HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-11-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Auditor-General's Report

Auditor-General's Report

In committee.

(Continued from 11 November 2014.)

The CHAIR: We have the Treasurer's reporting section, and we ask him to commence.

Mr MARSHALL: My question relates to the Auditor-General's Report, Part B, Volume 6, page 2080, regarding the RISTEC system. In particular, that page references note 8 in the financial statements, which I find on page 2103. On that, note No. 8 has a heading 'Derecognition of assets', which I presume is $4½ million. Can the Treasurer advise the house what this refers to, the derecognition of assets of $4½ million in 2014?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that the financial statements of DTF in the Auditor-General's Report to parliament show a write-off of $4.515 million in relation to the RISTEC project. The write-off relates to funds expended in previous accounting periods but capitalised as part of the RISTEC system asset. This money has been included in the cost of the project as previously reported and is not a new cost.

The decision to discontinue release 3 (R3) in its current form means that, under accounting standards expenditure, I am advised that expenditure related to release 3 can only be treated as an asset to be amortised over future accounting periods but, rather, must be treated as an expense. I am also further advised that, if a future decision is made to proceed with an SAP-based solution or an alternative solution for R3, the department can still use and take advantage of the design and specific R3 work undertaken to date.

I am further advised that specifications, functional and technical and operation works can still be applied to SAP solution, or elements of this work can be applied and used in the development of an alternative solution. Basically, the advice I have received is that it is an accounting standard and that we have allocated it in the appropriate way.

Mr MARSHALL: Yes, but just on that are you suggesting that this is $4½ million which has previously been expensed, then capitalised and now written off, relating to work done on stage 3, which is now not going to continue?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is the advice I have, but I have also just received advice, which you probably heard, that it is not lost; we could still probably use it.

Mr MARSHALL: You are writing off an asset; why would you write off an asset if it is something that you are using? Can you also explain whether there are any other expenses here related to phase 3 of the RISTEC implementation which have been expensed in the past?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I do not understand the last part. Do you want a list of any other expenses on top of the $4.5 million that have been written off as part of the R3 RISTEC program, or do you want a breakdown of the $4.5 million?

Mr MARSHALL: Treasurer, you explained that in expensing the work done on RISTEC phase 3 you would capitalise that onto the balance sheet, and you have then written it off the balance sheet. So, you have taken it from an expense to a capital item, and now you have written it off. What I would like to know is whether any other expenses have been incurred for RISTEC phase 3 which, as I understand from your responses to estimates, will not be going ahead.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The advice I have is that there are no other works that have been written off as a result of not proceeding with the expense. Again, Treasury and Finance want to reinforce to the committee that it does not mean that if we decide to proceed with R3 this work is lost.

Mr MARSHALL: It is my understanding that phase 3 will not be proceeded with; in other words, it has been lost. Does the RISTEC system deal with the ESL payments?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that, no, it is not and that it is still legacy programs running the ESL billing system for this period.

Mr MARSHALL: Which system is that, sorry?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that the system is called Climber and it is part of a legacy system the department has in place.

Mr MARSHALL: Can the Treasurer advise the house if any cost was incurred and what that cost may be to update the system with regard to the changes to the remission announced in the budget?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that there was a cost. We do not have that here now, but I can get that for the committee.

Mr MARSHALL: Can the Treasurer advise whether that work was done internally or externally? If it was done externally, who did that work?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that it was done externally by an IT company called Prophecy.

Mr MARSHALL: And you will come back to the house with the cost of that. I am still on this ESL line but I am happy to change the reference, so that it is a bit more relevant, to Part C, page 8, which deals with this matter. My question is really to do with the aged care sector and the implementation of the removal of the remission policy of the government and the impacts upon the aged care sector. The Treasurer has spoken on this in the past, but we still do not have perfect clarity regarding either the retirement sector or the aged care sector. Can the Treasurer give us an update on that and when the industry is likely to be informed of the outcome?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: As I advised the FIVEaa Leon Byner program and the 891 program, and I think the parliament but I will have to check, it is not the government's intention to have people who are living in supported accommodation or retirement villages impacted by the removal of the ESL remissions. I understand that to the best of the department's knowledge there has been a stop put on all accounts for people in that type of accommodation. We are in discussions with the industry about how best to manage it.

