Auditor-General's Report

Auditor-General's Report

In committee.

(Continued from 29 October 2015.)

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I move:

That the timetable for the consideration in committee of the report of the Auditor-General 2014-15 be amended, by postponing the examination of the Minister for Education and Child Development (Hon. S.E. Close) and the Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion (Hon. Z.L. Bettison) until after the completion of the examination of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

Motion carried.

The CHAIR: I remind members that the committee is in its normal session, so any questions have to be asked by members on their feet and all questions must be directly referenced to the Auditor-General's Report.

Mr PEDERICK: I refer to Part B page 355, primary industries, regarding purchase cards. The audit identified that in 2014-15 some staff went on extended leave while still having possession of their PIRSA purchase cards. Has the department's purchase card procedure been rectified so that this cannot continue?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I thank the member for Hammond for his question. The short answer is yes. The audit confirmed that purchase cards had not been used while the two employees were on leave which demonstrated staff were adhering to the existing controls, but it should be noted that all existing controls continue to apply to the use of purchase cards while staff are on leave. Whilst there was no inappropriate activity, PIRSA responded to the perceived higher risk raised by audit by immediately contacting the two staff members who were on maternity leave and arranging for their cards to be returned to their relevant supervisors.

PIRSA has recently put in place a process to remind supervisors of those staff who have a purchase card and have booked periods of extended leave—that is defined as 90 calendar days or greater—so that the card can be returned prior to the leave commencing. PIRSA has incorporated guidance into existing purchase card procedures for the return of purchase cards to relevant supervisors where there is a planned staff absence of greater than 90 calendar days to address the audit concern, and this will complement the existing controls.

Under existing control mechanisms PIRSA can also request the transaction limits on any given purchase card to be reduced to effectively make the purchase card inactive to mitigate the risk of inappropriate or invalid transactions should there be unplanned extended leave. I am advised PIRSA staff currently on extended leave (those who are purchase card holders) have returned their PIRSA purchase cards and do not have them in their possession. The transaction limit on their purchase cards has also been reduced for the duration of their absence. As at the end of September 2015, there were 610 purchase cards issued within PIRSA.

Mr PEDERICK: Then can you add, minister, whether under your ministry there have been any situations where a card holding staff member has had to be queried over a purchase made whilst on leave?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I am advised by PIRSA management that that has not happened.

Mr PEDERICK: I refer to page 356 and the online training program for managers. The audit identified that despite the fact that all managers are required to complete online training regarding payroll reports, 14 were yet to do so. The department responded that those 14 would complete the training by end of July 2015, so have all those 14 managers now completed the required training?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I am advised that all current PIRSA PayPoint managers, including any new managers, have now completed the online training. This was achieved by the end of July 2015 with the training designed to ensure PayPoint managers understood their responsibilities when reviewing and certifying bona fide certificates and monthly leave returns. In addition a report is being distributed every six weeks to divisional business managers to verify the ongoing accuracy of the PayPoint manager listing and to ensure all new managers have undertaken the online training as part of their induction to the role. PIRSA has also provided, again to all current PayPoint managers, updated procedures on the review of bona fide certificates and leave returns, reinforcing their responsibilities and the consistent approach of review required by all PayPoint managers. All PayPoint managers, as at 23 October, were trained.

Mr PEDERICK: Page 357, timely review of fisheries licence renewal checklist. The Auditor-General noted that the fisheries and aquaculture unit reviews licensee details and fees before licence renewals are sent out. It is noted that those reviews of the 2014-15 period were not dated, so it could not be ascertained whether they were done in a timely manner. Although the department has amended this in time for the 2015-16 renewals, how can the minister guarantee that licences have been billed accurately for the 2014-15 period?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Thanks again, member for Hammond. The audit review of controls relating to the fisheries licensing revenue area highlighted minor opportunities to improve controls. I am advised that PIRSA has already addressed the issues and strengthened the current control arrangements with updated procedures, practices and checklists. Audit identified at the time of the audit that there were some fisheries licence renewal checklists for the 2014-15 licence fees not having a date of review recorded on them, therefore the audit was unable to determine from the documentation when the review was undertaken.

I am advised there were no issues raised in relation to the accuracy of the information used for the 2014-15 licence fees. Audit acknowledged that there were other controls to assist in ensuring the licence accuracy and noted the date block included on forms for the 2015-16 licence renewal process. The process for fisheries and aquaculture staff is to review annual licence renewal invoices printed by Shared Services SA prior to the invoices being sent to the licence holders. The review ensures the licence name, licence number and invoice total agrees with the licence holder details and the primary industry information management system, which is the system used to manage fishing licence activities. This review is evidenced by the reviewing officer signing and dating the licence renewal checklist for each licence type.

Mr PEDERICK: Minister, can you give the house comfort that these reviews will be dated in the future?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Yes, I can.

Mr PEDERICK: I will go to page 358, grants and advances revenue for SARDI. The Auditor noted that debt management reports for SARDI were not distributed in a timely fashion due to staff constraints between July and December 2014. What were the staff constraints?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I am advised that one staff member was ill and another staff member left and, as noted in the audit findings, SARDI has subsequently appointed a replacement finance officer to further mitigate the risk of delays in completing scheduled tasks. SARDI has implemented a finance services checklist which is reviewed and followed up by the SARDI finance manager.

Mr PEDERICK: I refer to forestry, page 359, fraud and corruption plan and fraud register. The audit identified that the PIRSA fraud control plan did not include a requirement for the comprehensive assessment of the risk of fraud, corruption or other criminal conduct. This results in an increased risk of the department not effectively managing the prevention and risk of fraud. ICAC alleged that the former ForestrySA chief executive improperly exercised influence to benefit a company between 2013 and mid-January of last year. Has the minister or the department either been questioned or received any advice since the allegation was made about fraud and corruption management in PIRSA and how that may have affected the alleged conduct of Adrian Hatch?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: This matter is before the courts and I am not aware if I am able to provide any information on that without perhaps risking saying something that I should not say.

The CHAIR: The member for Hammond accepts that, I am sure.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: But I am happy to have a look outside of this process and get back to him, if he would like.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I do not have any legal advice on whether I can talk.

