Auditor-General's Report

Auditor-General's Report

In committee.

(Continued from 30 October 2024.)

The CHAIR: I declare the examination of the Report of the Auditor-General 2023-24 open. I remind members that the committee is in normal session. Any questions have to be asked by members on their feet and all questions must be directly referenced to the Auditor-General's 2023-24 Report and Agency Statements for the year ending 2023-24, as published on the Auditor-General's website, and the Update to the Annual Report, as tabled in this house on 15 October. I welcome the Minister for Veterans Affairs and the member for Hammond.

Mr PEDERICK: I refer to page 10, objectives and programs, program 3, Veterans SA. Has Veterans SA provided the minister with a response to the findings of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am very happy to answer that question. I thank the member for that being the first government question. Yes, I received the final report; that, of course, came not directly from Veterans SA but directly from the secretariat of the royal commission. I can advise the member that subsequent to receiving the report, the commonwealth acted quickly, and we have held a subsequent face-to-face Veterans' Ministerial Council meeting.

It is, in broad summary, an incredibly detailed piece of work. I will use this opportunity to thank all the commissioners and, more importantly, recognise the bravery of families and survivors who participated in the royal commission. This is a story that must be told. It is also a part of our service history that we cannot forget, ignore or not act upon.

The commonwealth has advised states, and I believe the commonwealth is on the public record on this, that it will be formulating its response by the conclusion of this calendar year. There are, I think—and I am happy to perhaps take on notice the final number—seven or eight of the recommendations which have some interplay with state agencies. The majority of the relationships between those recommendations and the state are not with Veterans SA, they are with agencies like education, health and DSD, particularly with workforce and industry policy. We will be undertaking that body of work once the commonwealth has determined its final response to the recommendations.

There is, at a broad level, nothing in the recommendations that relates to the South Australian jurisdiction or state jurisdictions which should not see support from the state, but, of course, the formulation of our response will be in collaboration with the commonwealth, which is leading this important project.

Mr PEDERICK: In response to that question, will the state government collaborate with the federal government, and also your other state agencies, on delivering the 122 recommendations from the royal commission into defence and veteran suicide?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Yes, we will. It is critical. I will note that the conversations that I have had with the federal minister as well as the briefings that I have received from Veterans SA with respect to their engagement with their federal counterparts has been a commitment from the commonwealth to work with the states, and the commonwealth has South Australia's assurance that we will work with the commonwealth. The member's question regarding other states, of course, those other states—

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Yes, other state agencies, absolutely; we will be. As is already happening, Veterans SA—as it has been—is working with the Attorney-General's Royal Commission Response Unit, working across other government agencies. This is a whole-of-government effort and a whole-of-government response will be required.

Mr PEDERICK: How many applications were received for the 80^th anniversary of the end of World War II grant?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am happy to take that question on notice. It may actually be for brevity that I will bring the number back before the conclusion of our examinations.

Mr PEDERICK: Given the significance of the occasion, will Veterans SA offer another round of the 80^th anniversary of the end of World War II grant?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: In respect of the 80^th anniversary commemoration fund, I am advised that the design of the fund and the way that the round has opened has been to facilitate applications and grant funding agreements to take place leading into and for the 80^th anniversary. So the fund itself, rather than doing it after the fact or post the event, it has been designed by Veterans SA to roll through ahead of time. As for the ongoing commemoration fund, that is the ANZAC Day Commemoration Fund which I can advise the member is baked in and ongoing.

Mr PEDERICK: I refer to page 15, the advisory board, council and employees. Regarding the Veterans' Advisory Council, what are the key issues the Veterans' Advisory Council has discussed and informed the minister about over the last six months?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I can provide some advice to the member for Hammond. Again, I preface this by acknowledging that some of this advice was provided to the previous minister and some of it has been provided to me. Broadly across the financial year—matters specifically to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, definitions of ex-service organisations, veterans identify, particularly with respect to government services. One really important matter, which was important for the former minister—and again, I will take this opportunity to both acknowledge and congratulate the former minister's leadership—is Veterans' Families Day, which was inaugurated on 15 May, the first in the country, and one that I am quite dedicated to working on with the other states and my colleagues to see it roll out nationally.

There has also been specific work and engagement, which I do thank the VAC for in respect of their ongoing support and collaboration with events and engagements that Veterans SA run. As the member knows, the Veterans SA resource within the public sector is modest in terms of individuals. All of those individuals do an outstanding job. I again use this opportunity to thank them, including Ms Wheeler who is accompanying me today. It is the collaborative approach between the VAC, members of the VAC and Veterans SA that I am most impressed by, and I thank them for that collaborative approach.

Mr WHETSTONE: Moving on to the Department for Trade and Investment at Part C on page 436, can you explain the $10 million increase in supplies and services compared with the 2023 year?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I could take some time in answering that or I could, more appropriately, refer the member to the next examination. These are matters within the housing side of the report. I understand Minister Champion is up next so those variances are in relation to the housing side and planning side.

Mr WHETSTONE: Can you answer why there were no other expenses this year, yet there was a $17 million expense in 2023?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Perhaps the member can refer specifically to the item. If I can endeavour to get that information—

Mr WHETSTONE: Part C, page 436.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised that that is a planning matter. I will endeavour to take that on notice. I also will ask my DHUD adviser here, Mr Reynolds, if he can seek that information ahead of the next examination so as to be able to provide that information within the session today.

Mr WHETSTONE: Same reference point: the Department for Trade and Investment assets increased by $29 million, with $19 million attributed to the SAILIS titling database. How is the other $10 million accounted for?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Likewise, as part of the total response to the member that I undertake to take on notice, I will provide that to him. He did refer to the $17 million, including the re-evaluation of SAILIS, that does go largely to my answer to his previous question, but I will provide a fulsome answer on the record.

Mr WHETSTONE: The SAILIS titling database: when was that database last evaluated and what was its value?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: SAILIS is a Lands Titles Office asset. Again, I will try to be as best and helpful as I can here. The Minister for Planning is up next. This is a planning matter and I would invite the member to ask that—we are lucky that we do have Mr Reynolds here who will be accompanying the Minister for Planning in the next session. So you have the question on notice half an hour ahead of time as well.

Mr WHETSTONE: Significant transactions, the Department for Trade and Investment financial statement, page 15: why were 28 per cent of grants paid to South Australian government entities? Can you break down the $3.488 million worth of payments made to DIT and SA Water?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: The first part of the member's question I will take on notice again. That seems to be, to the best advice that I have received, largely focused on the part of the agency which is not under my ministerial responsibility. As for the question in respect of DIT and water, I am advised that that is office accommodation.

Mr WHETSTONE: TradeStart, regarding the financial statement at page 17: the paragraph reads that $163,000 was received in 2024 for TradeStart but the table lists $287,000, so where is the other $124,000 from?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I thank the member for his question. I am advised that the discrepancy is around invoice and timing. As noted in table 2.3, that is commonwealth contribution to the TradeStart program, where the commonwealth and government of South Australia have entered into a contract to fund fifty-fifty, so the table to which the member refers is the commonwealth contribution, and the variance or discrepancy, as I am advised, is in relation to the invoicing—sorry, not invoicing, the timing of payments.

Mr WHETSTONE: Can you give me a better understanding as to why Austrade funding to the department decreased by over 70 per cent compared to the previous year: 2023, $582,000; 2024, $163,000?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I can, by both referring to the answer that I just gave the member in respect to the variance being around the payments as opposed to any change in the contract. The contract is fifty-fifty, but to be very explicit for the member, there is no decrease in commonwealth contribution.