As the Leader of the Opposition and the house may be aware, it is very difficult. There are quite a number of mixed people in retirement villages and nursing homes. We have not come to a final landing yet, but it is certainly the government's intention that we maintain the remissions for people who receive the appropriate concession cards, regardless of the supported accommodation, be it a retirement village or likewise. We will have an answer for the house very soon, but we are in constant contact. The commissioner is in contact, I am advised, with the industry to make sure that we are working through a solution.

Mr MARSHALL: On that same reference, what budget did Treasury advise the Treasurer would be a suitable budget for the retirement village sector and the aged care sector for the removal of the remissions of the total amount of $355.8 million?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Do you want the total?

Mr MARSHALL: The total amount in your budget was $355.8 million. What percentage or what dollar amount of that was envisaged would come from the retirement village sector and what was envisaged would come from the aged care sector? And if they are both removed, what will be the hit to the budget?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We are talking mainly about retirement villages here, but I will have to get that back to you. I am not sure that nursing homes were ever envisaged as part of the exemption. But in terms of the breakdown of the—is it $327 million or $355 million? I will have to check because I do not have those numbers in front of me. I can get you a percentage cost, remembering that it is not our intention to collect that money from the retirement village sector because we are trying to work out a way of making sure that people who are in retirement villages who have the appropriate concession cards still maintain their remissions.

Given that they do not own property, they still have a right to occupy. It is something that the commissioner is working through, and we are working through that with the industry. There are a number of issues that have come up with this industry—not only that, but in terms of stimulus packages that the government has announced as well through conveyance duty and stamp duty exemptions that the industry has brought up. I am certainly looking at that to make sure that they are not disadvantaged when the government makes its policy decisions. I can get you those details but I just do not have them here with me now.

Mr MARSHALL: On that same level, are you suggesting that aged-care facilities will not be part of this envisaged exemption?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The people we are trying to exempt are people who are analogous to owning their own property but have the appropriate concession cards. Again, that is not necessarily a nursing home, but it is a retirement village. They are the people we are attempting to exempt. That is what we are working through. Anyone who is in an analogous position to that (that is, accommodation that is like ownership of property but they are in a communal setting such as a retirement village) their concessions must be honoured because the government made that commitment, and we are trying to work through with the industry how best to apply that.

It may be that the easiest approach is just to exempt all retirement villages. It may be the simplest and most efficient way to do that, but at the same time, we do not want to see all of a sudden a whole group of people who do not attract the concession to eventually start—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, that could be very good for the retirement village industry; it could be a great stimulus package.

Mr MARSHALL: Can you explain to the committee, then, why the aged-care facilities in South Australia have not received their emergency services levy rates notices for this year?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Because we have put an account stop on them to try to understand exactly what the nature of the people who are residing in these properties are, and how they reside in them; for example, if it is analogous to being in your own home, then we want you to have the remission. If it is some other form of care, the government is working through that to make sure we do not disadvantage people.

Mr MARSHALL: Just for clarity, Treasurer, you are saying that all of these things that you are considering relate to the retirement village sector, but the aged-care sector (nursing homes) have not received their levy notices either. Are you considering exempting them also or not? If not, why have they not received their rates notices? Surely you are wanting to get that cash in?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The principle the government has is this: is it analogous to ownership of property? People in retirement villages technically do not own the house they are in, but they have the right to occupy it for a period of time, which is not quite legal ownership. Nursing home admittance is not analogous to homeownership, and that is the difference.

Mr MARSHALL: So why have they not received their rates notices?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will check, but it depends on the nature of the nursing home. Some of them could have a mixture between retirement village and nursing home, but I will check that for you and find out and get back to you.