The CHAIR: The member for Hammond accepts that; that is fine.

Mr PEDERICK: The supplementary report, page 68, TVSPs, shows that there were 68.3 FTE reductions from TVSPs from November 2010 to June 2015. Have any of the former or current employees of ForestrySA who did or will transfer to OneFortyOne accepted a TVSP and, if so, at what cost?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Just bear with me and I will get the ForestrySA person to come down. Jerome Coleman is the acting CEO. The short answer is no; none of those staff who went over to OneFortyOne took a TVSP.

The CHAIR: We are moving to tourism, a quick changeover. Would you like to give the page reference and we can all scurry through to it.

Mr PEDERICK: Tourism, page 472 in Part B of the Auditor-General's Report—Absence of signed written agreements. The Attorney-General noted that a review of revenue contract management noted that there was a contract which was not signed until after the event had concluded and another occasion when an agreement was not formally documented. What was the contract that was not signed until after the event and why was it not signed on time?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: This related to one instance when the timing of the execution of a revenue contract occurred after the conclusion of the event to which it related as well as one instance of an agreement which was not formally documented. The individual responsible for this area has been spoken to and is now well aware of the South Australian Tourism Commission's requirements regarding the execution of contracts. The South Australian Tourism Commission will continue to ensure that all contracts and other agreements are in place to document arrangements and are executed in a timely manner.

The first instance relates to a contract for event sponsorship income. The contract was formally executed after the event to which it related and had concluded. All obligations under the contract were fulfilled by both parties. The SATC acknowledges the audit finding and has reinforced to the relevant staff the requirement to ensure that the SATC complies with its contract management framework and to ensure that all contracts are approved by the appropriate delegate prior to the execution of the contract.

The second instance was an agreement with the Victorian government to contribute to the SATC's costs in bringing international cycling teams to Australia. Although no formal contract was in place at the time of the audit, there was written communication agreeing to the arrangement. The SATC acknowledges the audit finding and has reinforced to the relevant staff the requirement to ensure that the SATC complies with its contract management framework and ensure that all future significant arrangements be formalised through a written contract.

The CHAIR: With your page reference number we could be ready. Your page reference number for sport? Which book are we in?

Mr WHETSTONE: Thank you for the prompt—Agency audit reports, pages 322 and 323.

The CHAIR: Part B?

Mr WHETSTONE: Part B, page 322. Given the Auditor-General's concerns about the documented procedures of administration for the sports voucher program, is there more than 0.5 of an FTE currently administering the program as originally allocated?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: At the moment, 1.5 FTEs are doing the scheme.

Mr WHETSTONE: Where has that one FTE come from? What part of the Office for Recreation and Sport is missing a full-time employee?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: We are not missing anyone; that is the good news. That person is still there just doing a different role from the one they were doing before, and the bits and pieces of the role that that person was doing before have been picked up by other existing staff members in the Office for Recreation and Sport.

Mr WHETSTONE: So, efficiency gains—well done, Paul. What measures are currently in place to ensure that sports clubs and organisations claiming vouchers for reimbursement are valid? Can you, minister, guarantee every voucher claimed so far has been validated?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: As addressed during the audit, all the provider's details in the preregistration stage are checked, such as the provider's ABN and incorporation status. Where the organisation is a private provider, their affiliation status with the relevant state sporting association is also checked. The Crown Solicitor's Office is currently determining whether access to the Child Safe Environments database can be granted to the Office for Recreation and Sport for the purpose of verifying the compliance with the Children's Protection Act 1993. If access is not granted, verifying these details will be problematic.

The Office for Recreation and Sport reported during the audit that to have officers witness more than 1,100 providers to ensure children's participation is not less than 10 weeks would be unrealistically resource intensive. It was agreed with the auditor that during the random audit of claims, where an officer contacts a parent to verify that their voucher was redeemed at a provider, a second question will be asked to verify the minimum 10-week participation criteria.

Changes to provider information—for example, bank details, etc.—in the claim system were not independently reviewed to ensure they were valid and accurate, increasing the risk of invalid or fraudulent payments. This matter was identified as a need and is included in the second phase development of the software application. In this software update, only providers will be able to alter bank account details. Officers from the department will be unable to make any changes to bank details.

Also, certain officers had access to both create providers and process payments against those providers in the claim system, increasing the risk of error and/or fraudulent transactions. Prior to audit, it was an established practice to ensure separation of duties between officers mitigating this risk. However, the audit concern is noted that technically this can still occur. This has been raised with the department's ICT department and is included in the second phase development of the software application. A number of software improvements have been approved and prioritised for further enhancement in 2015-16. However, as an interim assurance, monthly financial reconciliation reports conducted by a separate financial team contain the claim reviewer and the claim authoriser to monitor the separation of duties.

When you come up with a new scheme, you always need to tweak it and make sure that if there are any issues we can iron them out. This is why we have the Auditor go through everything. We always welcome that because they bring a different set of eyes and point out things that need improving, and that improvement is underway.

Mr WHETSTONE: I am glad to see you are on top of it, minister. Annual Report, Volume 4, pages 81-82—grants by the Office for Recreation and Sport: minister, can you provide a breakdown of the $760,000 of non-SA government grants received by the Office for Recreation and Sport in 2015?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Can you just repeat that?

Mr WHETSTONE: Can you provide a breakdown of the $760,000 non-SA government grants received by the Office for Recreation and Sport in 2015?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Is this the federal partnership?

Mr WHETSTONE: Yes.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Most of that money comes from the National Sporting Organisations and is funnelled through the South Australian Sports Institute for that high-performance level training and other costs. We are happy to get you a breakdown and provide that to you. We do not have it with us, but we are happy to send that off to you.

Mr WHETSTONE: Why is there an almost $2 million decrease in grants by the Office for Recreation and Sport from 2014 as opposed to 2015?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: That was part of the changes that we made to the community recreation and sport facilities funding from a couple of years ago and those decisions that were made, which included changes to the way we fund state-level sporting infrastructure as well, like The Pines and the Diamond down at West Beach. Things that now need state-level funding have to go through the budget process rather than having a pool of money there in the recreation and sport budget.