Mr WHETSTONE: Will the state government seek commonwealth support to continue delivering the TradeStart services beyond 2024?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I can do much better than that, I can actually inform the member that we have signed a new contract. We have locked it in and it is ongoing. One of the first things I did upon becoming minister was to ensure that we sought some longevity to what has been a program that has been well received, and that exporters and primary producers I have met with have spoken in resounding support for it, so we will not need to advocate for it anymore. We have locked it in by way of a new contract.

Again, the conversations that I understand have occurred within the last financial year, from a departmental perspective but also on an ongoing basis between my department and Austrade, have been incredibly fruitful and incredibly successful.

Just today I met with the director of trade for Austrade and he raised with me the appreciation that he has for the support that the program receives from the Department of State Development.

Mr WHETSTONE: Regarding contracts with SA and non-SA businesses, financial statement, page 26, how many contracts does the department have with non-SA businesses, and who are they?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Within the contracts awarded as the member has asked, of the 4 per cent which are with non-South Australian entities, I do not have the number outside the 4 per cent. I will of course endeavour to get that figure for you.

Mr WHETSTONE: Grants and subsidies, financial statement, page 26: why have the government's investment subsidies decreased by $3.8 million?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised, and can advise the member, that there has been no material decrease in the program delivery or funding for those. The variance is in large part due to, again, the payment of invoices. These are quite large individual programs. I am also advised that the 2023 figure that the member refers to was impacted by previous year carryovers as well, which has inflated the number.

Mr WHETSTONE: In the financial statement on page 34 it is stated that there was an error made in the 2022-23 revaluation of the data service concession. That resulted in an adjustment of $8.678 million. What were the impacts of that mistake?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Outside of the fact that I can advise the member this is another matter related to the SAILIS system, I again invite the member to direct that planning question to the planning minister.

Mr WHETSTONE: Moving on to the financial statement on page 1, why was there a $302,000 decrease in commonwealth-sourced grants and funding for the department compared with the 2023 year?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I can advise that the member has already asked me the question, and I hope I gave him a fulsome answer. That is the TradeStart funding and the TradeStart payments to the commonwealth. Table 2.3 on page 17, about which the member asked me a question a couple of moments ago, is the same data.

Mr WHETSTONE: With cash assets, the financial statement on page 2, can you explain the $16 million increase in cash and cash-equivalent assets?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised that the variance the member asks for is largely as a result of levels of appropriation, incomings and timings of commonwealth payments and, most materially, transactions through Land Services SA and the Lands Titles Office.

Mr WHETSTONE: If I can go back a step, on page 437 of Part C, why have payments into the Consolidated Account increased by $42 million over the last year?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I can advise the member, with the limited information that I have, that it is Lands Titles Office transactions. So it is payments in and then out into Consolidated, but it is transactions that relate to Land Services SA and LTO.

Mr WHETSTONE: The overlay certainly does not make it all that fluent, but it is what it is. On page 14, the Department for Trade and Investment spent five and a half million dollars less than budgeted on grants and subsidies. Have any of the grants been cut?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: The positive news for the member is no, no programs or grants have been cut. Again, due to the nature of a number of these grant funding programs there is always a timing and a sequencing of payments in support of either grants or other programs. In fact, contrary to programs being cut, there has been a considerable increase in this year's state budget in respect of key programs that the government runs. Of course, those key programs are around attracting investment as well as building export capability and capacity for local businesses, many of which reside in the wonderful electorate of Chaffey.

Mr WHETSTONE: For clarification, there was five and a half million dollars less spent than was budgeted. Can you give me a better understanding of why there was five and a half million dollars less spent?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: The member has put the question as being an underspend against budget. There has been no reduction in overall payments contained or attached to a contract or attached to a grant program or attached to individual support. The chief executive advises me that a large body of these payments are paid upon the completion or attainment of a milestone, be it a construction milestone or a performance milestone.

This is across multiple programs within Trade and Investment as well as within the now D-hub. These are always paid upon milestones. The department budgets at the start of the year seeking to do the best they can to see the project proponents meet those milestones, but of course if they do not then the department will not facilitate the payment until such time as they do.

Mr WHETSTONE: I think the department is a lesser. No disrespect to the current CE, but the former CE of the department I think has done an outstanding job and I just want to put that on the record.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I can also say the same and not just because he is sitting in front of you and next to me, but I thank Mr Reynolds for his stewardship and service and guidance. Of course, he has a body of work before him now with his new minister of whom I know the member for Chaffey enjoys calling 'the super minister'. He is a super minister and a super gentleman. I thank him and also acknowledge the really important policy-driven MoG that has been undertaken through the Department of State Development. The new chief executive, Adam Reid, is doing an outstanding job.

Mr TELFER: I will cast the minister's attention to the Electoral Commission of South Australia report. The separate article from the Auditor-General on page 10 speaks about council elections. Has the minister received a report from the Electoral Commissioner on the November 2022 council elections?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Whilst the containment of those Auditor-General's statements, those full reports, are of course for the relevant minister, I can confirm to the member that I have not received the report. The Electoral Commissioner has been somewhat busy. Of course, with the recent resignation of the member for Black, or the former member for Black under most—

Mr Telfer interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Flinders, you have asked a question.

Mr Telfer: It was about council elections. He is talking about Black.

The CHAIR: Member for Flinders, you don't wish to depart, do you?

Mr Telfer: Not at all, sir. I am hoping he answers the question.

The CHAIR: Right, okay.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I could sit down or I could try to continue without interjections.

The CHAIR: You can continue without interjections.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: The Electoral Commissioner has not provided me or furnished me with the report. Again, there is not any great outrage or confected outrage here. The member opposite is seeking to impugn the work and the independence of the Electoral Commissioner. I am simply seeking to proffer—

Mr Telfer: Sir—

The CHAIR: Member for Flinders, resume your seat.

Mr Telfer: Sir, can I just—

The CHAIR: No, resume your seat. You have interjected. You will listen to the minister without interruption from this point onwards or I will ask you to leave the chamber.

Mr Telfer: Can I have a point of order, sir?

The CHAIR: No, I don't want to hear it.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I think the member's question was in relation to a body of work that is being undertaken by the independent Electoral Commissioner. I am simply seeking to put on the record some of those reasons why the Electoral Commissioner may have been busy—in fact, has been busy. With the upcoming Black by-election—I am not sure if it was on the radar of those opposite; it certainly was not on our radar that it was coming around any time soon—the Electoral Commissioner has been busy.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Members on my left!

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: The good news is that pretty soon the by-election will have come and gone, and the electorate and people and voters of Black will finally get a member who is representing their interests and we can move on.

Mr Telfer: Sir, can I raise a point of order, please?

The CHAIR: You can raise a point of order, yes.

Mr TELFER: Can I ask that the minister withdraw and apologise for his false accusations that I am somehow trying to impugn the reputation of the Electoral Commissioner? It is an outrageous statement from the minister and one which I was trying to bring to your attention at the time.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: It is always a matter for relativity, and the test for the member feeling offence is of course one for him, so I am happy to withdraw and apologise.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: I do not need the advice of people on my left, thanks very much. I also remind members that the Electoral Commissioner is also involved in the redistribution at the moment, so he has other things on his plate as well.

We have a new minister. I just remind members that the committee is in normal session. Any questions have to be asked by members on their feet and all questions must be directly referenced to the Auditor-General's 2023-24 Report and Agency Statements for the year ending 2023-24, as published on the Auditor-General's website, and the Update to the Annual Report, as tabled in this house on 15 October. I welcome the Minister for Health and Wellbeing, the leader and the member for Frome. The floor is yours.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Annual Report, Executive Summary, Agency Outcomes, SA Health, page 17. I note that the Auditor-General noted a $956 million overspend by SA Health, an 11.5 per cent overspend for the second year in a row. My question to the minister is: how did the minister manage to underestimate demand so significantly once again this year?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I thank the member for his question. Obviously, health is an area of expenditure which is highly impacted by the demand that we face, whereas there are other areas of government where costs are much more fixed. We are impacted in terms of both the number of patients that we will see but also the complexity of the patients that we see. That complexity significantly impacts us in terms of their length of stay, in terms of the surgical interventions that might need to take place, all of which leads to additional costs.

