Auditor-General's Report

Auditor-General's Report

In committee.

(Continued from 30 October 2025.)

The CHAIR: I declare the examination of the Report of the Auditor-General 2024-25 open. I will remind members that the committee is in normal session. Questions have to be asked by members on their feet and all questions must be directly referenced to the Auditor-General's 2024-25 Report and Agency Statements for the year ending 2024-25, as published on the Auditor-General's website. We open with the Auditor-General's Report regarding housing and urban development. I welcome the Minister for Housing and Urban Development and the member for Flinders for the opposition. Member for Flinders, the floor is yours.

Mr TELFER: Firstly, minister, I will turn your eyes to pages 328 and 329, looking at the SA Housing Trust maintenance backlog and tenant impact. I am referring to Part C. The Auditor-General outlines pressures in maintenance, notes a focus on vacancy works and summarises SAHT's actions, including a $28 million increase in process changes. Could the minister advise the current quantified value of the maintenance backlog?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: We do not have an outstanding dollar value, but we do have an outstanding number of maintenance orders. Last year, 2024-25, as of 30 June, it was 13,367, and as it stands at 30 September it is 13,098.

Mr TELFER: So you do not have an estimated value of the maintenance backlog. You do not know how much that amount is likely to cost, estimated.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: There are number of maintenance orders. Of course, the average age of a Housing Trust property is now 44 years, so we have increased the maintenance budget by $37.1 million over the next four years because we want to properly maintain our properties. Obviously, it is impossible to come up with an accurate global number because of the decisions made about some of these properties, because when they become vacant typically what happens is not maintenance but restoration or demolition, so it depends.

The Housing Trust make a judgement on a property when it becomes vacant: can we restore it and put in new kitchens, bathrooms and flooring, and a whole range of things—and that will cost different amounts per house—or do we demolish, for instance? Sometimes it is more sensible to demolish so, by its nature, those decisions get made as properties come up and become vacant, and obviously that would change a global number if one was to have one.

Mr TELFER: So you are saying that of the 1,300 estimated maintenance orders—this is about maintenance of properties, but you do not action those maintenance orders until there is a vacancy. Is that what you are saying? And then the decision is made to demolish the house or otherwise. I thought these maintenance orders are a process that you can go through. Say you budget an extra $37.1 million, surely that is in response to an estimate of how much you believe the quantified value of that maintenance backlog is.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: There are two elements to the government's additional investment. The first one is responding, obviously, to the maintenance issues that come up from tenants. Again, we are relying on tenants notifying us of problems. Some of those could be predicted, some of them could not. We do not know when a stormwater pipe is going to break or be invaded by a tree root. It might be fine for a while, working for a while, and then suddenly not work. Toilets break. There are other maintenance issues that come up because of the age of the property. That is an issue for tenants. Hot-water systems break. You can predict with the age of properties that we have a looming maintenance bill and that is why we have made additional investments.

The second thing is when a property becomes vacant, and it is typically when someone moves out or dies, you would then have a close look at the property. Part of the work that the trust does with its contractors is to work out what has to be done. As members would be aware, you would have some idea as you enter a property, but you might find structural damage or the like, which means that you have to make decisions about, as I said before, how much you restore.

When we are talking about these things, we should not be talking about maintenance because maintenance makes you think of routine pedestrian things that need to be fixed as opposed to restoration, which is what we are doing with many of these trust homes that are vacant—the vast majority—and sometimes we have to make the decision: are we throwing good money after bad? Should we not just demolish and rebuild? Often, in those circumstances, we are building more properties on the single block as well.

Mr TELFER: I am using that terminology because that is the terminology that has been used in the Auditor-General's Report, so it is obviously very pertinent. Do you have the number of how many tenants are waiting on priority repairs?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I am happy to get the figure for the member, but I do have response times. We were responding to priority 1 cases with an 87.4 per cent figure as of 30 June 2024-25, and that has improved as of 30 September this year to 87 per cent. Priority 2 has gone from 43.3 per cent to 51 per cent. The maintenance contractors are responding more quickly to these response times that are in the contract. I think this has been a challenge for preceding governments before us who made the choice to divest themselves of properties, mainly because of the age, and that is why public housing was divested. People looked at the looming maintenance budgets and thought, 'We will divest of this property and it will go off to the private sector and be the subject of development.'

This government is growing public housing, growing our maintenance budget, but with that come certain challenges and one of the challenges is the average age of properties, and that is a challenge for the trust that we are going to confront head-on. That is why we are putting in additional money as investment, but we are also making very calculated judgements when we do get a property become vacant: is it something you should keep, can you extend the asset's life?

