE: No. While we are on FTEs, and we are staying with page 94, I might just jump to the bottom of page 94. We see there, under the heading 'Activity indicators', a table of activity indicators, the last one of which is the one that I am focused on. Again, there is an answer of the minister to my question on 14 June in which the minister indicated a belief that numbers are on track to meet the Closing the Gap target. First of all, is the most convenient expression of those numbers that final line, so that they are all on the same page? The Closing the Gap target is—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes; 30 per cent. It was a Closing the Gap target—

Mr TEAGUE: It was 30 per cent by 2031.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: That is right, and there is a deal of work occurring to wrap around that. Some of it is diversion work, some of it is the tighter work we are doing with SAACCON around the delivery of the targets. There is definitely work being done nationally, being led by the Attorney-General on our behalf, in regard to raising the age of criminal responsibility and what the national flavour is around that, which will change things as well. But yes; the target is, by 2031, a 30 per cent reduction—which was set in 2021, was it?

Mr TEAGUE: Just for completeness, part of the minister's answer to me on 14 June included:

I believe we are on track to meet the Closing the Gap target of reducing Aboriginal young people in custody by 30 per cent by 2031.

Against the relevant line item, can we just pause for a minute to look at where we have actually headed, as indicated on the budget paper? We see there on the right-hand side that the actual result 2021-22 was 139. Last year—and I am getting to this year, therefore—there was, if you like, an optimistic Closing the Gap-style projection to 130. That looked like a projection—139 down to 130. The estimated result we see for 2022-23 actually turns out to be 150, so the 2021-22 to 2022-23 trajectory, whilst projected marginally down, heads up.

The reason I dwell on that is because that projection model seems to happen again in 2023-24, because you move back then to the left-hand column and you see that we have an estimated result for 2022-23 of 150 and a projection, heroically, of 140. It is a projected increase over the projection from the previous year—so you can slice it and dice it in a number of different ways. In all events, is it not an unconvincing kind of projection against the history of the last year? Now, there might be other inputs—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: It is a rate we are targeting, not an actual number. We believe we are on track to exceed this target—I think it is number 11 in the Closing the Gap targets—with the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people aged 10 to 17 in detention decreasing in a trend we were able to show from 34.7 per 10,000 in 2010-11—and I get that this is a Funk and Wagnalls journey for us—to 16.5 per 10,000 in 2020-21. That reduction was 52.4 per cent—significant—and it took a lot of hard work. We all appreciate that, and I think we are all lock step on a unity ticket on the importance of that.

There has been a year-on-year decrease since 2016-17. The rate was highest at 40.6 per 10,000 during that period, and that is a reduction now of 59.4 per cent from 2016-17 to 2020-21. That is a really good achievement. You are pointing out the predictions in the future based on some numbers here, that is where you are highlighting—

Mr TEAGUE: That is what the budget is for.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Correct, but we are still lock step in that journey that we feel given a number of measures, the model of practice, the child diversion program, a whole range of things that are going into place—and the bigger picture, which we hope is a unifying mission to close the gap—we believe we are on target still to meet that target. That is our best estimate, even given those numbers.

Mr TEAGUE: That must warm the hearts of people everywhere, but we do not find evidence for that in the budget, do we?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: No, we find evidence in the trends that are happening and the work that is being done.

Mr TEAGUE: Not to be too difficult about it, but the trends that are happening as expressed on the face of the budget are running entirely the opposite direction. The projections are similarly heroic one year to the next, but the actual results are bad and getting worse.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I will invite Alex to articulate that, because she is the person who crunches these numbers along with Mel.

Ms REID: I think in part what the comparison between the trend rate decline consistent with the Closing the Gap target 11 and the absolute numbers that you are referring to of individual young Aboriginal people suggest is that the big movement in that trend rate occurred in those earlier years from those very big numbers progressively down. That has clearly stabilised now, having achieved the trend down in the kind of numbers that the minister just spoke of. That is not to say that those absolute numbers should not continue to come down.