Mr WHETSTONE: Are you considering reinstating the $3½ million Community Recreation and Sport Facilities Program?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: We changed things around in how we spend the money, so now we have the money going into the $50 sports voucher, which we see as an important thing that was not there before. That is providing money to families for their primary school-aged students to be able to engage in club sport. As I said, if we need funding for state-level sporting infrastructure, we will still go to the budget and get that sort of money, and we have done that in the past and will continue to do that in the future. I think we still have the same level of funding. We have money coming in from the Adelaide Oval deal, so $200,000 in the first year through to $1 million by 2020, so we do have more money coming in there. We have put extra money in with the sports voucher system and we will continue to look after our sporting groups right around the state.

Mr WHETSTONE: Minister, the $200,000 funding from the Adelaide Oval still has not kicked in yet—1 July 2016.

The CHAIR: The minister is saying this does not refer directly to anything in the Auditor-General's Report.

Mr WHETSTONE: Yes it does: Volume 4, pages 81-82—grants.

The CHAIR: So you are trying to draw a bow between what?

Mr WHETSTONE: Minister, you said that the $50 voucher has been in response to the decrease of the $3.5 million Community Recreation and Sport Facilities Program. Is the $50 voucher program new money or is it money that has been cost shifted?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: This is not anything to do with the Auditor-General. The line of questioning is not actually anything to do with the Auditor-General. This is not something that the Auditor-General has gone through and picked us up on or anything like that. These are more sort of estimates questions.

Mr WHETSTONE: I beg to differ. This is Volume 4, pages 81 and 82—Grants by Office for Recreation and Sport. The question is about the grants program. You just stated that the $50 voucher program is in response to the reduction of the Community Recreation and Sport Facilities Program.

The CHAIR: So what is your question now?

Mr WHETSTONE: My question now is: now that we have an almost $2 million decrease in the grants program by the Office for Recreation and Sport, how much of that money that now goes through cabinet or goes through a different process has been made available through the state budget to support sports programs?

The CHAIR: It is up to you whether you want to answer it, apparently.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I do not think it is relevant to the Auditor-General's Report.

The CHAIR: There is a line in here about it. You have given some information on it, and it is really up to you if you want to add and answer the question.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: No, I have nothing to add to what I said before.

Mr WHETSTONE: I have one final question. There is a reduction of $2 million from the 2014 to the 2015 year in grant funding. How much of that $2 million reduction that now, as you said, goes through cabinet, and decisions are made around a different table, has been awarded to sports clubs?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: What we have done is approve $7.7 million over four years for the sports voucher program, so we are putting more money into rec and sport.

Mr WHETSTONE: One of my previous questions was: why is there an almost $2 million decrease in the grants program from 2014 to 2015? You said that you have now introduced a new $50 sports voucher program. The $3.5 million Community Recreation and Sport Facilities Program is now gone, so what I am asking you is: how much of that $3.5 million has been awarded to sport and rec clubs since the state budget, given it is now supposedly in general revenue?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: In 2013-14, we put an extra $4 million in and we cleared a lot of the rec and sport applications for improvements around the state, so that is why you have seen a decrease in that figure from that year to this year. It was an extra $4 million that had not previously been there.

Mr WHETSTONE: I know you are short for time, minister, so just a last question, which is on the Agency audit reports, page 323—Contract management for recreational and sporting facilities. Why were there no contract management arrangements for the SA Aquatic and Leisure Centre, Pines Hockey Stadium and Netball SA Stadium despite the department being responsible for those facilities?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: There were agreements in place but that was under the old DPTI structure and things have changed, so the auditor has asked for new contracts to be drawn up.

Mr WHETSTONE: The audit reports at page 323, the SA Aquatic and Leisure Centre. What was the company that undertook extra rectification works at the centre, what were the works performed and at what cost?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I might pass that one on to the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. He builds them, we fill them.

Mr WHETSTONE: How much money was paid to the contractor over the contract limits to—

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: As I said, we do not handle it. We handle the sport and recreation side. When it comes to the building and the contracts, it is my colleague.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: You can ask him that when he is up.

The CHAIR: Time has expired for the examination of this part of the report. We thank the minister, advisers and members for their help and we call on the Minister for Education. I remind everybody that the committee is in session and, as such, you need to stand to ask your questions and answer them. I ask the member for Adelaide for her first question.

Ms SANDERSON: In Part B, I am starting at page 114, the Carer Approval and Registration Manual reference, and I quote from the Auditor-General's Report:

The absence of approved policy and procedure documentation that is available for staff reference may result in inconsistent practices, the breakdown of internal controls and processing errors.

My question is: given the many and varied issues with inconsistency of service delivery and handling of children at risk, can the minister explain why the Placement Services Unit Manual of Practice 2012 and the Carer Approval and Registration Manual 2012 (now called the Carer Registration procedures) are still both in draft form and have been since 2012 and noted every year in the Auditor-General's Report?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I have just been taking advice on that. It looks like further restructures in 2014-15 have meant that these procedures are still in the process of being redeveloped. However, there are now draft versions of both documents that were provided to the Auditor-General's Department in July 2015 and I am advised that the expectation is they will be completed by 30 December 2015.

Ms SANDERSON: At page 115, regarding the insufficient supporting documentation, particularly where there are variations to agreed rates, I quote from the Auditor-General's Report:

The absence of supporting documentation, particularly for variations to agreed rates, gives rise to the risk that the rates charged were not checked prior to payment and that the amount paid was not accurate or valid.

My question is: when will the new processes be introduced to ensure invoices are checked against contracted rates before payments are made?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The previous audit did note the extensive review and emergency care invoices varying across Families SA offices, and noted that in particular there was a lack of evidence that rates invoices were verified against the agreed price schedule. DECD reissued instructions to all relevant staff, reinforcing the need to thoroughly check all emergency care payment invoices. DECD also amended the payment coversheet to include a statement for certifying that services invoiced were provided and rates charged were agreed to in the agreed price schedule.