Given that a lot of this stock was built in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, there is a lot of nostalgia about these things, but if you look at the actual quality of the property, it is at the end of its life sometimes and you have to just make a calculated judgement to knock down and rebuild. The principle that we have adopted at Seaton and other places is a one-for-one replacement of public housing.

Mr TELFER: I might come back to priority 1 and 2 as we wander our way through. I just point the minister to page 328, the commentary around the six recommendations that the Maintenance Contracts Audit Committee made to the minister. Out of those six recommendations, how many have now been implemented?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: They have all been accepted and they are all in the process of being implemented. In terms of a summary of the key head contractors, as of 30 September 2025—just to give people an idea of the KPIs—there are benchmarks set out for P1, P2, P3 and P4, and then we are marking the contract against those benchmarks and, happily, we are hitting our P1s for the first time basically under this contract, so that is good. The P2s and P3s are a little more challenging. We understand we have ageing Housing Trust stock, we have a contract in place and we are pouring more money into that and it is performing better at that P1 level, but we have work to do on the upper levels.

Mr TELFER: Point 1 of the recommendations talks about the approach to vacancy maintenance. What reduction in vacancy turnaround time has been achieved as a result of the steps that have been put in place?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Of the offerable vacant properties it has happily come down, even from 30 June this year. It is useful for members to understand that there are offerable vacant properties: there were 295 as of 30 June, and as of 30 September that is down to 180. Of the non-offerable vacant properties—as I said before, these are properties that need significant restoration. I can understand that people walk past them and see all the doors and windows shut up and think, 'Why isn't someone in there?' What we are doing is significant work to bring them back online. The trust has been working very hard at that element of the maintenance contract to make sure that we are bringing properties back online.

As of 30 June the number of non-offerable vacant properties was 1,456 but as of 30 September it was 1,373. So that number—one is too many but that is, if you like, a reflection of the ageing housing stock and of the work that has to be done to update properties. As I said before, it is not something that you can do at a click of the fingers. Anybody who has done a restoration of their own home or work on their own home would understand the difficulty of coordinating trades and dealing with that element of things, and it is no different for the trust as a landlord.

Mr TELFER: Of that 83 decline, from 1,456 to 1,373 of the unofferable houses, how many have come back on stream and how many of them have been moved on by the trust? Is this a process of getting them back into the offerable? I note that there was also, in that period of time that you quoted, a decline of 115 houses in the offerable. It is not necessarily moving from the unofferable into the offerable, or does that mean that there is now near on 200 more houses being utilised, or has the trust decided that those ones that are unofferable have got to the point of degradation that you speak about and they are moved on?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: You have to be a bit careful here because there will be new—

Mr Telfer: I am always careful.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Of course, and so am I. There will be new stock coming into the offerable column as we build it. We have a well-documented building program of public housing, and we have increased those numbers also under SHAP, and there are also restored walk-up flats and the like coming in. For instance, once we build the 48 apartments at Camden they will enter the offerable pool.

Simultaneously, there is a judgement being made as a property comes up asking, 'Do you restore?' Essentially the trust goes in there and has a look at the property and asks, 'Do you restore or do you demolish? If you demolish, do you divest?' Those judgements are being made all the time. I guess there is going to be a global figure for public housing, which is growing, and the total number of properties at 30 June—public housing—was 32,979, and at 30 September it was 32,949, so you can see it is going to bounce around. If you go down to Seaton, for instance, you will see that there were a whole lot of demolitions down there.

The numbers will fluctuate, and of that vacant number of properties it will bounce around a bit, but the point is that the trend line, particularly if you look at the start of the year, was somewhere north of 1,800 when we started the process and that number now is down to 1,373.

Mr TELFER: So how many properties were divested in the past financial year?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I want to stress that we are not selling for budgetary purposes. Any money that happens out of a divestment is reinvested in public housing.

There is a lot going on, and Seaton is probably the best example. Stage 1 is well under way with houses being built, but you have had a loss of public housing from stage 1 when those opposite, when they were in government, did the demolition. We have now demolished stage 2, and there will be a lag before the stage 2 civil works and building commences. If you like, the macro numbers are the important ones, and I am happy to take on notice the exact number of divestments. I will also try to get a rough estimation about demolition as well.