Health services across Australia are funded on the basis of activity-based funding, and that certainly has been in place in South Australia for some time. Estimates are made in terms of activity units. They are called NWAU, which is National Weighted Activity Units, each of which has an assigned price that is determined by the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority. That then flows through the state budget process, through both a relevant activity budget and also block-funded services that each of the health services deliver that cannot be estimated through that activity basis.

It is certainly one of the areas that we are seeking to reform through the current negotiations underway in terms of the National Health Reform Agreement in trying to address some of those areas that are not activity-based funding in that block to make sure that they can be activity-based funded in the future. One of those key examples is virtual care, where we are doing a lot more services clearly now as well.

All of those matters lead to that estimation of the budget that the Leader of the Opposition has asked about. Clearly, as the Auditor-General notes both in this report but also the subsequent report that he tabled this week, this is not something new. Over the past decade, including in the four years that the member for Hartley sat in the Liberal government, there has clearly been overspending in terms of the health budget based on the activity that we are seeing in our health services and the cost of delivering those services.

We certainly have made very clear our government's intention to prioritise health expenditure, to make sure that we can deliver services that people need across the state. A very significant proportion of the money we spend on health goes directly to employee salaries—doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, paramedics and other staff in our health services providing those services. One of the factors in terms of the expenditure, as noted by the Auditor-General, is that increase in staff that we have employed.

To meet the budget, if that is what the leader wants to achieve, that would obviously involve a reduction in those frontline healthcare staff across the system. That is something that this government is certainly not advocating. It is not our policy, and we are determined to make sure that we can meet the healthcare needs of South Australians in our state.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Minister, what were the unexpected issues that arose that resulted in that almost $1 billion budget blowout?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Thank you for the question, member for Hartley. Of the money that the Auditor-General notes, the vast majority of that was approved budget expenditure, particularly through the Mid-Year Budget Review or other cabinet decisions that were made. Of the $956 million, it is primarily attributable to approved budget adjustments, so these are approved matters that went through the appropriate processes, of $627 million. The vast majority of that was for $492 million, which was for addressing the pressures experienced for activity and costs, such as workforce, patient requirements, supplies and services. I will list some of the other areas of additional budget expenditure that were approved:

timing of expenditure associated with upgrading residential aged-care facilities, $18.5 million;

realignment of depreciation expenditure to align the fixed asset register at Northern Adelaide Local Health Network and Women's and Children's Health Network, $16.5 million;

increased interest expenses associated with the Royal Adelaide Hospital, $13.5 million;

increased expenditure associated with the provision of Aged Care Assessment Program, $13.4 million;

increased expenditure associated with the essential vaccines national partnership agreement, $11.3 million;

increased expenditure and associated commonwealth revenue for provision of patient care and services related to veterans' affairs, $10.6 million; and

increased expenditure and associated commonwealth expenditure revenue for the extension of South Australia's participation in the national partnership on public dental services for adults, $9.4 million.

In addition to that, there are a whole range of other items that were approved of smaller amounts, which I can go into if there is interest in doing so.

In addition, DHW consolidated position was adversely impacted by the following accounting adjustments associated with provision movements, including:

insurance revaluation provision movement, $69 million;

employee-related leave revaluation provision movement, primarily long service leave, $58 million; and

workers compensation revaluation provision movement, $25 million.

Breaking down that $956 million, it breaks down to salaries and wages—so our staff, particularly frontline staff—of $365 million, and supplies and services of $516 million. The expenditure in salaries and wages reflects higher than originally budgeted FTE employed across the health system in 2023-24 of 2,186 full-time equivalent staff, primarily located in our local health networks. Clearly, such a significant area of our expenditure is in terms of that additional 2,000 staff above what was budgeted for.

The higher than expected services and supplies expenditure primarily relates to increases in volumes due to increased activity but also increases in CPI that we have had to meet in terms of the supplies and services that we have across the system.

Ms PRATT: In relation to report 9, page 139, what factors have led to a $15 million increase in accommodation and lease incentives related to the Bragg Centre?

The Hon. C.J. Picton: What was the page reference?

Ms PRATT: Page 139, under liabilities—the question is: what factors have led to the $15 million increase in that lease accommodation arrangement for the Bragg Centre, and how are these lease incentives defined?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I thank the member for Frome for her question. My understanding is that about four or five years ago there was a contract entered into by previous Treasurer Rob Lucas. Part of that contract arrangement was that the health department—the South Australian government, but it was delegated to the health department—would take, we think, four floors in the Bragg Centre for accommodation.

That was part of an arrangement that the previous government had entered into to make sure that that building could go ahead and that the commercial proprietor of that building—-which I cannot remember if at that stage was Commercial & General or if that had changed to Dexus by then—was able to have the financial surety that they required for that to happen.

That is not a contract that this government has entered into, but we are fulfilling the contract requirements. We have therefore received those four floors that we are now leasing in the Bragg Centre. We have moved a significant number of particularly Department for Health and Wellbeing staff into those four floors—including Ms Formston next to me, the deputy chief executive, and many of her teams—to utilise that area we are contractually obliged to use in the Bragg Centre and have therefore also tried to consolidate a number of our other leases that we previously had across the Adelaide CBD.

Ms PRATT: Just following on from that, I will ask for clarification because having stood in the lobby it does look like there are five floors leased.

The Hon. C.J. Picton interjecting:

Ms PRATT: Just following on from that, of course in the basement is the proton bunker. Can the minister give a current status update on the government's ongoing negotiations around delivering the proton therapy unit?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: It may well be that it is five floors; we certainly can check that. In terms of the arrangements for proton therapy, as the member may be aware this is an arrangement that SAHMRI entered into, many years ago now. They established a corporation under them called the Australian Bragg Centre for Proton Therapy Research, otherwise known as the ABCPTR, that entered into contractual arrangements with ProTom International for the delivery of that device.

Regarding the government's connection and involvement, while there is a national partnership agreement that was originally signed by my predecessor, Stephen Wade—and I have recently signed an updated version of that, noting delayed timeframes. The management of that originally sat with the Department of the Premier and Cabinet when these arrangements were first entered into, but then under the previous government it sat with the Department of Treasury and Finance under Rob Lucas. That has continued under this government.

The health department, of course having a very strong interest in terms of delivery of healthcare services and also medical and health research in the state, are very clearly involved in this matter and we are working very closely with our colleagues in the Department of Treasury and Finance in relation to trying to reach a solution to this matter.

Clearly there have been issues in terms of ABCPTR's and SAHMRI's contractual arrangements that they have had with ProTom International for the delivery of this device. We have been open about the fact that we are, through the Department of Treasury and Finance, trying to work constructively with both the commonwealth government who are funding this program and also with SAHMRI and ABCPTR to try to find a solution that can deliver the intended outcome.

Obviously, this is an outcome that is of national importance. The proportion of South Australians who would be using such a service would be roughly in line with our population share, so in the order of 5 per cent to 7 per cent. Expectedly, this is a national service, so obviously the commonwealth government are the significant funder of this service and we are having to work closely with them.

I do not have any particular update in terms of what is already on the public record and what the Treasurer has said, other than that we are continuing to work very closely with the Department of Treasury and Finance, the Treasurer, SAHMRI and ABCPTR to try to find a solution.

Mr McBRIDE: My question relates to page 15 of the financial statements, point 9, supplies and services. The fee-for-service expenditure for the Limestone Coast Local Health Network last financial year was $28,164,000, an increase of $4 million from 2023. Can the minister explain exactly what fee-for-service relates to, and whether that is the amount spent on employing locum doctors?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: What is the page reference?