In 2014-15, the audit noted only one instance in their sample where the amended payment coversheet was used. Some instances where invoices were stamped and signed to certify that services invoiced were provided and rates charged were agreed to the price schedule, and many instances where there was no evidence services invoiced were provided and rates charged and were agreed to the price schedule.

DECD has again reissued instructions to all relevant staff, reinforcing the need to thoroughly check all emergency care payments. DECD will review the emergency care payment processes in 2015-16, and this will include a review of the transactions queried by audit, with a view to resolving issues with those transactions, as well as using these examples to inform the new, improved processes.

Ms SANDERSON: On that same line, in that case: in 2014 the issue was identified. I think you said that then there was a coversheet that was issued and staff were told to use it, but it was only found to be used on one occasion in the total audit, which is clearly not acceptable. Now you are going to reissue the same instructions and hope that something different happens. Will somebody go back through and audit every single payment that was made to make sure that they are actually accurate? Obviously, an audit only picks up a sample, so there could be a big financial discrepancy.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will take that level of detail on notice, about how we are going to handle previous transactions.

Ms SANDERSON: Page 115 again; quoting from the Auditor-General:

Making payments prior to the execution of agreements gives rise to the risk the Department may not be able to recover part payments made where services provided do not meet the Department's expectations.

My question is: were all care and protection service agreements executed by March 2015 this year for the 2015-16 financial year as agreed previously by the department?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We want to make sure that we are accurate with our answer and we are going to take that on notice to check through.

Ms SANDERSON: Is the minister aware of the financial risk of not having signed service contracts prior to their initiation?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will take that on notice, in the sense that I want to be clear what risks we are balancing. There are of course pre-eminent concerns about making sure that children have somewhere to be, and then audit risk and financial risk needs to be taken very seriously. So, I will disentangle your question and also the Auditor's report in order to be clear about my answer.

Ms SANDERSON: Have there ever been instances where services provided did not meet the department's expectations with regard to care and protection services?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We do not have advice with us today on that, as I have the audit team, so I will bring an answer back to you.

Ms SANDERSON: When you are bringing back that answer, in the instances where you were not happy with the services provided, in which case you would need a contract in order to try to recover the money, was the government able to recover any money for services that you were not happy with?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will include that in the response that I return to the parliament with.

Ms SANDERSON: Will the minister give her guarantee that all contracts will be signed three months prior to the expiry date, which would be 31 March 2016 for the following financial year, as agreed in the Auditor-General's Report?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No, I cannot give a guarantee. It is an impossible ask that a minister guarantee that everything works the way it ought to work. I certainly am responsible for establishing processes in order for that to occur and we have audit in order to confirm whether or not that has occurred.

Mr PISONI: I refer to page 107. This refers to the CHRIS leave data. The auditor noted that a lack of policy or procedure in reviewing CHRIS payroll leave information against attendance records has resulted in inconsistent checking practices. Are you able to advise the house what the checking practices are and how many variations of the checking practices there are?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Families SA payroll operates on the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion CHRIS payroll database, so DCSI issues employee bona fide reports to Families SA managers. Audit noticed, as at 4 August 2015, 589 or 12 per cent of the bona fide reports that were due in 2014-15 were still outstanding. At 10 November 2015, there are 101 or 8 per cent of the 2014-15 bona fide reports outstanding. DCSI has implemented a report that enables Families SA to more effectively follow up outstanding bona fide certifications. Families SA finance is currently undertaking a project that will realign all employees' pay data for the CHRIS system to new functional cost centres. Once this project is finalised, the bona fide reports will have sufficient details to facilitate follow-up with Families SA managers. The 2014-15 and 2015-16 bona fide reports are being followed up as required.

Mr PISONI: On page 108 there is reference to salary overpayments. Are those salary overpayments across the Department for Education and Child Development or are they within the education department sector?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: There is a lack of clarity at this point about whether those figures refer to Valeo or to CHRIS, or which proportions, so we will take that on notice in order to disentangle that and be clear about what comes to DECD.

Mr PISONI: So, that means that you are not able to tell me whether the CHRIS reporting program is responsible for any of the overpayments?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We will add that to the question on notice to be clear.

Mr PISONI: Can you provide the average size of overpayments, and how many overpayments in that $1.97 million figure does that represent?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We will have to add that to the response that we bring back to the house.

Mr PISONI: Could you also advise the actual cost of recovery of those overpayments, the number of staff who work in that particular area, or the man or woman hours that are allocated and the dollar value?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, I am perfectly happy to add that to the response that we bring back.

Mr PISONI: I have some questions on purchase cards now, minister. My understanding is that purchase cards need to have signed agreements prior to their being issued. However, the Auditor-General points out that there are a number of purchase cards where there is no signed agreement. Can you advise the committee how many purchase cards do not have signed agreements and what was the reason for purchase cards being issued without signed agreements?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: DECD purchase card policy requires purchase cardholder applicants to complete an agreement and an acknowledgement to a PCO2 form that states that they have read and understood Treasurer's Instruction 12 and the DECD purchase card policy.

Audit identified two instances where PCO2 forms could not be located. I do not have the reason why that happened. DECD has already begun working with Shared Services SA regarding a review of retained PCO2 forms for all current cardholders. If any PCO2 forms are missing, a form will be obtained from the cardholder so that all are covered.

Mr PISONI: With respect to travel expenses on purchase cards, the auditor noted inconsistencies, such as application forms for approvals of travel not being completed before the travel or the payment for the travel. Are you able to provide to the committee, minister, the value of travel in total paid for on purchase cards and the value of travel that is purchased on those purchase cards without first gaining approval?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is correct that DECD domestic travel policy does require that prior to travel being undertaken and expenses being incurred on purchase cards approval must be sought from the relevant delegate by the completion of a Permission to Travel Form.

Audit noted instances where the travel forms were approved subsequent to travel. The cardholder involved has been contacted regarding these issues. The Finance, Accounting and Compliance Unit has developed a purchase card fact sheet highlighting key purchase card requirements as another online resource available to all employees via the DECD intranet.

I do not have the specifics of the quantum that you have asked for and therefore I will return to you with that answer.