Mr TELFER: Do you have a number on how many dwellings were vacant for more than 90 days as at 30 June 2025?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I can get an answer on notice. That number is going to concertina around because of the nature of—

Mr TELFER: That 30 June one?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes; I am happy to take it from 30 June. I guess the issue the trust has is that it is a landlord of thousands of properties. What is important in that is what is your vacancy rate for offerable properties and what are your non-offerable properties. We would try to get the opposition a picture on the non-offerable properties, but some of that will be age, some of that will be fire—occasionally we get a fire in a property—and some of that will be undiscovered structural damage such as termites and the like. There will be a range of different things that impact that figure at any one time.

Mr TELFER: I absolutely respect that. The one thing about this data is that although it is complex it is comparable, and we can do those comparisons to other times to gauge where things are at. Casting the minister's attention to pages 321 and 322, I refer to Part C. The snapshot shows 31,226 tenants and indicates that the trust can make only a relatively small number of allocations each year. How many category 1 households are currently on the register?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: From memory it is a bit north in category 1, but we will get the exact figure for you. The number of overall application numbers is about 15,523. Just in regard to your comparable number, happily it is a bit less than that at 3,796.

Mr TELFER: Ten per cent out.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Ten per cent out. Category 2, though, is 4,091 (that must have been what was in my mind), and category 3 is 7,659. Then there is 20 or so in the low demand category. On the issue of comparable numbers, what I would say about public housing and the age of the stock is that if you went back to Jay Weatherill's government the figures would look better because the houses are literally not as old. As we go on we have a bigger challenge in terms of public housing renewal because of the age of properties; that just has to be factored in.

Maintenance budgets are going to be a challenge for the trust, and that is one of the reasons we have put together the team in the trust that looks at the vacancies to make sure we can get those properties on line as quickly as we can, and that we are making rational judgements about not throwing good money after bad. If a property is too old, sometimes you just have to make a judgement about it.

Mr TELFER: I could make a joke about politicians there as well about making a judgement call when they reach a certain age, but I will just point the minister's attention to the trust's separate financial statements on page 319. What is the current total value of tenant debt outstanding?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Just to give a bit of context around this, the percentage of tenants on an arrangement—they have a debt but there is an arrangement—is 86 per cent and the percentage of non-tenants on an arrangement is 15 per cent. So, if you look at the value of tenant debt, which is, as of 30 September, $28.4 million, $23.5 million of that is being paid back through an arrangement. That is people getting behind in their rents. This is not surprising because we have low-income households in the main and that was a change that was made in 1999 by the federal Liberal government, embraced with some enthusiasm, I have to say, by state governments.

I think that is a problem. If you look at the old mix, it used to be about 50 per cent category 1 and 50 per cent other categories. Now it is 90 per cent category 1. Of course, debt then becomes an issue because you have the majority of your tenants on very fixed incomes.

Mr TELFER: So then what is the current total value of tenant debt? That is the number I was wondering if you had there.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The total number of tenant debt is $28.4 million.

Mr TELFER: In the last financial year, how many debt write-offs occurred and what was the value?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The total number of written-off debt, as of 30 June 2024-25, was $7.3 million.

Mr TELFER: In the last financial year?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes.

Mr TELFER: Looking at the contract management plans and performance and going back to the main document at page 319, the Auditor-General reports delays of up to 196 days in approving contract management plans and delays in assessing contractor performance. Can the minister inform what accountability measures were applied?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The trust has responded and I think we accept that it is not ideal, but basically further updates are being made to provide reminders in the system to make sure there is closure on the reports within 60 days following the contract and the dates and then those updates are due to be completed by 31 December 2025. Staff training is being strengthened. Requirements are now in the capital construction building procedures to make sure we have consistency and accountability.

Mr TELFER: On page 320, the Auditor-General speaks about areas where IT general controls could be improved, including patch management, user access, management for privileged user access, and the commentary then talks about the 'weaknesses increase the potential for unauthorised access to the Connect system and its data'. What steps are being taken to remediate the issues that those findings speak about, and by what timeframe are those measures estimated to be put in place?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I think this is not unknown when the Auditor-General looks at agencies. Obviously, access to data is a critical responsibility so the trust are undertaking to constantly review it and make sure the right people are accessing the right files at the right times for the right reasons.

Mr TELFER: That is a really great non-answer there, minister. On page 323, the Auditor-General notes arrangements where community housing providers redevelop trust assets and the trust recognises assets on completion at least equal to the original value. What evaluation is undertaken to measure tenant outcomes and asset utilisation? How is value for money measured in those processes?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Community housing providers?

Mr TELFER: Yes. On page 323, where it is talking about the community housing providers redeveloping trust assets.