There are a range of initiatives and programs right across DHS in fact, but specifically within the division that I am responsible for, that are deliberately intended to bring those absolute numbers of young Aboriginal people in youth justice down. That line refers specifically to an admission to a secure youth training centre. We are also doing work in the area of community youth justice to work through diversionary programs there as well.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I would also just like to say that the prediction of us being on target is not my prediction. I can predict a lot of things based on science and what have you, but this is the Australian Productivity Commission Closing the Gap data. It is independent of us. They have no loyalty to us to demonstrate this or to give us a gee-up. Their data says that our position is improving and, as part of that, this is one of the Closing the Gap targets nationally that I believe they are confident in achieving.

Our position has been improving and we are working hard to make sure we keep that position improving. I will look forward to continuing that and I am happy to chat. I know you are going to have a visit out to Kurlana Tapa and hopefully you will be able to ask the staff about that—the second lowest jurisdiction, so we are doing very well.

Mr TEAGUE: In terms of then understanding what is or is not the minister's view, the minister must have expressed a belief based upon some sort of evidence. I am just therefore looking to unpack the source of the evidence. On one view, if you use this projection analysis, you have an actual result in 2021-22 of 139; the projection of 130 looks like it is on the way down, but the result turns out to be 150 and it is heading up. We have another projection that is going down, so 150 projected down to 140. On that basis, I think it is about a 6.7 per cent reduction projected and if you extrapolate that out you will get there by 2029—so you are well ahead of 2031—but I do not know the source of the belief and it is contrary to the evidence.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I will undertake to go and have a look at what the numbers in 2019, 2020 and 2021 were. I hesitate to draw COVID into this, but that year the occupancy in Kurlana Tapa was affected and other jurisdictions in community justice, etc., were also affected by COVID and the capacity of young people, like the rest of us, to actually get out and do their business. I will have a look at the other two years and I will come back to you with that.

Mr TEAGUE: I would be pleased—including these rates per 10,000 that have been referred to. If there is a broader trend against which this is a sort of temporary uptick, then well and good. As I say, there seems to be a danger in drawing anything from projections just based on what we have seen here and the results of the last two years.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: On the face of it, the numbers seem to not align with the commentary, but I will have a look at the numbers before this as well and then I will certainly have a chat with you about it, no problem. I can bring it back on notice.

Mr TEAGUE: The whole committee I hope might benefit equally. I am only here really serving the greater good. The situation that we are faced with in terms of FTE, and again I come back to what might be a useful reference point down the track, to the minister's answer on 14 June as well, the question of strategies that have been put in place to employ more staff and the challenges to which the minister adverted recently, there is the expression of having targeted recruitment of Aboriginal workers and doing an intake every six weeks as well with new staff. I am interested to know how that is tracking in terms of meeting those FTE objectives.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Obviously, we are looking at youth justice as a whole within the organisation within the department because it does not just serve young people in Kurlana Tapa but it also serves to support and assist young people out in the community through a range of programs, which is very important when it comes to keeping young people from entering Kurlana Tapa or under community mandates.

In the past year, I think I would have told you the numbers at that point, but the current latest numbers are 51 youth workers and youth support workers have been recruited to Kurlana Tapa and that includes 34 new youth workers and youth support workers recruited this year. That includes six new recruits who started on Monday 1 May, seven who started on 29 May and then eight who started only this week. The numbers are escalating.

The turnaround date from selection to working with young people and being in training in the workplace is about three months. It is really critical that any of this long-term investment and change—because we are not just doing recruitment and the rolling recruitment and the support, the training and also the onsite work support that is being offered to retain staff; we are stabilising the workforce by examining how many temporary positions there are, and who we can provide some confidence to and some stability to in terms of permanency. There is this three plus one step in terms of really changing the staffing and the workforce in Kurlana Tapa where the highest intensity of young person is living.

At the same time, we are working on improving the mindset, the culture and the delivery of a youth justice program that is consistent across South Australia in terms of its mission, its objectives and the way it is being delivered. We are trying to bring together a committed and consistent response that will deliver long-term benefits and positive results for young people and contribute to that Closing the Gap target.

We know, member for Heysen, that the earlier young people are in the youth justice system, the more likely they are to become recidivists in terms of criminality and criminal behaviour but also victimology. We are working very hard to improve what we are offering for young people both in Kurlana Tapa and in the community, and part of that is around the changes we have done with recruitment, retention and stabilisation of staff. I am happy to take another question.