Mr PISONI: So, you will come back to me with the value of purchases on purchase cards. Could I have that broken down into travel and entertainment expenses in particular?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes. We are able to provide that in some detail and we will do that.

Ms SANDERSON: I refer to page 118 in relation to information and communications technology and control. The Auditor-General raised a number of recommendations and was advised by the department that they were received positively and they would be completed by the end of June 2015. I am wondering if the minister could outline if the following recommendations have been undertaken within that time period: development of a formal IT strategic plan; the implementation of a business continuity plan for Families SA; finalisation of disaster recovery documentation; testing of business continuity and disaster recovery plans on a regular basis; review and endorsement of the C3MS change management procedure; formal assessment of IT risks within Families SA information management systems; consideration of the review of C3MS or Families SA information management services in the 15-16 departmental internal audit plan; implementation of a formal process for a periodic review of the C3MS user access; and development of a formal process for timely notification of employee terminations to the user support team.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am aware that this work is being undertaken but because you have asked such a degree of complexity or detail of each of those points in the recommendations, I will return with an answer on each of those for you.

Mr PISONI: I refer to page 121 and expenses. The first dot point indicates that the auditor noted a $5.9 million decrease in minor works and maintenance expenditure. Are you able to advise the reason for the decrease and when the decisions were made about decreasing the expenditure on minor works and maintenance?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The $5.9 million reduction is due to $3.7 million reduction in expenditure from 13-14 on ICT equipment relating to EduConnect, Digital Education Revolution, universal preschool access and Families SA; $2.7 million reduction in minor work costs in schools with many trade training centre constructions now complete; and $0.3 million reduction in other minor equipment, mainly with high expenditure within Families SA on furniture, partly offset by a $0.8 million increase in other minor works and maintenance costs.

Mr PISONI: On page 122 there is a reference to income. The first dot point notes a $335 million increase in commonwealth revenue and notes that revenues from the South Australian government have decreased by $231 million. Are you able to detail that $231 million decrease and where that money has not gone, or perhaps what areas that decrease has affected?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am advised that this is a matter of an accounting classification that came into being with the mirror, which means that money that had to come into the department that had been defined as appropriation is now defined as coming from the commonwealth, so the two balance each other. That's the largest part. There will be some other ons and offs, but that is the explanation for the lion's share of why it looks like more money has come in from the federal government and less from the state.

The CHAIR: Member for Unley, we still have five minutes to go.

Mr PISONI: Thank you very much. Can I take you to the financial report, page 94.

The CHAIR: Page 94 of the?

Mr PISONI: Of the same volume, I believe it is. My question relates to the lease payments that are itemised. Are you able to advise the house how much of the leasing payments were to Pinnacle Education for the six named super schools? While you are doing that, could you also advise whether any additional payments had been made over and above the agreed payment schedule, whether that be for a variation to the contract either caused by the government or by Pinnacle Education?

The CHAIR: Can you just check, member for Unley, what book you are actually in? We cannot find it.

Mr PISONI: It is the appendix in Volume 2.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, some of the finances that you are talking about that are referred to on page 94 are used for lease payments, but I will have to take on notice your question about whether there has been any beyond the expected agreed to amount.

Mr PISONI: I would like to take you to page 116, family day care expenditure. The Auditor found problems with an excessive online banking limit for the family day care bank account. This is an ongoing problem and the Auditor has previously cautioned with regard to minimising risk of exposure to incorrect and fraudulent transactions. We know there has been quite a bit in the media this year about fraudulent transactions within the family day care sector. There was an example of a family day care officer with CommBiz access who ceased employment but whose access was not deactivated so could still access the account, from what I understand from the Auditor-General's comments.

I read with disbelief that the Auditor had previously found the department had not set a limit for the CommBiz FDC bank account, meaning that its default limit of $99,999,999 was the set limit and that even after 2014-15 the limit was only lowered to $5 million, still over eight times the highest to date weekly payment of $610,000. If authorisation control has been circumvented, your department and the taxpayer would have been exposed to some very serious value on fraud. What has the minister done to contain any risk of fraud in a family day care centre since being made aware of fraudulent activities earlier in the year?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is the case that the 2014-15 audit noted that weekly payments identified that the highest weekly FDC payment for the year to date was $610,000. So DECD acknowledged that in the previous online banking system with Westpac Corporate Online the daily transaction limit was $650,000. On 19 June 2015 DECD requested that the daily transaction limit be amended to $650,000. The daily banking transaction limits have been enabled in the CommBiz online banking system effective 23 June 2015.

Mr PISONI: On page 75, Other revenues: can the minister detail what those other revenues are?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: A lot of that revenue is school related and because currently we do not have a system that consistently logs all the individual transactions at a school level—which will be changed as we roll out the new education management system—we will give you what we have, including what we have at the head office level. However, it will not be in a great deal of detail at the school into revenue interaction; that will improve once we get the education management system in place.

Mr PISONI: So how do you know what the value is?

The CHAIR: This is your supplementary to your last question.

Mr PISONI: Yes, if I may.

The CHAIR: It was very generous already.

Mr PISONI: How do you know what the value is if you are relying on schools to report it?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Because annually we collect the information from the schools about the extent of revenue. I am just indicating that when we come back with an answer for you it may not be to the degree of detail that you are looking for school by school, but we will provide what we have and as best we can.

The CHAIR: The time having expired, I thank the minister and her advisers. I call on the Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion and all those other things to get her advisers down ready to commence the examination of the Auditor-General's Report. Who is going to be leading the questions over here? If you give us a page number we will get ready for you.

Ms SANDERSON: Page 421, Part B: Agency audit reports.

The CHAIR: I remind everybody that the committee is in its normal session so any questions have to be asked by members on their feet and all questions must be directly referenced to a page in the Auditor-General's Report. Page 421, Part B: Agency audit reports, and the member for Adelaide is going to commence the questions.