The CHAIR: That was your last question and this will be the last answer.

Mr TELFER: Fleeting moments. We could speak for hours.

The CHAIR: I am sure you could.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: We survey the tenants for tenant satisfaction. It has been an issue of concern, for me in particular, because the drive of commonwealth policy has been to push public housing stock into community housing providers. Then, as part of those arrangements there are some benefits. Tenants can get rent assistance. Councils do not get their rates anymore. It is less popular with Playford council for one, but there are some benefits and that is the direction of federal public policy.

When this was done, in a number of cases there were commitments and undertakings made for restoration of stock. I think I wrote to all of them, or at least if I did not, the then CE of the Housing Trust, David Reynolds, did to just remind all the community housing providers of their obligations and to work with them to make sure that we did that process, and we do monitor it.

The CHAIR: The allotted time having expired, I thank the minister and his advisers and I thank the member for Flinders. We now go to the Minister for Child Protection and the member for Heysen. Start the clock.

Mr TEAGUE: I will start with the financial statements at page 7, table 1.3. Minister, you might also have reference to Part C: Agency audits at page 26. Table 1.3 at page 7 tells us that the original budget—about halfway across the page—for DCP in 2025 was $8.108 million, with total expenses of $796.002 million, which we see in the expenses table immediately below. The actual income expenses for 2025 were $988.223 million and total expenses were $971.482 million. That is a $188 million variance in income and a $175 million variance in expenses over what was provided in the 2025 budget. My first question is: can the minister provide a more particular line-by-line breakdown of that $175 million variance in expenses for the year?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Thank you to the member for the question. I first want to point out that also on page 7, which the member referred to, that further detail about expenditure is of course in that table. Also, to provide some further elaboration, particularly in relation to the table broadly and to the commentary on page 26, we have been very determined to progress reform of the child protection and family support system utilising a number of levers. We are seeing results of that reform.

As the Auditor-General points out, we are seeing a significant reduction in the growth of the number of children and young people coming into care. Those levers that we have used to assist with that result include, as the Auditor-General also refers to, our successful Finding Families program, our successful Additionally Approved Carer Program and our investment in family group conferencing. Expenditure is directed to each of those programs and also to our reunification efforts. Those programs are delivering results that are directly showing that reduction in terms of the growth of the number of children and young people coming into care.

What we also find, though, is that, whilst we are reducing the number of children and young people coming into care, the children and young people who are in care have increasingly a range of complexities that we need to respond to. That means that we need to contract particular services to ensure that the complex needs of particular children and young people are absolutely met.

Of course, we cannot not provide those services, as the member would appreciate, but they are complex services to respond to the complex needs of children and young people. We will meet those needs by providing those services, and that means particular expenditure is required. Also, various costs relating to running households are built in to the cost of those services that are provided to care for those children and young people.

We continue to look at how we can ensure we keep providing those quality services. I am very grateful to our non-government partners who help us and who work with us to provide those complex services to children and young people who really need support and who do have complex needs. I am very grateful to them, and we work to make sure that those services are provided. We also continue to expend funds on our reform efforts, including on those programs that I have just mentioned, and I am really pleased that they are showing results.

Mr TEAGUE: The minister has referred to three areas of expense that are not more particularly listed in the expenses table. Therefore, just to be clear, I do not understand the minister's answer to be saying so, but I presume that the examples that the minister has given—Finding Families, the additional money for carers and the family group conferencing—are examples of programs that had budgeted resources but that there were resources in excess of budget in respect of each of those three; is that is that correct?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: There was also an uplift in funding in the most recent budget for some of those programs.

Mr TEAGUE: We are talking, of course, about variance to budget; that is what the Auditor-General is there dealing with. When I asked for a line by line or a particularised breakdown of the variance of expenses of $175 million, the minister at the outset of that answer referred to the expenses table, which does provide some particularisation. Of course, the vast bulk of the variance is the first line of expenses, which is child protection services, and we see there on the far right that the variance is $163,901 million. Can the minister again provide particularity line by line in terms of the breakdown of the variance in the child protection services expenses?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: To make a broad comment, the variance that the member refers to is of course variance in relation to the original budget. I think the member's question is not taking account of the additional income into the department's budget or using that as a comparison. I guess I just wanted to add that to our discussion.