The CHAIR: One question, yes.

Mr TEAGUE: One more, and it is just to address a topic the minister might welcome in the short time available. We are on Volume 3, page 89. We have seen as a highlight the establishment of the Youth Minister's Advisory Council. I am interested to know: has it been established, and how many meetings have these councils had?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Certainly, we have gone through the process of getting expressions of interest and selection. That has been driven and led by the department under the expert watch of executive director Katherine Hawkins and her team. We have a dozen young people who come from a variety of backgrounds. We have ensured there is diversity in that group.

They have met, I think, three times, or four times if you include a tour of parliament and a parliamentary induction, so to speak. We are now getting to a point with the young people where we have encouraged a young person to put their hand up to chair. I think we are still at that selection point. We are encouraging them to chair their own committee. We obviously have started to engage them in the consultation around the youth plan, which will be delivered on this year.

Also, we have included them now in some discussion around some legislative processes that are happening, so they are going to start casting their expert lived-experience eyes over a range of legislation and other government policies so that we are getting those voices direct to us. I would be happy, of course, for the member to meet with the advisory council as well. Perhaps when we do another tour in parliament or something, we could get a big group together to meet and talk when they are confidently doing their work. They are doing a great job.

The CHAIR: With that response, the allotted time having expired, I declare the examination of the portfolio of Youth Services completed.

Departmental Advisers:

Ms R. Ambler, Acting Chief Executive, Department of Human Services.

Mr D. Green, Acting Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Business Services, Department of Human Services.

Ms K. Hawkins, Executive Director, Inclusion and Reform, Department of Human Services.

Mr G. Myers, Principal Project Officer, Office of the Chief Executive and Governance, Department of Human Services.

The CHAIR: The next portfolio is Volunteer Service. I advise that the proposed payments remain open for examination. I call on the minister to make a statement, if she so wishes, and introduce the advisers because there has been a little bit of a change.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: It is really just a small change. We have brought Executive Director Katherine Hawkins to the front here, and we say thank you to Executive Director Alex Reid and Director Mellanie Fernandez. They have all left. They have run away and are up in the bleachers. That is really all the change that has happened. I am not making an opening statement other than to say thank you to all the amazing volunteers.

The CHAIR: Straight to questions, member for Heysen, or do you want to make a statement?

Mr TEAGUE: I think so, Chair, and I perhaps might characterise this by reference to Budget Paper 5 at page 9. We are back into measures. I am here particularly interested in those screening systems, which, from the top of the page, are described—and this is somewhat interesting—as an initiative providing $200 million over five years. Ordinarily, a five-year initiative might include a number from the previous year, whereas what we have here is a bracketed indication that $50 million out of the $200 million is to be found beyond the forward estimates for 2027-28, and we have a combination of operating expenses and investing payments for the 2023-24 budget and for estimates then going out totalling $150 million.

It is a relatively big number, even if it is $150 million—and we will take on board what might come over the end—and it is to do, clearly, a whole lot of things. Priority investments are there described below and not necessarily in order of importance. The item that is there at dot point 5 is described as upgrading the Human Services screening systems.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: Of the $150 million, let's call it, over the course of the forward estimates—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Lots!

Mr TEAGUE: —it is lots of money—there appears to be funding allocated to Human Services screening systems. Do you know how much?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: The simple answer is no.

Mr TEAGUE: That might be now, over the forward estimates or beyond the horizon in five years—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I think everything but a dollar. I will invite Ruth Ambler, who is acting in the CE role. I am sure she will give you some extraordinary insights into what we are seeking to achieve as part of that cross-government package led by Treasury. I would not like to guess as to how much the wonderful Treasurer is going to give us.

Mr TEAGUE: Maybe, while we are at it, if that is the way forward, can you give any indication as to why it is all bundled up in one? There might be some coherent reason why it is all described that way rather than as a discrete measure per agency.

Ms AMBLER: Honourable member, I probably could not speak to that. That is the way that the whole of government has wanted to structure this fund. We are very excited, though, that we are mentioned there, because we are certainly very conscious that we can do with a change to the way that we deal with customers in a much more customer-centric focus to our screening systems. At the moment we are on a reasonably old Salesforce platform, which is really built around an application process, so we do not have one single view of the customer.