Ms SANDERSON: My question refers to the household occupancy declaration (HOD) that has now been replaced with the household occupancy survey (HOS). The revised HOS only requires tenants to respond to the survey if there is a change in household occupancy whereas the previous HOD required a response from every tenant regarding occupancy and income changes, and a 'no response' promoted a full rent to be applied. My question is: how many respondents are there now compared to how many respondent changes were recorded under the HOD system? Can the minister estimate the loss of rental income due to the change in the system?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I thank the member for her question. Yes, that is correct: we did implement a new housing occupancy survey, which was different. Obviously we are looking to be efficient and effective and, therefore, we looked at a different system. I am afraid that I do not have the details of the differences in the numbers. I will have to take that on notice.

Ms SANDERSON: How much money was saved in administration by those changes in the survey?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: My apologies to the member: I do not have that detail at hand. I will have to take that on notice.

Ms SANDERSON: Is there an audit process to check for differences? So, if one year there were 1,000 people who registered changes under the compulsory situation and now that it is not compulsory you might only have 500, will someone audit why there was a significant change to make sure no errors have been made?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: One of the concerns raised by the Auditor is about the processes implemented to investigate potential over-claimed or overpaid rental subsidies, which goes to the heart of the housing occupancy issue. If people do not respond and we find that they have not declared people, we have the opportunity to revert to full rent. We often get referrals from rent assessment officers who have advised of an extra person or a significant increase in income. What we need to do, though, is review the functions of the compliance and collection team, which has been raised in the audit, and that review is scheduled for completion in early 2016.

We will develop a more efficient and targeted referral system, which will also include the consideration of risk assessment strategies to identify and prioritise cases for investigation. Tenancies rent has reverted to full rent due to failing or refusing to provide proof of income, and it prioritises low risk as they are already paying the market rent. I take it quite seriously. You may recall in the past that we had an amnesty and raised with people that they must declare who is there, and the onus is on them to do that.

I think one of the things we need to look at is not only the back pay but that someone might be able to leave. As you know, nearly 80 per cent of our tenants have ongoing leases. I think we should consider the fact that they may need to go back onto probation or a fixed term lease if they are not declaring. We need to look at the tools that are out there, increase our compliance, and then be far more serious about tenants making sure they contact us if there is a change to their occupancy or their income level.

Ms SANDERSON: For those who are paying full rent, who obviously can afford to pay full rent, is there any procedure or policy in place whereby you would approach them about going into the private rental market, given the 22,000 people on the waiting list?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Our strong belief in our welfare system is that when people need us we are there and they can come into our system. We then think that after they get their act together and are hopefully employed and doing things, they will go back out. The reality is that only 12 per cent of our tenants are on market rent. More than 80 per cent receive Centrelink income. Obviously we would like to see them transition out of that particularly if they have an ongoing lease and have an agreement with us to do so. One of the things that I would like to talk to them about is purchasing the home, and we have seen that happen in the past. They need to make that decision for themselves, about whether it is time to move on.

Ms SANDERSON: I refer to page 422, regarding PRA, that is, private rental assistance. Has a liquid assets test been implemented as part of the eligibility criteria for PRA assistance as indicated in the Auditor-General's Report, and, if it has not, when will it?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Obviously, when the Auditor looked at the private rental assistance scheme, he identified a few different issues. We are looking at the integrity of the property owners, the PropertyAssist database, the bonds claim by the landlord—we need to match that up—and also, as you have raised here, we are looking at a process to calculate a customer's capacity to contribute to part of a bond, and at this stage this is not routinely assessed or required by PRAP guidelines.

Obviously, there is an assessment to see what that person's income is, but what the auditor has proposed to us is we look at other assets that they have. The processes are underway to develop a new PRAP ICT system, and this will enhance our ability to address these issues. We want to use the PropertyAssist database to decrease the risk of fraudulent payments, and in January 2015 an audit was conducted to ensure service delivery staff have access to this database.

We currently have a 90-day project on housing assistance equity which will, amongst other objectives, look at the potential changes to the PRAP. As I have raised in the house before, we now see that the private rental support that we provide is equally as important and an equal part of Housing SA's work. We obviously have the more than 40,000 houses, but we also provide a significant amount of private rental assistance through bonds and rents in advance and rents in arrears.

Ms SANDERSON: Just following on from that, I know the Auditor-General referred to liquid assets, which would be bank accounts and any financial investments that can be easily turned into cash. Is there regularly a check of property? So, would real estate that would be registered be checked for eligibility?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: In regard to the private rental assistance database, this is where we have identified that the customer service officers have not always consistently verified the integrity of property owners using the PropertyAssist database. That is something we have worked through with those customer service officers to make sure that that is implemented every time that we do that. The other area where we have done that is obviously for Housing SA tenants who obviously own property. We have gone through the PORT process looking at those people, approaching them to say, 'You know that your tenancy agreement states very clearly that you cannot be a private property owner.'

Obviously, we take into consideration at all times if this is an issue of domestic violence: is there an inability for that person to get that money? Often we support them or provide them with linkages to the legal advice that they can get to maybe take their name off that title, or to force the sale or a payout of that facility. We have taken this PORT quite seriously. The Property Ownership Review Team is looking at people, we remind people of their obligations, and we do an investigation into that.

Ms SANDERSON: What does the minister plan to do to stop tenants who continually lose their bonds under the PRAP system, and will you investigate limiting the number of times serial defaulters can abuse the system?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I have spoken about this publicly. First of all, I think we should be very clear: when we look at the top 10 people who have utilised multiple bonds, many of them have been escaping domestic violence or have severe mental health issues. What we have put in to support people there is a risk identification tool. So, when you come in for a bond (the private rental assistance), we go through with you what else is happening in your life and what you are doing there.

Some of the things with the bonds is you have someone who might to come to us who is experiencing homelessness or the verge of homelessness. We might support them with a bond to go into a caravan park initially, and then they might move to go into a boarding house that will also require a bond. Then they might be able to move into, as category 1, Housing SA, so then they are moving through the system. Obviously, they do not pay a bond to Housing SA, but if they move to community housing, they do.