In terms of that question about the first line, in terms of child protection services, as I said, there is reducing growth in the numbers of children and young people coming into care. However, the children and young people who are in care have often extraordinarily complex needs. Sometimes those needs mean that in a particular placement the department needs to contract and fulfil to provide the right and the best possible services to a particular child. It may be that a child requires multiple carers 24 hours a day, particular therapeutic and clinical sorts of interventions and those particular placements, of course, come with a cost. As I said to the member earlier, we will always provide the services. We will provide services that a child needs to meet those complex needs, and of course, again, that costs money and we will need to meet that cost.

We are always looking at those processes and those needs. I know that in April the department established a new commissioning position within the department to continue to look at those processes. I know, of course, it is not a matter for me but I am advised that the department is currently in the process of negotiating particular contracts and of course they will do that in a fulsome way, in a way that is focused on ensuring the best possible support to a child and to ensure that we are expending the funds for that support in the best possible way.

To go back to the substance of the member's question, we have to meet—of course we have to meet, it is right that we meet—the complex needs of children and young people in care and we need to expend funds to meet those needs.

Mr TEAGUE: Just dealing first with the minister's broad comment as I think the minister described it, I thought it might go without saying in that the Auditor-General puts it in a couple of short words: the $175 million variance—the vast bulk of which is comprised of the $163,901,000 of additional to budget expense in child protection services—is funded by additional appropriation. It is an excess to budget and DCP needs to appropriate money. It is money spent in addition to budgeted amount and of course it is appreciated that the source of the funding is from additional appropriation. It has been described numerous different ways: it is an additional burden on the budget; it is a budget blowout. It is a variance in that amount.

The question, and I might put it again to the minister, is can the minister provide any particularisation, a line-by-line breakdown, of what that $163,901,000 is comprised of?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I note the way that the member has described and provided additional information about appropriation. I will bring the member back to my previous answer, and that is that we are expending funds on our deep reform of the child protection and family support system in ways that are pleasingly making a difference. We are also spending funds, as we absolutely should and must, on caring for those children in care who often have complex needs.

We need to meet the requirements that particular children have. Not every child has the same needs. Each child who comes into contact with the system, and comes into care and requires to live in accommodation away from their family, has particular needs and we have to meet them. So we are constantly engaging services, rightly, to meet those needs.

One of the things that is really pleasing, as we have also been looking at those services and how we are providing them, is that part of our reform has focused on reducing the number of temporary staff who are relied on. On coming to government that number was high, and we are working very hard to reduce that reliance on temporary staff. Our strategies in that regard are also working very well, as are our strategies around reforming the system to ensure that our efforts in intensive family support services, in family group conferencing, in the Additionally Approved Carer Program, and in reunification efforts are delivering results. Those efforts are doing that, and that is why, in relation to some of those programs, we had a further uplift in the most recent budget to ensure that we can continue those programs.

Finding Families is the other one that I wanted to mention, which I am advised has so far, through the efforts of Department for Child Protection staff in partnership with the Aboriginal community controlled organisation Kornar Winmil Yunti, delivered around 140 stable family placements for children and young people who otherwise would have been in residential care.

We are really pleased with the results of those programs. We will continue with those programs, and we will continue to consider how we can best provide the services that will meet the complex needs of children and young people. That is what we need to do and what we must do to meet those children and young people where they are at with their own unique needs—to respond to those unique needs.

Mr TEAGUE: The minister refers to reliance on temporary agency staff. I wonder if I might turn back more particularly to page 26. We have of course been dealing with the first of the significant events and transactions, but in going up on the page to the audit findings, the final one in those six dash points, the Auditor-General finds that incorrect overtime rates were paid to temporary agency staff. If we have a look at the middle of page 29, a couple of pages on, the Auditor-General observes that those incorrect overtime rates were in favour of the temporary agency staff, in that the Auditor-General observes that there were some overtime payments paid at double-time rates where time-and-a-half rates were applicable. The Auditor-General there further observes, 'We reported similar findings in 2023-24,' so that has continued year on year.

Can the minister advise what the amount of those are and, as it seems to have persisted in terms of those temporary agency staff, what is the minister doing about ensuring that the DCP response this year in terms of new deeds and any other measures are going to be effective?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I am very happy to provide some information to the member around that question. First of all, can I just say I am really pleased that we have reduced that reliance on temporary staffing and that, since coming to government, I am advised that we have grown the Department for Child Protection workforce by around 230 FTEs, which is really good news.

In terms of the member's question about changes, first of all I will take him back to March 2020 when the original panel deed, I am advised, was signed. That original panel deed was based on the South Australian Public Sector Enterprise Agreement, which triggers overtime after a particular number of hours of work. That meant that some panel providers had applied that rate according to that deed that was signed in 2020 rather than ensuring compliance to the actual relevant award, which is the Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award, which requires that that particular overtime payment is triggered at a different level of hours.