We are at the moment engaged in settling a business case to put forward to this fund to identify how much money we will need over probably two years, is what we are thinking at the moment. We are going to get a customer relations management system as well as a data warehouse that will keep all the information in, and it will be a far better experience for the customer as well as much more efficient.

At the moment, in fact, we have a request for information out in the marketplace, and so we are getting some information back from potential providers of a database system. We are well on the way to understand how long it will take, the different elements that we need as part of the project and the architecture of the new system.

Mr TEAGUE: I will not ask you for a more particularised breakdown as to where you fit in year on year. I wonder whether you would be prepared to take perhaps two or three questions on notice, then, or to the extent that it is possible to answer. I might just spell them out as follows.

In terms of those, I think, five types that are undertaken by the screening unit—so there is working with children checks, NDIS worker checks, aged-care sector employment, vulnerable person related employment, general employment probity—can the minister, with the assistance of the department, provide a detailed breakdown of the number of applications and the time taken to process application for each type of check during each month over the past 24 months, including the total number of applications lodged, the median processing time, shortest process time, longest processing time?

What factors have been identified as impacting the length of time taken to process applications and, if you like, the punchline for that series of questions on notice is: how do you anticipate the digital upgrade is going to address issues to do with that response?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I can take up time reading out the numbers, but I am very happy to give you a more fulsome response. Just to say that there is a variability, obviously, in terms of timing, so there will be a range and an average in terms of how long things take because, as you know, there are some challenges when it comes to particular persons and their screening. I can tell you that in terms of our types, to give you a bit of a picture—and also remember that within that time there was a change to three-year versus five-year eligibility of screening—we will see the numbers of screening come down gradually regarding that.

In this 12-month period we had 26,356 up until 6 June for volunteers working with children, and then the other accumulative—NDIS worker check, vulnerable persons, aged care, general employment—under there was about 14,000 worth. Total volunteer screenings, 40,615, and total number of screenings, which is a product of volunteers and workers, 168,000 or thereabouts. Within a calendar month, which is the KPI, 99 per cent, so that is 166,500 screenings done within a calendar month of the receipt. Some get them back the next day. It just does depend, does it not? We can give you a report—are you happy for that?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Have we addressed that part?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Did you have another question to add to notice on that, or are you okay?

Mr TEAGUE: Happy to, in case this can be answered. I guess the reason for bundling those up and then asking how the digital upgrade might be addressing issues is that—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I think there are a couple of lines you might be able to offer in regard to that.

Ms AMBLER: I think I would be casting around to give you a clear answer on what we think the time frames would reduce to, because we are still to identify the architecture and undertake the work. But we are very confident it will reduce time frames. As part of our time frames we send off information to ACIC (Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission), and those time frames are out of our control. There will be a point at which we cannot reduce it because we still have to deal with that, but we are very confident that our up-front systems will be far more automated and a lot of that will happen without the intervention of a person, so we will be able to reduce those time frames, but I could not put a number on it as yet.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: It would be much more efficient though, I am sure.

Ms AMBLER: Absolutely it will be much more efficient.

Mr TEAGUE: I am inspired by the degree to which this is anticipated to drive such improvement. To the extent that there is a possibility to benchmark where things are now—great. Getting pack to the overall picture, this is presented as $200 million over the next five years, and DHS gets a dot point.

Ms AMBLER: I only deal with that for the screening system, but I am quite confident it will not be.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: You get one staff member for each screening to do a unique screening job for one person.

Mr TEAGUE: Let's be clear about it: it has to improve functions over government, including a place for the justice sector ICT systems, the parliamentary election system, emergency services—all sorts of things. You have seen enough to be confident already that this is the bee's knees, that this will be good.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: It is important work, and I think that is being acknowledged with the breadth of what we are looking at doing.