Mr McBRIDE: I refer to the electronic version of the audit, page 15. If it is of any help, the question relates to page 15 of the financial statements, point 9, supplies and services. There is a figure in there that says we are paying $28,164,000 in 2024, which is up $4 million from the year before. I am wanting to know what that fee-for-service expenditure is going towards; is it being spent on locum doctors in the Limestone Coast?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I cannot find that reference in the electronic version. My adviser Judith is very quickly looking to see if we can find it. I suspect the member is exactly right that a large proportion of the fee-for-service expenditure in the Limestone Coast network would be in relation to locum doctors.

We are in a situation, not just in South Australia but across the country, where a real change has happened over the past decade where we have seen an increasing localisation of the medical workforce in regional areas. That has certainly, I think, not been a positive development. I think that has clearly led to increased costs right across the country, and I do not think that there is any argument that it has led to benefits in terms of patients. That is why we are working so hard to try to turn the tide on that, and that is why I have been determined that we implement what is known as the single employer model to enable us to train more doctors in regional areas who will become SA Health employees working between general practice in primary care and our acute care settings in our country hospitals.

I have also been very clear and have put a lot of pressure on our local health networks to have better connections with their GPs in their local area, and certainly that is true in the Limestone Coast and also elsewhere. I note the member for Narungga is here as well. A couple of years ago when we came to office—and the member would be aware of this—in the Mid North area relations between GPs and the local health network had completely broken down. I am really pleased that there has been a significant turnaround in that from the Yorke and Northern Local Health Network and there is a much stronger connection. That is not to say that everything is perfect, but we have much stronger engagement with our GPs in that area and that is certainly what we would like to see across the state.

Mr ELLIS: I have the Agency Audit Reports in front of me, minister—I should start by saying good afternoon. At page 122, health sector overview, I am specifically looking at the graph for country LHNs, which reports a 22 per cent increase in the number of patients presenting at country LHN emergency departments since 2021. It says:

This is consistent with a 6% decrease in the percentage of patients seen, treated, discharged or admitted within four hours…

Is that data available broken down by LHN or by hospital? I would be intrigued as to whether there has been an increase in the number of people presenting to the Wallaroo Hospital, for example, and Yorketown, and what that quantum is.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Certainly, we would be able to provide that information; if the member wants to ask it on notice or write to me, etc., we would be happy to chase up that information. The graph is correct that we have seen an increase in presentations at our country emergency departments.

Anecdotally, and at least from some data I see, I can inform the house relatively confidently that I think when you break that down a significant proportion of that would be based in what we would call our peri-urban emergency departments. Particularly the south coast, based at Victor Harbor, the Mount Barker District Soldiers' Memorial Hospital and also the Gawler emergency department have seen pretty significant increases.

That is I think a combination of factors, including the increase of population in those areas and the ageing of the population. But it is also hard to get past the fact that—for instance, take Mount Barker and Gawler, that were previously staffed exclusively by GPs that would then charge through Medicare arrangements a gap for non-admitted patients. Now we have SA Health staff providing those services free of charge. That clearly has led to greater demand in terms of a number of those sites as well.

But I do not doubt at all that we have a growing and ageing population in Wallaroo as well, and there may well have been an increase in the numbers there. Certainly, we are happy to chase that up for the member.

Ms PRATT: In reference to report 11, page 40: the Auditor-General makes these reflections on the new Women's and Children's Hospital in regard to construction risk, if you like.

The Hon. C.J. Picton interjecting:

Ms PRATT: Alright. I don't think it will test you. But just to read in to this committee, the Auditor-General reports:

The SA Government has limited experience in managing and delivering projects of the scale and complexity of the…new Women's and Children's Hospital.

It states:

…risks are already evident in the…new Women’s and Children’s Hospital, with significant cost and timing revisions made to…[this project] in the 2022‐23 [Mid-Year Budget Review].

So what confidence can the public have, minister, in the delivery of this project of the new Women's and Children's being on time and on budget, given the Auditor-General's observations, and how does the minister respond to the Auditor-General's lack of confidence?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I wouldn't necessarily characterise what the Auditor-General said in the quote you read out as that. I would certainly agree that this is a very complex project. This is a very substantial project for this state, and that is why it is being taken extremely seriously.

When we came to office one of the first things that we did was get a review of the status of this project, including consideration of whether there should be alternative sites for the delivery of it based on the difficulties that had been had really over the course of the Weatherill and Marshall governments in terms of being able to deliver anything on that very small site. That has led us to the point where we had to make a very big decision in terms of moving that site to the barracks, and things are certainly progressing on that site apace now.

There is still, of course, a lot of work that needs to happen to make sure that we deliver a hospital that is going to meet the needs of women and children in this state for decades and decades to come. That is why we certainly have prioritised this as a government in terms of oversight of it. We have established an executive steering committee that includes really our most senior public servants in this state, including the chief executives of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the Department of Treasury and Finance and the Department for Health and Wellbeing. Also involved, of course, is the Department for Infrastructure and Transport. All of those chief executives are playing a key role in terms of making sure that we can deliver this very important project as well, of course, as working with the Women's and Children's Health Network.

I think when we announced the start of the work of the construction of the car park a couple of months ago the Premier was asked a question along similar lines and said very clearly at the press conference that there are always going to be hiccups when it comes to an infrastructure project of that size and scope, and I think he said something similar in question time today about the Northern Water project. That does not mean that you don't do those things and it does not mean you don't take on those challenges. You just have to make sure that you take every possible measure to try to get them right.

Mr McBRIDE: I refer to the Auditor-General's Report, Annual report, Part C, pages 175 to 181, with specific reference to the Limestone Coast Health Network, Independent Auditor's Report and part of its financial statements published under section 36(4) of the Public and Finance Audit Act 1987. The question relates to page 14 of the financial statement, part 8.3 Staff Remuneration. There are five extra staff employed in 2024 than in 2023. Two staff members are being paid between $686,000 and $726,000, and four staff are being paid between $446,000 and $486,000. Can the minister explain what these roles are that are paying that amount and where are they based?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: We have incredibly hardworking and talented medical professionals in this state and they certainly get paid sums more than anybody in this house in many regards, particularly our senior consultants. I refer you to page 115 of the report which breaks down those executives, medical numbers, non-medical numbers, nursing for employees based on their salary range. You can see very clearly those people paid above $166,000 in the system, 3,144 of whom are doctors and, as the scale goes up, the higher is the percentage of doctors.

We, of course, have an enterprise bargaining arrangement in place with SASMOA and with our doctors in this state, the Salaried Medical Officers Enterprise Agreement, that sets the salaries and conditions available for our doctors in this state. For our very senior doctors there are some significant remunerations available. This, of course, does make it an attractive place for us to be able to recruit staff, particularly when you compare the salaries that we pay for doctors to, for instance, those in the United Kingdom. We pay significantly more, both in terms of base salary but also a wide array of different allowances compared to what the UK will pay. I have done media in the UK highlighting that fact, that actually we pay significantly more than what the UK does and that is why Australia, but particularly South Australia, has been able to attract a number of those doctors to work here.

I will check the detail and I am happy to provide a response on notice to the member, but I suspect that what has happened on the Limestone Coast is that we have employed more senior doctors, and those more senior doctors come at a significant salary rate compared to other staff in the system. Going back to our previous discussion of locums, in many cases the alternative is having to employ locums. It is much better in many regards for us to employ those people as salaried doctors in the system.