I am advised that the new panel deed that is now in place absolutely sets out that there is a need to ensure compliance to the relevant award—the Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award. So there was that understanding in relation to rates and when particular levels of overtime should be paid based on that earlier deed. Now, I am advised, the new panel deed sets out the need to comply with the relevant industrial instrument which is, as I said, the Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award.

Mr TEAGUE: I just ask the minister again how much money is involved, and is the department recovering that money or is that going to be retained by those temporary workers?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I have been advised that the issue surrounded an interpretation of the relevant industrial instruments and the relevant panel deeds. Rather than the particular provider overpaying, it was their interpretation of which particular industrial instrument would apply to those wages.

Mr TEAGUE: I am not sure that is an answer. The Auditor-General has found that they were incorrect payments, so is the minister's answer that that all just gets left?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: The deed has been corrected so that it is now in line with the appropriate payment, as the Auditor-General has pointed out needed to be addressed.

Mr TEAGUE: I go back to the financial statements at page 12, table 4.1, child protection services. If we are looking for continuity from the table that we have just been looking at, the expense line on page 7, table 1.3, the total for child protection services is $613.969 million and we see that replicated at page 12 in table 4.1.

Going to the top of that table we see under the heading 'Contracted services' for 2025 the first line item is non-family based care services, which is $377.496 million. We see there a $39 million increase from 2024 to 2025 on non-family based care services, going from $338 million to $377 million. The question is: how many children are currently in non-family based care services and can the minister provide a breakdown by age? What is the average cost of a placement in non-family based care per year and how many children does the $39 million increase represent?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: The Auditor-General's Report also sets this out, but pleasingly we have seen a significant decline in the growth of the number of children and young people coming into care. As the Auditor-General also pleasingly points out on several occasions in their report, there are around 4,900 children and young people in care and just under 84 per cent of those reside in family based care.

Mr TEAGUE: I am not denying the minister the opportunity to answer the question, so I will just leave those open. I am still at table 4.1. A bit further down, the final line item is carer payments and client-related costs. We see there that carer payments and client-related costs have increased from nearly $142 million to not quite $149 million. How many carers' clients receiving payments does this represent and what proportion of this amount is special-needs loading?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I am advised there are just under 3,000 family-based carers in our child protection and family support system—family-based carers that I am really grateful to every single day for the love, the care, the stability and the support that they provide to children and young people. Those people are there 24 hours a day, seven days a week for some of the children and young people in our community who most need our love and support, and I am exceptionally grateful to them. I am really pleased with the changes that we have made since coming to government to provide further and better support to those family-based carers.

In the 2023-24 budget we provided an increase in the carer payment, for approved carers caring for children 16 and under, of 4.5 per cent plus an additional $50 per fortnight. We have instituted the flexible respite payment for carers. We have instituted the Carer Council in our most recent legislation, in the significant change we made there. We have strengthened the provisions to ensure that carers' voices are heard. We look forward to our ongoing, deep listening to carers, and continuing our journey with them on our process of reform.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Odenwalder): The allotted time having expired, I thank the minister and her advisers. I thank the member for Heysen. I call on the Minister for Emergency Services and Correctional Services. The lead speaker is the member for Chaffey. Where would you like to start, because I understand there are 20 agencies?

Mr WHETSTONE: Maybe we will start with the CFS. Welcome to your first Auditor-General's, minister. I am sure the member for Bragg and I will take it very easy on you. We will start off with the CFS PPC cleaning at page 299, Part C. In both 2023 and 2024 the Auditor-General found PPC cleaning rates were low for the SA CFS, potentially increasing staff and volunteers to exposure of carcinogens. The SA CFS planned measures to address this in both years but compliance remains low. Has the CFS carried out any initiatives in the past two years to address the issues?

The Hon. R.K. PEARCE: Thank you very much for your kind comments, and it is a pleasure to be doing this with you today. I am pleased to share that the CFS is continuing to work collaboratively with the service provider to be able to help strengthen service delivery and build a shared sense of accountability, including enhanced reporting and monitoring frameworks which have been introduced to help support the transparency, responsiveness and continuous improvement in meeting the service commitments.

To help improve on the uptake of commercial cleaning services and increase presentation, the CFS has completed and is working towards establishing a dedicated role to work with the CFS Volunteer Association, regional staff and local courier providers to service remote breathing apparatus brigades that are not covered by the IDS courier routes. There are, of course, some areas that remain challenging, but we are ensuring there are additional PPC sets to be issued as a temporary solution to help ensure operational readiness.

