Legislative Council Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2) 54 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Aged-Care CCTV Trial Aged-Care CCTV Trial The Hon. F. PANGALLO Legislative Council Aged-Care CCTV Trial The Hon. F. PANGALLO (14:54): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Minister for Health and Wellbeing about the trial of CCTV cameras in residential care facilities. Leave granted. The Hon. F. PANGALLO Legislative Council The Hon. F. PANGALLO: After questioning by SA-Best and almost 15 months after the minister and Premier announced a trial of a cutting-edge surveillance and monitoring system across at least five SA Health managed aged-care facilities, the minister dropped a media release to The Advertiser at the weekend to announce the winner of the tender for the pilot. The federal government had provided $500,000 for the trial on the understanding the state government was going to use the proven services and expertise of a UK company, Care Protect, operating in 50 British and Irish aged-care and mental health sites. However, there was a major falling out with SA Health when Care Protect became concerned about its intellectual property and other probity concerns. There is no company in Australia which provides the high level of services and standards like Care Protect; however, SA Health saw fit to award the pilot contract to a small Torrensville-based company called Sturdie Trade Services with no starting date. There were no details about how it was going to carry out the pilot, which will now be carried out in just two of the smallest SA Health aged-care facilities, not the promised five. A look at its website reveals it is an installer of sophisticated electrical and electronic security CCTV systems and alarms—nothing there about any experience or expertise in the monitoring of aged-care or other health facilities. I called the company today to find out, but they refused to answer my questions, instead referring me to the SA Health media adviser, but I will ask the minister instead: 1.	How can this company possibly deliver the specialised services of triage, assessment and protection of vulnerable people that was a requirement in the original grant funding terms to the federal government when it has no proven experience in the sector? 2.	Has the federal government been informed of the significant alteration of the original terms? The Hon. S.G. WADE Legislative Council Minister for Health and Wellbeing The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (14:57): I thank the honourable member for his question. I fundamentally reject his assertion in his explanation that the commonwealth gave us $500,000 on the condition that our supplier was Care Protect. The commonwealth, like the state government, goes through procurement processes for these matters. It was the case that Care Protect was our original technology partner. The issues arose in relation to security and ICT concerns. It went to an open tender. Sturdie Trade Services submitted to that open tender; Care Protect did not. I don't think it's appropriate to reprosecute a procurement process by reference to an alternative commercial provider who did not put a proposal to the tender. The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: Supplementary question, the Hon. Mr Pangallo.