That may well be full credit to the Limestone Coast Health Network that has been able to employ and recruit more of those senior clinicians to work directly for the health system, rather than relying upon locum arrangements. We will check the exact details of those additional staff on the Limestone Coast. But certainly, when you are talking about those pay brackets, and you compare them to that table for the system as a whole, I am willing to be reasonably confident in assuring the member that they would be doctors working on the Limestone Coast.

Ms PRATT: Minister, page 139—it might be liabilities, but it is going to be in relation to legal fees. The Auditor-General's Report notes a $21 million increase in legal fees related to the Royal Adelaide Hospital dispute. I am wondering what the total was, given that is the increase?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: As members may be aware, there has been a very long-running arbitration involving the builders that was launched by the builders of the hospital. They launched proceedings against the consortium, and also the government, many years ago now, and that arbitration process is continuing. There are obviously legal fees associated with that, and those are significant.

As a government, we are defending our state's position through those arbitration hearings, and we are still obviously awaiting the outcome of those arbitration hearings. Certainly, if we are successful in those arbitration hearings, then following proper consideration of advice we are likely to try to seek costs from the other parties if we can in terms of meeting those costs of the legal fees, because I think the state has been clear, under successive governments, in terms of these proceedings that we believe the state has a very strong case, and we do not believe that the claim that has been made has merit.

The CHAIR: That ends the examination of that portion of the Auditor-General's Report. I call on the Minister for Child Protection and the member for Heysen. I just remind members that the committee is in normal session. Any questions have to be asked by members on their feet and all questions must be directly referenced to the Auditor-General's Report 2023-24 and the Agency Statements for the year ending 2023-24, as published on the Auditor-General's website, and the Update to the Annual Report, as tabled in this house on 15 October. Member for Heysen, the floor is yours.

Mr TEAGUE: I will go directly to Part C, page 39, where the Auditor-General makes the observation at the fourth dash point on page 39, addressing significant events and transactions, and I quote:

The number of children and young people in residential non-family-based care continues to grow proportionality faster than those in family-based care.

Can the minister explain why that is, and how the department is going to address it?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: It is a pretty broad question in terms of why particular types of care are growing, and why others are not, and I am very happy to provide a broad answer about the levers and the programs that lead to particular growth or otherwise. What I would say from the outset is that I am really, really pleased that the number of children in care, in terms of the growth of children and young people in care, has significantly slowed, and it currently sits at around 0.2 to 0.4 per cent, and I say that not having checked the figures over the last 24 hours. That is really pleasing, given that what we were facing in 2019-2020 was a growth of 9 per cent of children and young people in care. So I am so pleased that that growth of children and young people overall in care has significantly slowed. I am pleased that the growth of children and young people entering residential care or staying in residential care is also slowing.

Mr Teague: Do you have that figure as well?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I can come back to that. In terms of the growth of family-based care, actually what we are now seeing is that family-based care is finally beginning to grow, particularly in relation to kinship care but also in relation to foster care. What I would like to say about the levers in relation to, first of all, that broader proposition about the slowing of growth of the numbers of children coming into care is that a number of our strategies are beginning to work.

I would never stand here and say that there is not much, much more work to do, because there is. We know that the fact continues that one in three children in South Australia is subject to a notification to the child protection and family support system at some point during the course of their childhood, and that is because families are grappling with deeply complex, deeply interconnected issues, often intergenerational issues, issues pertaining to poverty, mental ill health, substance misuse and domestic, family and sexual violence, with 80 per cent of child protection and family support cases having a domestic violence element.

There is this complexity of challenges that families are facing, and that is why I would say we have much, much more work to do to continue to tackle that. I have spoken in this place before about the system reform process that we are going through. I will not go into the details of a bill that is currently before the house. Part of our strategy is to build a foundation and a framework for change that reflects a public health approach to child protection and family support. A public health approach is widely and internationally accepted as the way forward on child protection and family support and the complex issues inherent within it.

The legislation is one part of our strategy in terms of reducing that contact with the child protection and family support system, as the member's question goes to, reducing the numbers of children and young people who are in either family-based care or residential care. Also, alongside that legislative change, is change that includes bringing together through the state strategy, but in many other ways, cross-government effort. We have a $450 million investment into the child protection and family support system.

A portion of that is, of course, to ensure that we have the facilities and the resources to support children and young people who are already in residential care. That is something we must continue to invest in. That is a really incredibly important part of our investment. Also, to ensure that we are reducing the growth overall and also growing the number of children and young people who do, as the member spoke about, live with either foster or kinship carers when they cannot safely live at home is another really important part of our strategy and part of where that $450 million investment goes.

To go to your question about the numbers in either family-based care or residential care, which also goes to that question about numbers overall, I will take you through some of those strategies as you asked me to that are beginning to make change. I know I have spoken about this at length, and rightly so.

One of those strategies is our $13.4 million additional investment into family group conferencing. Family group conferencing is recognised around the world as an incredibly important and successful tool to give children and young people the best chance possible to grow up safe in extended family and with extended family wrapped around a particular child or young person, making decisions that assist them to stay safely in that family environment.

In terms of that question about family-based care, that is a really key strategy that we are employing. I know I mentioned it in the house earlier today, and I gave you the figure that generally it sits between a 90 and 92 per cent success rate. I am very proud that that investment is enabling us to grow family-based care and particularly kinship care. As I spoke about before, kinship care is certainly growing.

I think the member is aware of this. I know the member for Frome is certainly aware of how family group conferencing works. I had the benefit just a couple of weeks ago of sitting with one of our family group conferencing community organisation providers. They took me into the space where they facilitate family group conferencing and spoke with me about their approach.

What is really clear in their approach, and in the approach of our other provider as well, is that during the discussions that happen throughout a family group conference the facilitator sets that family group conference up in a way that absolutely puts the best interests of the child or young person at the centre of those discussions that occur through the family group conference. What is really clear, what is absolutely lovely from everybody I have spoken with who has ever participated or facilitated a conference, and what is always unifying in family group conferencing is that deep love and care for the child who is the subject of that family group conferencing.

In terms of your question about the rates of family-based care, that is one of our strategies that is absolutely working. There are all sorts of creative solutions that families come up with to keep that child at the centre of their efforts, safe, well, loved and cared for in family and community. There are all sorts of examples where various extended family members step up to provide a particular part of that care journey at a particular time for a child or young person.

In terms of your question about strategies, I am very proud of the success of family group conferencing. As is indicated in the legislation that we have been debating, we will rightly continue to rely on family group conferencing and think about how we can continue to explore the growth of family group conferencing, given its success, and why wouldn't we?

In terms of your question about other strategies and that balance between family-based care and residential care, we are also focusing (including through new investment) on reunification. Again, I think the member for Frome would probably be aware of the Newpin program that is a highly successful program. I have visited Newpin and sat with families who have participated in the process of reunification. I have so much admiration for these families because they have gone through the most difficult and heartbreaking of times when their child has been removed. But to come to that and go through the Newpin program and work so incredibly hard to address the issues that existed in their life that led to the removal of their child, and to keep working on those issues until it is deemed that it is safe for that child to return to their care, is extraordinary.

I absolutely take my hat off to those families who go through that process. I cannot imagine what it would be like to have a child removed. We know that there are very, very good reasons that that happens in terms of keeping that child safe, but to actually come from what I imagine would be just the hardest point possible and to address those issues and to front up and to seek support in doing so, and to go on that new pathway, is absolutely extraordinary.

We have also, through that investment, looked at how we can better support existing carers. One of the mechanisms, as was recommended by Dr Fiona Arney in her report into foster and kinship care—her inquiry and the report of that inquiry into foster and kinship care—was that she recommended the establishment of a Carer Council, and that Carer Council has now been established. They are doing extraordinary work to provide very frank and robust advice directly to me as minister about what else we need to do to make change that improves that experience for carers so that we can retain them, so that we can keep growing family-based care and retain carers.