We have completion of phases 1 to 5 of the lock box rollout as well, with larger lock boxes now being issued to help support increased collection volumes. Additional requests for further lock boxes are being accommodated where they are required as well.

We are finalising and communicating with collection locations through a comprehensive list published by the volunteer portal, regional communications, newsletters and RVMC discussions to ensure that volunteers and staff have clear access to the information, because it is as important that they know what is available to them as much as what we are rolling out to the areas to make sure there is optimum uptake and ensure we are continuing to see improvements in that space.

Of course, improved signage for courier access has been underway as well, in particular with these lock boxes, to help address issues such as missed collections and the like. We want to make sure this is not only safe but also as efficient as it can possibly be for all involved. We will continue to work closely with IDS regional teams and volunteers to help strengthen trust in the service, highlighting the successes and addressing issues constructively.

Mr WHETSTONE: Given the result has remained the same for the last three reports, when will we see some of these expected results? You just talked about it, but when will we see some tangible results?

The Hon. R.K. PEARCE: I am really pleased to share that we are already seeing improvements. These are components that have been rolled out as a result of the last report that has come through. It goes to show that the initiatives being put in place are being received well and are having an impact in local communities.

Mr WHETSTONE: In 2023-24 the Auditor-General found that the SA CFS could not provide evidence that it was managing some key clauses of its PPC cleaning contracts. This year the CFS was still unable to confirm and provide evidence for a number of requirements. Can you confirm that all supply standards and performance requirements in the CFS PPC cleaning contracts are being met?

The Hon. R.K. PEARCE: I am able to advise that we are close to full compliance, which is really promising to see. There have been significant improvements since previous reports we have seen come to this place, and this has come about due to the findings and recommendations that have been made.

I would like to advise that there is a new state manager for IDS as well, and the conversations, communications and processes that have been put in place as a result have been very promising. We are also now pairing with the new IDS app to help make the cleaning and decontamination process simpler and more efficient for volunteers.

It is something we are seeing a lot of improvements in, and we are continuing to work to improve in that space. As I said, logistics can be difficult depending where you are, but we are not shying away from that challenge and are doing what we can to build and improve in that space to keep our volunteers safe.

Mr WHETSTONE: How frequently are contract management meetings occurring? Can you give me an understanding as to why the CFS was unable to provide evidence that they had occurred?

The Hon. R.K. PEARCE: I might have to take that one on notice to get you a more comprehensive answer to that question. I can confirm, I am being advised, that they are meeting regularly, but in terms of the specifics about what was and was not in the report I can bring that back to you.

Mr WHETSTONE: Moving on to page 300, Part C, in the last two financial years the Auditor-General found that 226 SES fleet assets had not been serviced, 40 per cent of them being high-risk assets, and 30 per cent of them had no record of ever being serviced. Minister, will you commit to ensuring these vehicles are serviced and when? Sorry, we are moving to the SES.

The Hon. R.K. PEARCE: This is another area that I am pleased to share that we have had significant improvements in. Originally, it was looking at about 68 fleet assets. That is down now to approximately 30. A lot of those are trailers that are being decommissioned and we have been putting others in place that are to a higher standard.

Mr WHETSTONE: Minister, are you aware of, or have there been, any reported incidents involving SES fleet assets within the last 24 months?

The Hon. R.K. PEARCE: Thank you very much for the question. I understand that from time to time there can be minor incidents that occur that are not attributable to the condition of the trailer. As you can understand, being on the road sometimes that can occur. There was a minor incident that happened, I understand, on Kangaroo Island. It was minor in the sense that no injuries occurred in that particular case.

Mr WHETSTONE: In the last four Auditor-General Reports, he has reported that the emergency service sector should develop strategic asset management plans. In this year's report, he found that limited progress had been made on these plans. What is the current status of those plans and when are they expected to be completed?

The Hon. R.K. PEARCE: In regard to the SES, a detailed review and data analysis has been underway in terms of the fleets that we have in place and we continue to update those figures. We do have an ongoing audit and targeted action plan to help address the gaps as we see fit as well and there are also enhancements planned to Emerald, which is the SES data recording system, which will include automated notifications for servicing and also maintenance deadlines, reminders to ensure timely documentation, and also the escalation points to address overdue or missing records. Essentially, they aim to further improve the document recording and data analysis capabilities that we see.

I understand the finalisation of capability equipment lists within the SES has been a really key step. They have provided a real solid foundation for developing a formal procedure for the regular inspection of stowage kit assets.