Mr TEAGUE: Time marches on. I might just ask, if I may, on the same budget line—so we are still in the measures and the $200 million—in terms of NDIS worker checks in particular, and noting, I think, what is acknowledged to be a worker shortage across the board in the disability sector, has there been any consideration about the options that can be applied to speed up the process of checks in that regard immediately, or is the answer going to be this ICT improvement?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: That will be the future answer. The current answer is that every measure has to be taken to ensure that the right people are working in the roles and every safeguarding opportunity is used. As you would be aware, some of it is outside of our control in terms of that national piece in terms of the screening.

There have been changes in the workforce. We occasionally flex our unit to bring additional people in if there is a demand. We have had periods of increased demand and we have had additional workforce brought in to help deal with that. For most of the year it is quite steady, but we know that at the beginning of the year there is a surge of applications and we are looking at ways to address how to manage that—how to flex up and down.

Mr TEAGUE: One particular practical matter, as I understand it, is a need to match an applicant to an employer so that you have a link from the employer and the NDIS worker-check application. In practical measures, you are including the possibility to link the employer subsequent to the application being considered?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes. We feel a new IT system will do that and provide capacity to be able to improve that. We know that there were regs put in place before we came into government that talked about working on application; for example, the psychometric testing was waived in youth justice workers. But those regs have since been revoked because of risk and concerns. It was done through COVID to try to expedite things.

Occasionally, there are changes and alterations to the process that are put in place in order to be able to do that. You commence without a screen as long as you are under supervision. Occasionally, in response to workforce shortages, we are able to do things like that, but as a long-term measure that is probably not something we would prefer to do. We would prefer to get the back end right, and I think that this process will do that.

Mr TEAGUE: I might go to Agency Statement, Volume 3, page 89 and highlights for 2022-23 and the corollary targets for 2023-24. The second point highlights the completion of a grant program for men's and women's sheds across South Australia. The first question, minister, is: how many grant applications were submitted for men's and women's sheds as part of that grant program?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: We can get you an answer to that, but I do not think I have that in front of me. Just play some hold music. It is not actually our volunteers. We will just open it now and have a quick look at it for you. I am not sure whether we have the numbers of grants. Here we go: 87 is the magical number. The English cricketers would be very scared about that, would they not?

Mr TEAGUE: They do not like all numbers the same.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I thought it was 13 off of a hundred.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, 111 they are not too keen on.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes, it was 87.

Mr TEAGUE: How many of those were approved?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Forty-two.

Mr TEAGUE: So presumably deductive works out how many were not successful.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Forty-five.

Mr TEAGUE: Do we know how many there are across South Australia?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: It is my time to shine. How many what over South Australia, sorry?

Mr TEAGUE: Do we know how many men's and women's sheds there are across the state?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: We probably do. No, I do not think I have it. This will be a significant increase. I am sure we could Google it.

Mr TEAGUE: So among those applicants there might have been a number that were applying for funds to establish, as it were?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes, absolutely. Of course, we did establish a few community sheds as part of election commitments, but it was to enhance the services as well. I have visited a number of these sheds, and I have become quite the fan.

Mr TEAGUE: And the total amount of grant funding that was provided?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Just over $600,000 in this particular round.

Mr TEAGUE: Does it continue?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: These are part of the Grants SA programs where we have worked really hard with community sectors and communities to identify targeted areas of need. We did the shed round. We have done a round that has just been announced around capacity building and governance. We are working with the community to identify how to best tailor Grants SA.

There was a significant underspend in Grants SA the year before last, I think, and that was around processing, but we have caught up. You may have heard, member for Heysen, in one of the communities section of the committee we talked about the last round, which I have just announced, which was $1.97 million worth of grants, which was given to 64 grassroots organisations—super.

Mr TEAGUE: Is that particular program going to continue next year?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Grants SA is always continuing. That is legislated out of the gaming machines revenue, so there is about $4.6 million estimated for next year, or thereabouts. That is the whole fund. We do a variety of small and medium grant rounds. This last grant round was up to $50,000. Sometimes there is up to $10,000 and there will be a lot more recipients. I am not sure if any of your constituents were successful in this last grants round but you would have received some advice from us if, indeed, they were.