Again, we have a lot of work to do in this space, so much work to do, but I am really proud to have the Carer Council in place, led by Lorraine Joy, and all of the people around that table who are providing advice about what we can do better. They are providing advice on our carer attraction and retention strategy. They have provided advice on various campaigns that we are running, which I will come to in a moment. They have provided advice on the refreshed Statement of Commitment to carers that has recently been re-signed in a really lovely ceremony. They are providing advice on a range of matters.

One of the other things we did, which again goes to a question about what are the strategies around family-based care and residential care, is a strategy around remuneration. Again, we know that there is more work to do in this space but I am very proud that in the budget before last we provided a 4.8 per cent increase to carer payments, to those carers caring for a child 16 and under, and also provided a $50 per payment increase, and then, in the last budget, also provided a further 2.5 per cent increase.

We know that some carers are still struggling and we need to continue to look at how we provide them with particular support, but that is a really important step forward, as is the step that we took to embed a flexible respite payment to carers. Again, when listening to carers all over the state, one of the things that they told us very, very clearly was that it is difficult to access respite sometimes, depending on where they live, their networks, on the particular experience of their child or young person, and that sometimes it is really hard to access respite care in the way that I think many of us think about respite care, in a way where we might see a particular respite carer coming and providing care one weekend per month, or every second Wednesday, or whatever it might be.

That is a really important form of care and that works really well for particular carer families. But for others, for all sorts of reasons, that is really difficult. So the thing that we instituted at the beginning of this year is what carers said to us would help them in terms of being able to stay the course and have the sorts of breaks or support that they need but also provide them with a little bit of financial relief to enable them to access support in the way that they wanted.

What we are finding with that flexible respite payment of $800 a year that we announced and instituted from the beginning of this calendar year—so for half the period this audit report pertains to—is that those carers are using that flexible respite payment for all sorts of support that is helping them to feel that sense of respite and relief. Some carers are using it for cleaning or gardening support, others are using it to engage in particular outings or weekends away, but they are absolutely using it to access respite in the way that works for them.

Again, that has come about because we have directly listened to carers and we will continue to do so. We have continued, since I became minister and certainly over the period of this audit report, to hold forums and discussions and meetings with carers all over our state. Just last week we had a forum with carers again, having listened to carers about particular experiences that they were having and particular needs they had. We co-hosted with the Assistant Minister for Autism, the Hon. Emily Bourke from the other place, Dr Goodall, the Office for Autism and the Department for Child Protection a really successful forum where carers could speak about that experience of caring for a child or young person who is an autistic child or young person.

We will continue to listen to carers about the sorts of information and supports they need to help them stay a carer, which the honourable member asked about. He wanted some advice about the various strategies we are engaging in as a government around family-based care. There are all these different planks to those strategies, but that listening piece is so incredibly important.

One of the other things we did recently was around retention of both foster and kinship carers. Recently we instituted a campaign called Foster the Feeling, a campaign that saw a 200 per cent increase in direct submissions from individuals interested in embarking on their carer journey. In terms of attracting more foster carers or family-based carers, as the honourable member spoke about, Foster the Feeling is particularly targeted to foster carers and has been really successful in terms of the number of inquiries and people taking that next step in their consideration of a carer journey.

One of the other things, to switch to kinship carers as a particular cohort—the cohort that is growing in a more significant way—is that we have invested to increase the resources available in the Kinship Care Assessment Unit, because we want to make sure that, when a child or young person has been identified as being at risk and alongside that we identify that there are potentially family members to provide that family-based care that he spoke about, we have the resources to deeply, thoroughly and efficiently assess whether or not those kinship carers who have brought themselves forward are suitable and safe for a child or young person to be placed with them. That is another really important part of our strategy.

What I would say in summing up on this particular point about family-based care is that we are incredibly grateful. We continue to be incredibly grateful, and I know the shadow minister shares my view on this. We are incredibly grateful to those foster and kinship carers who make that very personal decision—sometimes a very hard decision, particularly in the context of kinship carers. Whenever a kinship carer steps forward it generally means that something has happened in their family.

I meet often with aunts and uncles and grandparents who, sadly, have a son or a daughter or a niece or a nephew who cannot safely care for their child, for all sorts of reasons. They make that very personal decision to take on their great-niece or granddaughter or grandson, whoever that child might be. They do that in an environment where often the relationship with the parent of that child has become very, very difficult. I absolutely take my hat off to kinship carers. I absolutely applaud those foster carers who take children and young people into their hearts and provide such love and care to children whom they generally have no familial connection with. They are absolutely extraordinary, and I am incredibly grateful to them.

As I said, just in finishing on this particular question about the strategies for family-based care and residential care and our investments in them, I was really proud—I cannot remember if it was last week or the week before—when we launched or signed our refreshed Statement of Commitment. Our refreshed Statement of Commitment has been worked on by the Carer Council, by the carer community through a consultation process, by the peak body and also by CAFFSA.

I was really moved to sit down and sign that refreshed Statement of Commitment with them, because it does reflect a very firm promise to foster and kinship carers, a promise about the respect that we all have for them and the relationship that we want to cultivate. I am very pleased, very grateful actually, that they put that work into developing that refreshed Statement of Commitment and that we were able to come together to sign it. I take that promise very seriously.

Finally, again, I do not ever shy away from the fact that we have a lot more work to do in this space of continuing on that trajectory of slowing the growth of children and young people in contact with the system, of looking at that balance between family-based care and residential care. I do not shy away from the fact that we still have work to do, work that represents reform of a system that was developed decades ago, that no longer responds to the current complexity of issues that children and young people and their families face.

I will continue to apply myself to this work. I am proud of the investments we have made. I am proud of the progress that we are making, but there is much, much more to do. I look forward to working alongside the shadow minister and everybody in this place, and indeed right across government and right across the sector and with our community, because we know that keeping children safe, loved, cared for and connected is a task for everybody—not one person, not one minister, not one department but something we have to all apply ourselves to.

I hope that that has provided some fulsome information about those strategies. There are more. I suspect there might be other questions, but I am happy to elaborate further on some of those strategies if required.

Mr TEAGUE: Against the background of the minister's answer, I turn to page 40 and the table that is set out in the bottom third of page 40, which tells a story of the data. Against the background of the minister's answer just now, we see that the number of children in care increased overall but by a relatively small amount. At the same time, the number of children in residential care increased by a large multiple of that amount. So residential care has increased, proportionately, many times more than the number of children in care.

At the same time, further against the background of the minister's answer, the number of children in foster care actually reduced; it is approximately a 3 per cent decrease. Can the minister account for the decrease, from year to year, in children in foster care at the same time as the proportionately large increase in residential care? Did any of the children in foster care transition to the residential care system within the last 12 months? If so, how many?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: What I can provide you with that I think will be really helpful are some of the most up-to-date figures. They are also on the website; I am not sure if you have had a chance to look at them. But what I can say—

Mr Teague interjecting:

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Yes, but to give you context, I guess. What I can say is that, since 30 June—so since this report, and hence my comments—we have actually seen a further decrease of 25 children and young people in care, so we are now back at 4,866 as at 30 September. So again we are seeing that trend of reduction in the growth of children and young people in care, which is really good news. I know that some people may feel like that is a small amount, but when you look at the trajectory we have been on and that now I can safely say that it is a consistent overall reduction, I am so pleased.

The other thing I can tell you is that kinship care I think has also gone up again, with another seven. For your reference, the way that it is displayed on the website is that placement and support packages are counted, in a way, within residential care. So when you look at residential care it is actually a decline if you just take pure residential care, but actually placement and support packages—which may mean that a child is living in a particular transition-to-independent-living space—are also included. However, residential care has actually also gone down by 24 as at 30 September. I am happy to explain that other figure about the placement and support packages at any time, but residential care, as at 30 September, has gone down by 24, including PASP.