In the longer term, these specifications will assist to inform requirements for an asset management system, considering both the record management needs and also the ease of use for the users as well, which is equally important.

Mr WHETSTONE: At page 301, Part C, previously the CFS regions were unable to provide evidence of trailers and plant equipment being serviced within the requirements. What is the status of the CFS's minimum service requirement procedure and when will it be completed?

The Hon. R.K. PEARCE: I am really pleased to share that we have seen some significant improvements in this space in 2025 in being able to implement, develop and embed improved asset management practices across operational and administrative areas. These are helping to enhance the accountability, the data quality and consistency across statewide operations.

The implementation and coordination of asset management practices take time to become fully embedded, as we can all appreciate, but these processes are being progressively integrated into standard operational practices and also the organisational culture to help ensure long-term sustainability and continuous improvement.

In response to the audit findings, CFS has strengthened asset management governance by updating key guidelines and establishing a structured framework for vehicle and facility fault reporting. A QR code-based reporting system has been rolled out across all regions, linking directly to a centralised database for job allocation to approved and onboard contractors as well.

In addition, the CFS has enhanced its asset management system, Hardcat, by incorporating company compliance data, supplier qualification records and personnel competency information to help ensure that only verified and compliant contractors can be issued work orders.

Mr WHETSTONE: Minister, are you concerned that there seems to be a trend of lack of maintenance programs with the equipment that is used for emergency response? It appears that this has happened over two and three years. I know you are a new minister but I would like to hear some commentary from you about changing the culture of equipment that has systematically been overlooked for servicing, particularly when it has been used to roll out into an emergency situation.

The Hon. R.K. PEARCE: I thank the member for his question. As the minister, I am incredibly honoured to have this position and I am certainly doing all that I can to ensure that our emergency services feel supported and safe to do the important work that they do. As has been highlighted, there has been a lot of progress in recent years in regard to systems in place to ensure that we do have the best on the ground for these amazing people. I am really proud that we have a really diverse state here in South Australia, each with different needs depending on where you are.

I have been out where we have been rolling out the quick response vehicles in certain components. I have been out on the ground to understand our aerial firefighting fleet as well as all the different appliances that we have on the ground for our SES, our CFS and our MFS, and understanding what their particular needs are, depending on where they are and what they need on each of those appliances.

I am really pleased that we are doing what we can to improve our tracking and maintenance, and I certainly want to help ensure that they feel as supported as they possibly can. That also includes what we have behind the scenes in terms of our tracking and our data keeping. I do know that our facility-tracking QR digital form has been a pivotal player in this role. I will continue to be working very closely with emergency services personnel to ensure that they feel that they have the backing to do what they need to do to keep all of our communities safe, no matter where they are and no matter what they need to use.

Mr WHETSTONE: I am moving on to rec and sport now. I refer to the Racing Industry Fund financial statement on page 12. Grants for the Racing Industry Fund fell from $16.8 million to $12.3 million. Can you give me an understanding of why there was a cut and what codes have been affected?

The Hon. R.K. PEARCE: With regard to how the funding in this space works, it is a hypothecated tax, which means it is accumulated out of the net gaming revenue, which means if there are more people placing bets and putting money through the system in that sense you will have more, and if there are fewer there is less. That then is distributed out across the different market codes within the sector. If it is going up, it is going up and it is distributed and, likewise, if it is going down as well. That is essentially how they are determined.

Mr WHETSTONE: Given the volatility of the Racing Industry Fund, how is the minister giving the racing industry a predictable funding profile for 2026 and beyond?

The Hon. R.K. PEARCE: I have just explained how the money is accumulated, so it might be more of a question for Treasury. Ultimately, there is an agreeance on the percentages that are provided out to each of the codes, and that goes over a four-year period.

Mr WHETSTONE: The office transferred $20.5 million to the Consolidated Account in 2025. Why was the money not retained for rec, sport and racing purposes?

The Hon. R.K. PEARCE: I have been advised that this is a Treasury process and it is a cash alignment in that regard.

Mr WHETSTONE: Sorry, can you repeat that please?

The Hon. R.K. PEARCE: Essentially, what you are referring to is a Treasury process, so it goes in regard to the cash alignment policy.

The CHAIR: Are there any more questions?

Mr BATTY: No. The time being 5.30, I understand the member for Unley has a bit to say, so we are happy to stop there.

The CHAIR: I thank the minister and the members for their questions. The committee has further considered the Auditor-General's Report 2024-25 and completed its examination of ministers on matters contained therein.