Mr TEAGUE: I turn to page 89 and the final dot point on that page; it is in Volume 3 still.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I am happy to answer a question regarding it but, again, this was in the other section, but I am happy to answer because it is very important. This is about community centre funding.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes. I do not mean to—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: That is not about volunteers, although they cannot function without them, so I am happy for you to stretch it.

Mr TEAGUE: If it has been asked and answered, I will take your word for it.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: No, it has not been asked and answered.

The CHAIR: It is absolutely okay with the Chair. The Chair is very interested in hearing the answer again.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Member for Heysen, it has not been asked and answered, but the actual area for interrogation was in the other section, but please go ahead.

Mr TEAGUE: My attention is on that final dot point. The implementation of that program is said to be increasing funding for community centres, as well as redistributing around the state according to need. So the question is: how much is being allocated to implement that program?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: This program, this year and for the next eight years—it is a nine-year program—is receiving an extra $2.4 million per annum to operate and that is a substantial increase on what was being put forward. When I came in and got the briefings and started to work with our team, I was pretty concerned about the cut to community and neighbourhood funding that was baked into the future commissioning, and we have done a piece of work where we extended the contracts in the interim and redesigned the program.

This year, it will be $6.166 million to fund, which is about 40 per cent more than it was in 2021-22. So it is quite a substantial increase. I think rather than go on and on about it, what it does is it recognises that life can be very lonely for some people, life can be tough, and when times are tough for the community in general, it is inordinately tough for people who are by themselves, at a disadvantage, or facing other challenges, so we increased the funding, and it is $2.4 million extra, $6.166 million this year.

There are more centres. Not all areas that we anticipate or put up for contract have yet been allocated a provider, so we are now working across areas. If I were just to pick out one area, which I know the Chair will be absolutely delighted with, that is Port Augusta, which previously had no community centres actively funded at all, and they have an allocation for two. So we are now working with the community in Port Augusta to allocate the funding to two community centres—really needed.

The CHAIR: Whyalla was very pleased to get extra funding as well.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Very good.

Mr TEAGUE: In light of the minister's answer about need, do we have a clear view on the time frame and the key dates to get that funding applied to those centres?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes, correct. The program starts this weekend. Not all contracts have been signed and secured at this stage. We are working with community centres and neighbourhood centres to now ensure that there is a smooth transition for people from one funding model to the other, so we are working on a case-by-case basis to get this rolled out in the next few months.

Mr TEAGUE: Do we know how many community centres are going to benefit? I think you may have indicated there were some that might be yet to apply.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: So 39 have been selected from 55 community centres, but there are the first time ones that we talked about, and some of them still have to be worked through including the Murray River region, some in western Adelaide, which is an area of need and diversity. The total number is 55 and still to be finalised. So some were quite clear, some not so much.

Mr TEAGUE: And some might miss out?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: It is fair to say that some might and some have. That is a product of the commissioning process and a tender process. Competitive grants, competitive tenders often yield the best. Sometimes those that you would hope would get it do not, so it is a balance.

Mr TEAGUE: Do we know how many might be missing out?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: No, I could not be sure how many tendered and were not successful, and some have gone into consortia to do that. Some areas previously had quite high levels. You have not asked me, but I can drift into community passenger transport as well. That is another area that we have recommissioned.

There was a very teeny amount of people in receipt of a big bucket of money to provide a service, and then there were areas that had none—again, Upper Spencer Gulf area. We are trying to move the services to where people are needing it the most, and some of that means some of the people who are connected in other ways in inner suburban communities will not be funded.

Mr TEAGUE: On that, I am interested to know how much would be allocated, for example, to the Walkerville council YMCA site for their proposed upgrade.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: That is not under me. Sorry, that is not part of my bucket, thankfully.

Mr TEAGUE: Not part of the program?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: No.

The CHAIR: That is the last question. I would like to thank the minister and the member for Heysen for the civil and decent way deliberations were conducted, and once again thank all the public servants involved in preparing for today and attending today. I know how much work goes into this, so it is deeply appreciated. With those few words, the allotted time having expired, I declare the examination of the portfolio of Volunteer Service completed. The examination of the proposed payments for the Department of Human Services and the Administered Items for the Department of Human Services is adjourned until tomorrow.

At 18:16 the committee adjourned to Friday 30 June 2023 at 09:30.