The CHAIR: The examination of this portion of the Auditor-General's report has concluded. I invite the next minister to take his seat, and the next MP. I remind members that the committee is in normal session. Any questions have to be asked by members on their feet, and all questions must be directly referenced to the Auditor-General's 2023-24 report and Agency Statements for the year ending 2023-24, as published on the Auditor-General's website, and the Update to the Annual Report, as tabled in this house on 15 October. I welcome the Minister for Planning, and Housing and Urban Development, and I welcome the member for Colton. Member for Colton, you have 30 minutes.

Mr COWDREY: Hopefully, we all do. I take you to Part C of the report, page 457, in regard to contract management plans not being prepared for two complex contracts. I will let you find the reference, if that is helpful, page 457. Why has the URA repeatedly failed to prepare contract management plans for complex contracts, despite that being a requirement under its own policy framework?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: As I understand it, with the complex contracts, they had a plan but it was not documented. That has led the management of URA to now have both plans and a technical system through a computer program to manage that. So, essentially, it is a documentation issue.

Mr COWDREY: What two projects did those contract management plans relate to?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Lot Fourteen and civil works at Playford Alive.

Mr COWDREY: In terms of the minister's view at the moment, have those two contract management plans now been documented? You have effectively closed off the loop and that issue is no longer relevant?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The contracts are completed and the work is finished. The management of the URA have obviously reviewed the situation and corrected it. Going forward, they have put in place a system that avoids these sorts of documentation issues in the future.

Mr COWDREY: Given that the Auditor-General only examined a selection, were there any other projects that did not have a CMP in place?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No, it was just those two.

Mr COWDREY: I take you to Part C, again page 466 through 469, in regard to the major projects and the status of those projects. With regard to Lot Fourteen, given the URA's anticipated project completion is 2026-27, what specific challenges does the URA have, if any, of meeting the current timeline and what measures are in place to ensure completion remains on schedule and within budget?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I think the first point to make is that Lot Fourteen, as it was in the previous government, is managed by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and so those questions would have been better put in that series of questions. That is the way it was in the previous government and we have inherited that architecture.

Renewal is, if you like, an agency of delivery for DPC. While the member talks about the timelines regarding the capital component of it, which are obviously revised every year—they were revised previously, the same sort of policy architecture that was done by the previous government—the sales for that continued on much further, so that would be the answer I give.

Mr COWDREY: Perhaps the minister will be more willing to share in regard to Playford Alive. The project he just mentioned failed to have a CMP in place during the time of the project. Can the minister provide any insights into the long-term plans for Playford Alive and any adjustments to project scope or budget that are being considered to accelerate the completion?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: If you go just north of my electorate to the Chair's electorate, you can see the latest land release in the Playford Alive project. That involves an extension of Newton Boulevard. It is an excellent piece of work, if I do say so myself. There are 282 allotments. I think the last 40 we announced just last week; the last 40 are going on the market. We have had very good sales results there, and we are going to build 25 affordable rentals. They will either be managed through the Housing Trust or through community housing providers. It is a very good project, which has been undertaken for a long period of time.

There will be future extensions. They will be informed by the URA's northern land sales strategy, which we are yet to release. They will also be informed by the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan and by the ability to have water and sewer pipes. Obviously, all of those things need to connect in order to get land to market. No doubt we will discuss water and sewerage at some point, but they are the basic architecture of the releases.

Mr COWDREY: With regard to the Prospect project, as I understand it, the latest announcement has been around 188 new dwellings with a focus on affordable housing. What steps have the URA taken to ensure that affordability targets are met? How do you plan to address potential market or construction challenges?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I am just operating a bit off memory here. It is 108 townhouses. We are using the shared equity through HomeStart in addition to the provision of stock to help affordability, particularly for young working people. Anybody in their 20s now, even if they have a very good professional job, often needs to access shared equity for townhouses. The sales have been very strong on the townhouses. If you go down Churchill Road, you can see them being constructed as we speak.

There are also two unit blocks in there. We have actually managed to push the numbers there to just under 100 or so affordable rental apartments, which will be managed through CHPs. We see the importance of the affordable rental category, which I think is a category that has been under-done in the affordability space, because we need to be able to give people an affordable rental product that they can hopefully save a deposit for and then move on and release that affordable rental product for someone else, but that is at 75 per cent of market rate.

Generally speaking, for Prospect I think it is a little bit over $100 a week less than what you would pay for a like-for-like two-bedroom or one-bedroom apartment. They were the figures when we last did them, but they will bounce around a bit depending on what market rents are doing. Twenty-five per cent off your rent is a significant benefit, and that does two things: it obviously benefits the individual but it also plugs permanent affordable rental into a system.

We are trying to carefully manage all of our projects, whether it be Playford Alive or Prospect, to ensure that we have affordable rental, affordable sale and market sale. The market sale helps us make these whole projects viable, the affordable rental puts locked-in affordability, and the affordable sale obviously benefits individuals.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to the Forestville development, it was noted in the report that it will include a component of a consortium partnership to include residential food-oriented retail and a range of other service providers, for lack of a better word. How progressed are the negotiations in terms of the consortium and when do you see construction starting on the Forestville project?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Forestville is a very well-placed piece of land, and obviously particularly well-placed now that we know the Keswick barracks will ultimately be utilised for housing once the Army moves off there. It is obviously close to town and is very well placed.

The deal is done. The group have already launched their brand and it is up on the billboards. In November, as I understand it, they will have sales going to the market—I do not want to announce them here for them, but that is our understanding of things—and then mid next year they will begin construction on the front portion of it.

It is an exciting project. It involves Peet and Chapleys. Chapleys are very good retailers and I think they will bring a sense of vibrancy to that area, and access to those retail offerings will be of benefit more broadly. I suspect that sales will go very well, given its location to public transport and town. It is an attractive part of Adelaide.

Mr COWDREY: What is the target in terms of affordable housing in that development?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: We will have to take on notice the exact percentage, but it is over the minimum. I might just flag to the member that one of the things in the Housing Roadmap was the affordable housing overlay. We think it is an important overlay, but we think it is also going to be very important to look at different methods of developers being able to meet their obligations to affordable housing, because the nature of land values around the city now is making it difficult for some projects. On this one they will meet it and exceed it and we will get the number for you, but I just flag that for the member's interest.

Mr COWDREY: When you talk about frontage, I assume the first part is on Anzac Highway?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It is broadly in two components. There is obviously a retail offering which will be built at the front. They are beginning at the back, at the railway line end, with townhouses and the like and then moving down.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to the issue of height in that particular neck of the woods, obviously that has been something that has been controversial in the past in relation to development on Anzac Highway and height limits. In terms of the planning settings around all of this, what is the height overlay in regard to that particular development?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: We will take that on notice. It has been through the planning process. It has cleared the State Planning Commission. You are right; sometimes height can be an issue. I do not recall it being particularly controversial on this site. There were interests in open space and there were interests, certainly, in the nature of the retail offering. I do not recall it attracting a great deal of attention through the planning system; it has not seemed to be controversial. There are some apartment blocks. It is a mixture of apartment blocks and townhouses.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to the neighbouring townhouse developments, though, the height limit previously—I am just trying to jog my memory in terms of the height overlay in the area. Are we in train with the rest of the development along Anzac Highway? Are we slightly higher or slightly lower? Is there an overlay that is specific to the Forestville development, or is it the same as the rest of the corridor?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It certainly has not been the subject of a code amendment that I have done. We have Sally Smith from Planning and Land Use Services; she will be able to give us a number, I am happy to report. If you want to move on to other questions, we will get the exact height limit for you.