We see now in debt that the debt for PRAP for non-tenants is higher than the debt for tenants, and this is a great concern of mine. I am doing a 90-day project looking at PRAP and the equity of PRAP but, at the same time, I am doing an internal assessment about debt within the department. That is looking at Housing SA tenants and non-tenants' debts, because people do have to pay back their bond if they fail it. At the moment, 70 per cent of people are paying back that bond, or I should say not paying it back but not actually having to use that bond up.

We are going through different scenarios. We are looking at why people have used those bonds. We want to verify from the landlord that there is an issue here, so we are taking this quite seriously. As far as putting a cap on it goes, at this stage, I am not prepared to say that because we need to put the person at the heart of this. What is going on in their life? More importantly, does this person need not only wraparound services but perhaps to go into either community housing or the homelessness support housing, maybe even domestic violence, where we can have that intensive case management.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Auditor-General's Report Part B, page 74. You tempted me, minister. I was not going to ask questions on CASIS, but you tempted me, so I will just ask a couple here, then we will go on to the new system of COLIN. It says on page 74 that 'the total calculated value of overpayments was $1.39 million (GST exclusive)'. This was as at June 2015.

Can you advise the committee what the current level of overpayments were under CASIS and what you are doing to recover that money? There is $184,506 that has been recovered. You are getting some crown law advice, so can you tell the committee what that advice has said, without breaching legal privilege, obviously, what the current level of overpayments is and what you are doing to recover that?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: We obviously spoke about this last year in relation to CASIS and the way it works. Currently, the records are held in CARTS (the concessions and rebate tracking system). The understanding was that CASIS would provide one entry and that would help resolve this issue.

I will go specifically to the overpayment in regard to energy. When we spoke, we had identified through the system 5,173 of 206,200 records that were provided by energy retailers. This is a shared issue with the energy retailers. They had provided concession without our verification, so this is a shared issue with them.

Dr McFetridge: So, it's their fault.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I am not saying it is their fault: it is a shared issue. The energy retailers wrote to people twice, and we went through a scenario where we identified some who were eligible and some who were ineligible. We can seek to do those calculated overpayments, and that is the $1.39 million that we look at. As you pointed out, $184,506 has been recovered, but when we extrapolate those who we know have been given the concession but, at this stage, the energy retailer has not provided us with the detail of when they started providing energy and how long they have had that concession provided to them, that is outstanding. Obviously, we endeavour through our data matching and what we have looked at—and we work with the Auditor-General's office to do this—to continue to seek out that money.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Minister, how much is out there now? Is it the $1.39 million or is it more than that? Has more been recovered? When do you expect to recover that money, or are you just going to write it off?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: That is not my intention at all. At the moment, the calculated overpayment is $1.39 million and, obviously, $184,500 has been recovered but, with our extrapolation of those who we do not have the data for, up to $2.59 million could be recovered.

Dr McFETRIDGE: So, $2.6 million is out there, and we have got back $184,000. Moving on to the reconciliation of payments according to client records, it says at the bottom of page 74 that 'the Department undertook a manual reconciliation process to match payments to eligibility requirements'. Is that the 5,000 people or however many you said, minister, who were owing money?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: In 2014-15 the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion undertook a manual reconciliation process to match the payments to eligibility requirements. During that year the department implemented a semi-automated reconciliation process undertaken on each payment invoice submitted to energy retailers. What this enables is reconciliation down to customer records held by the department and energy retailer records to verify eligibility and to identify any anomalies.

Payments to energy retailers are made on the basis of reconciling departmental records and energy retailer claims. This satisfies the concerns expressed by the Auditor-General in relation to energy retailers.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I have one last question before I hand back to the member for Adelaide. I refer to the Cost of Living Information System, COLIN—and let's hope that COLIN is a nice bloke because CASIS certainly turned out to be a disaster. The Cost of Living Information System does not seem to be getting that information out to constituents at the moment.

A lot of constituents have contacted my office because they are concerned that they will not be getting the Cost of Living Concession even though they have applied—and I understand that is quite an arduous form; there are pages and pages to fill out—but they have not heard back from the department and they cannot get through on the information line.

I understand that 140,000 initial constituents are on the list who are potential recipients. How many have applied, minister, how many have got cheques and how long will they have to wait before they get their cheques under COLIN?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: We will get those details for you. Obviously, COLIN is a system and the Cost of Living Concession will provide the proof of concept for that business case to go forward. If we talk about COLC (Cost of Living Concession) we remind ourselves why it was necessary for the state government to step in here.

The federal government and Joe Hockey, the former treasurer, ripped up the national partnership on certain concessions—no discussion, no debate, $30 million. Obviously, you may recall that we ran quite a significant campaign asking for that money to be reinstated. That was not the case. Then we made a decision that we would support those low-income earners and pensioners in South Australia and that we would give them choice, and that is the Cost of Living Concession.

Now, more than 140,000 people received cheques at the end of September. Those people did not need to apply because they previously received the council rates concession. The people who have needed to apply are those people who may have changed property or who have now become a pensioner from that last year; and also, for the first time, we extended this support to tenants who received $100, but they had to apply and that had to happen by 31 October.

Now, 140,623 people have been paid by cheque already. We have also received 55,000 new applications to date. Home owners who were eligible are now being paid through EFT, but those who did not receive it is a very small percent, and tenants will be paid by electronic funds transfer by the end of March 2016.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Just to finish off, minister, I cannot let you get away with the Joe Hockey excuse because it was this government that failed to negotiate with the Rudd/Gillard governments for homelessness, palliative care and this concessions one. So, it was your Premier who failed to lock them in.

The CHAIR: Order! This is—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

Dr McFETRIDGE: What's this noise. There's some noise in the background there.

The CHAIR: Order!

Dr McFETRIDGE: This is what happened.

The CHAIR: Member for Morphett, this is my noise and I am asking you to get back to the question.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Thank you, I take your direction there, Chair. Minister, you have sent out 140,000 cheques and then you expect people to give you the detail after the fact. That sounds an unusual way of dealing with taxpayers' money?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Actually, 103,000 people have sent back this verification form. Let me go back. People who previously received the council rate concession were eligible for this cheque. They did not need to do anything, so we paid it to them. We paid it to an individual based on their eligibility as low income or as a pensioner and verified that through our system (usually through Centrelink, obviously), and someone who had previously received a concession. That is how we paid those 140,000 people with a cheque.