Mr COWDREY: I will frame the question another way: if there was an issue with height on that particular development, is there the mechanism to be able to, effectively, put in a height overlay over that section of land, should it have been necessary through the planning code?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: We are just checking, but it went through the State Commission Assessment Panel. It went through that whole process. There was not a lot of controversy about it, so I assume it fit in with the height corridor which would be, from memory, somewhere between four and six.

Mr COWDREY: I will phrase it another way. The question is less specific to the particular development now and is more in terms of the planning process. Is there the ability for the planning minister of the day, or for somebody moving a code amendment, to have put a particular height overlay on that particular area at Forestville, should they have wished to? It could have been reduced to three storeys, for instance, should the minister of the day have chosen to reduce it to three storeys; that is the purview of the planning system, to allow that to happen.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It is up to eight storeys. That is consistent with the zoning that was already in place. On this project, effectively, from Renewal's point of view and for the proponent, it just went within the existing planning framework.

Mr COWDREY: I understand that. The question is more generic now: should the developer or whoever, the minister of the day, wish to have kept the height limit on that particular area at, say, six storeys rather than eight within the existing envelope, would there have been an option through the planning system to have done that?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It is not often that areas are downzoned, and that is because we are in a housing crisis.

Mr COWDREY: I am not saying they are, but there is the purview, there is the option, through the planning system to have kept that at six storeys, should the minister of the day have wished.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: As I said before, this project fit into the zoning that was present before I became minister. You are right: in theory, a private proponent or the minister of the day could move a government-led code amendment and that would have to go through a process, and everybody is aware of those processes. They are laborious, they involve a whole lot of study. But areas, once they are zoned up, generally speaking do not get zoned down. That is because we are in a housing crisis. We need supply. This is important supply. It is a good mix, I think.

Mr COWDREY: It is not a criticism of the development by any stretch of the imagination, but hypothetically that could have happened. There could have been a height limit put in place on the particular parcel of land.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: We do not really do hypotheticals. I think we have been through this before. Code amendments—

Mr COWDREY: Specifically to Forestville, then, you could have put a height limit on that particular parcel of land, should you have wished, that was lower than the eight in place.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I guess the issue here is you do your planning system—and you understand it, and I understand it—and then there are amendments to the code. They could be done anywhere and everywhere by either the government, councils or private proponents.

Mr COWDREY: Yes, which can include height limits, should they wish.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: They all include height limits of some form, don't they? That is just a self-evident fact.

Mr COWDREY: Thank you.

Mr ELLIS: Can we move onto SA Water, minister?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes, sure.

Mr ELLIS: I have the Agency Audit Reports here, and I am flicking to page 378. There is a subheading, 'Community service obligations', with relation to SA Water. I wondered whether you might be able to provide some insight into how the money that is collected for community service obligations is expended? It says here that revenue increased by $8.4 million to $144.7 million in 2024. How is that money expended? How is it apportioned? How do we go about getting some of that to be used at Port Hughes to ensure the Metacap development can proceed?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I understand the local member is very concerned about water provision and sewerage provision throughout the state. Obviously, there has been quite a bit of commentary and examination of our water and sewerage systems as it relates to developments. In terms of the CSOs, community service obligations are paid to SA Water for the implementation of statewide pricing, and that ensures already that regional customers pay the same water charges as metropolitan customers. That has been a standard approach—which is of great benefit, I might add, to the regions—for settling of sewerage services.

There are other CSOs that relate to costs incurred by SA Water which are funded by the government, and they include the operation and maintenance of water and sewerage systems servicing remote communities; providing exemptions and concessions to certain customers, places of worship, charitable organisations, local government and sporting clubs; water rate concessions for emergency services entities; reimbursements of operations, particularly operational and emergency communications costs within SA Water; the administration and distribution of concessions for pensioners who are SA Water customers; and the provision of water and wastewater services to Leigh Creek following the closure of Alinta Energy's mine activities.

There are a range of members in regional communities who have made advocacy like yours in relation to developments in terms of housing projects in regional areas. That is not necessarily a community service obligation issue so much as a prioritisation of the money we have for infrastructure. That is a delicate balance. This government has embarked on a huge spend in terms of water and sewerage infrastructure for housing.

Of course, we remain open to talking to developers in regional areas—SA Water does it all the time—but it is a finite resource, and often regional country towns and regional cities are like the northern suburbs and parts of the southern suburbs: at the absolute end of the capacity in the system. So we are happy to talk to the member and hear his representations. CSOs are a somewhat different category, but I totally understand your advocacy.

Mr COWDREY: Given the time I might just quickly switch to the Housing Trust and a question relating to page 356, in particular around the SA Housing Trust properties that are underutilised. There was a 0.4 per cent reduction in underutilised properties this year, which is obviously not significant in terms of a shift in that regard in a housing crisis where we are trying to ensure that as many bedrooms are being used across the state. What steps are the government taking to ensure that they are addressing the underutilisation issue?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: We have over 30,000 properties, many of them are ageing and many of those properties were built in the Playford era and in the eighties and sometimes before that. The great challenge that we have is the same challenge that the broader community has, which is that we have an ageing cohort within South Australian Housing. Often there are single people in three-bedroom houses, but they have been there for a long period of time and we obviously do not want to disturb those arrangements because that can often be distressing.

The challenge for the Housing Trust I think is to build new stock that is suitable and matches the needs of both the ageing tenancy cohorts, so we give people places to downsize to effectively within the public housing system and we also build stock that is better suited to the new cohorts coming in. Obviously as a result of changes made in the Howard government, believe it or not, we have seen an increase effectively—I think it is over 90 per cent now—of category 1, as opposed to a mix of people who were in the system before that.

So the utilisation of houses is one issue, but it has to be closely matched to tenancy as well. If you put in regeneration of stock, like we are doing at Seaton or Kilburn or a range of other places, as some houses get to a point where they have reached the useful end of their life and have to be demolished and then there are some that become vacant and then we have to fix them up and we have to do pretty serious maintenance to them, the question is: can you organise that better to lower the vacancy rate? I totally agree with the member that that is a virtuous cause.

Mr COWDREY: I do not disagree, minister, hence why I raised the question, but I was asking what concrete strategies are being put in place. You mentioned that there are elder, more mature people, shall we say, in our society who are in three-bedroom houses at the moment.

Is there a policy within the SA Housing Trust to deal with those particular lodgings, the three-bedroom lodgings in particular, when they do become empty? Is there a particular framework or strategy that you have? Is every second one of those houses going to be repurposed, sold or redeveloped? What is the concrete policy that you have in place to rejuvenate that three-bedroom stock, given that, as we have both articulated, it is not necessarily appropriate for today's Housing Trust?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: One of the things I have done just recently is appoint Chelsea Lucas to the board of the Housing Trust and she is a planner. It is important to have regeneration projects within the Housing Trust framework, and you can see the government's priority is in Seaton. The government's priorities in Seaton in public housing are one-for-one replacement, so we are not diminishing the amount of public housing there. We are building about 1,700 houses overall, with all the project builds, so significantly more.

Where we now have 400 or so public houses we will have 1,700 houses, but what we are going to get out of that is one-for-one replacement of public housing, but the stock will be different. Some will be apartments. If you look at Tucker Street in the city, we are putting in place housing for women over the age of 55 who are at risk of homelessness, so it is about having new stock, which gives tenants a place to relocate to, and then you can look at those three-bedroom homes and the like.

We have brought the Housing Trust name back. We have embarked on a serious urban regeneration project at Seaton. That gives you an indication of our priorities: one-for-one replacement. That was not the case in previous regeneration projects like Playford Alive, so we want to see more public housing in the system, and a more sophisticated, if you like, use of that public housing, not just to house new tenants, but to allow us to more flexibly use our existing stock.

The CHAIR: Time has expired for the examination of this part of the Auditor-General's Report.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.