The verification is going forward because, obviously, it is more efficient and effective if we can do an electronic funds transfer, and we ask them for their details for that. We also ask them to sign a waiver for their privacy to be accepted, for us to deal with Centrelink. I do know that there is the belief out there that, because we are government, we can get information from any other government and also within our own state government without asking people, and that is not necessarily the case, and 103,000 people have sent back that verification form and that will enable us next year to do an electronic funds transfer of $200.

Ms SANDERSON: Is the $100 cost of living payment to renters included in the Housing SA income, and is it paid to Housing SA tenants?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: In fact, the commonwealth government passed an amendment to the legislation to make sure that was not counted as income.

Ms SANDERSON: On page 426, regarding council rates, what is the minister doing to ensure that both council rates and water rates are authorised for payment before disbursement occurs? Apparently, the procedure was to be developed in the first quarter, which ended in September 2014 (I am just wondering if that has been done), and does that include water rate recovery?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I have been informed that minister Rau (Minister for Housing and Urban Development) is now responsible for council rates, so it is best to direct that question to him. With regard to water rates, can you reiterate your question?

Ms SANDERSON: It is regarding the calculation of the water rates, but I can go on further. Is there a checking system in place to notice large jumps in water bills which may indicate leaks or issues that should be investigated, or does the minister have to wait until enough people complain, as they have at Manitoba in Adelaide, where the water bills have doubled without anything being done about it?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Obviously, the issue raised by the Auditor-General related to controls for processing water rates expenditure and recovering water rates from tenants. As you may be aware, Housing SA is billed directly by SA Water, so we then pass that cost on to the tenants. Particularly in those areas of shared water meters, we pay the first 30 per cent. Obviously, we went through a process some time ago of putting in new water meters, and we continue to work with tenants.

If there is an issue at Manitoba, obviously I encourage the member to write to me, or those residents. They should be raising it through maintenance. If there is a water leak, usually you can see it physically. If there is not and there is a concern, we will always look into that when the situation has occurred previously. Particularly when we are dividing up the cost of water, I know that it can be quite controversial for people because there are different tenant cohorts living in homes: you might have one person in one unit and a family of four in the next unit. It is an area of concern. We do our best, by paying the first 30 per cent, to ensure that those people are paying the minimum amount.

Ms SANDERSON: Just to let the minister know, we have written to your office regarding the issues at Manitoba, and I calculated for the 42 units that it would be the equivalent of $10,000 worth of water in three months, and I would have thought anyone paying the accounts would have noticed that would be quite obviously an error and worthy of being looked into.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I am happy to take that on notice and come back to you. Obviously, I am not a water expert—I pay my own water bill, obviously—but that does sound high. My concern would be how that is divided up and perhaps what other locations are nearby, and that is the issue there. I will take that on notice.

Ms SANDERSON: On page 429, has it always been a condition that Housing SA tenants do not own property and, if not, when did it become policy?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: It is my understanding that this has been a longstanding part of the condition of tenancy. Obviously, our property ownership review team is looking at much more detail and going through and investigating the issues there. I do not know if there was a certain time when that began for property ownership.

We have a range of controls, including checking SAILIS (the South Australian Integrated Land Information System), which is property records, and we look at that at various customer contact points; the requirement that tenants sign a declaration regarding any properties owned; and, also, we send a reminder to tenants of their obligations on rent letters and in household occupancy survey forms.

Ms SANDERSON: Given that this has been a longstanding policy, why has it taken 13 years for the government to take action on this?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I have been the minister for 18 months. In my time, the Property Ownership Review Team has been established, and we take it very seriously. I think we have investigated more than 300 different situations; I think maybe 15 people have now departed, and three are about to. Obviously, we give people the chance to explain: why is this something they have not raised before; are there extenuating circumstances as to why they have not declared this; and what are their options to go forward? But I do not have that date as to when it was implemented.

Ms SANDERSON: For the 22 already identified as not eligible, how many of these were paying below market rent, and will they be required to pay back all of the rent subsidies they received whilst in breach?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I do not have that detail with me; I will have to take that on notice.

Ms SANDERSON: Page 429—Information and communications technology and control. Given Housing SA has identified that the mainframe technology tools supporting Housing SA's key systems will not be commercially supported beyond December 2015, what is the minister doing about this, and how much money has been allocated?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: With the division of Housing SA and responsibilities, minister Rau now takes carriage of this area.

Ms SANDERSON: Back to 422, then, regarding the PRAP system, what is the total loss of bonds and the total number of bonds lost to tenant defaults on private rentals? Not those just moving to another home where they get the bond back and then they re-use the bond somewhere else, but those who have lost the bond.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Member for Adelaide, you were asking how many?

Ms SANDERSON: How many, and what that value is—the value of them.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: My understanding, in the latest advice I have, is that 70 per cent have their full bond at the moment. We have worked quite well to bring that up. Of that 30 per cent, it is not likely that it is the whole bond that was taken; it might be a part bond. I do not have those figures in front of me, so we will have to come back to you with that.

Dr McFETRIDGE: On the same reference as the member for Adelaide has been using: minister, with the cost of maintaining Housing Trust houses escalating and the various contractors that are being used by the government to maintain these houses, is there an obligation on those contractors to notify of any concerns with child welfare, families in distress, or cases of houses being trashed? Are they followed up? How many reports have you had in the last 12 months?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Obviously there is reference to the multi-trade contractors in the Auditor-General's Report, but not on this specific issue. Whenever any person enters a Housing SA property and they are a contractor of ours, that is something we take on notice and of concern. We have been part of the Multi Agency Protection Service (MAPS), and we have had a particular focus on those under five.

Our concern is that, once a child enters a school system, they tend to be seen by other people, but often children under five—we would expect that a multi-trade contractor, upon seeing there were issues in the home, would report that. My understanding is that is something that is part of our contract with them, but I will have to get you the details.

The CHAIR: We have run out of time. That concludes the examination of the Auditor-General's Report. Thank you, everyone.