Mr MARSHALL: Are there any other sectors that have not received their rates notices in South Australia at the moment, other than the aged-care sector and the retirement village sector?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that we are at the point of the cycle where most accounts have been issued, unless there is some ongoing dispute in terms of land use or any ongoing dispute that might have been historical in nature. So, we are at the same point where we are, where the majority of the bills—and when I say 'majority', I mean almost all the bills—have been sent out, other than those that have had a deliberate stop put on them or where there is some sort of dispute. I would envisage that almost all of them have been sent out.

Mr MARSHALL: Are there currently any other sectors for which the government is contemplating a restoration of the remission?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If we are, we would announce anything like that in the budget.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Treasurer, I refer to page 2121 of the same book. How many reminder notices were sent out for ESL bills to businesses and households in 2012-13 and 2013-14?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that we do not have that number because it is not finalised yet but, at the same stage as we were last year, it is about 2 per cent more.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Can you come back with the answer once it is finalised?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: In the same table on the same page, looking at the contribution from the Lotteries Commission of South Australia, what has created that significant reduction in income?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I think Treasury and I are on the same page on this: taking a wild stab in the dark, we probably think it is because we have sold the TAB and the Lotteries Commission, and now the Lotteries Commission's profits are being taken by the private consortium that bought them. That is what I think the reduction is, but we will go back and check for you.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: So not all the profits, but a significant share of the profits?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Next is minerals, please.

The CHAIR: Can we have a page, member for Stuart?

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes, Part B, Volume 3, page 1128. It says on that page:

Apart from this annual review, DMITRE does not have a process which will identify any subsequent, and potentially invalid, changes made to the fees during the year.

Are you aware of any instances where the fees and the TMS were invalid or incorrect for an extended period of time?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Like with any system, I am advised that we probably did make some minor errors, but we have gone through and reconciled those. As of 24 October, they have been reconciled, but I do not have a list here handy with me, so I am happy to provide those to you.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: How long has the annual review been in place? Is that something that has always been there or was it more frequent and it became annual?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is a long-established practice, I am advised. I think it is so long established that we do not actually have at hand information about when we started it.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: It has traditionally been annual?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It has traditionally been annual, and it is a good process. We do not want people having tenements we do not know about.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I refer to page 1127, just the page before. It says:

As DMITRE does not raise invoices for the application fee and first year annual licence fee relating to petroleum licences, there are no records of these transactions in the Petroleum Processing system.

How long have invoices not been raised for the application fee in the first year?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that the receipting of non-invoice transactions was completed by 30 June 2014, and they are reflected in the statements. I do not have an explanation as to why it was not done initially, but I will inquire of the department and get back to the committee.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Could you, when you do that, come back with the number of invoices and the value?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: In the same book, page 1131 talks about the method of calculation of royalties payable. It says in the third dot point in the middle of the page that 'a change in the method of calculation of the royalty payable for a…mineral producer' is one of the reasons for the increase in royalties collected. Can you just explain how that change in the method of calculation has contributed directly to the change in royalties collected?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, I cannot, but I am assured by Treasury and Finance that shifting to a monthly process ensured a short-term benefit to the finances, but I can get you a detailed answer. I am convinced there is a reason:

the once-off revenue benefit of $31 million from implementing monthly royalty payments rather than six-monthly and, in one case, quarterly for larger mineral producers;

the effect of the finalisation of the amendment of the OneSteel indenture resulting in a higher rate of royalties being applied for the mining activities of Arrium in the Middleback Ranges; and

the changes that were announced in the 2010-11 budget.

It is simply the implementation of a previous budget decision that has seen a benefit of $31 million, I am advised, to the finances, which is a good thing.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: On the same page, Treasurer, the dot point says that 'a change in the Mining Act 1971 which now requires major mineral producers to pay mining royalties monthly rather than every six months' has resulted in the extra royalty payment. How much additional royalty did the government receive as a result of this change? Is that the $31 million?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Is that the same as you budgeted for?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You will see that in the Mid-Year Budget Review, no doubt.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Referring to page 1150, can you advise if it is was the government's policy to purchase half of its electricity supplies from green power in 2013-14? Was that a position? I think it was but I just need confirmation.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I understand there was a policy position taken. I think that is correct, but I do not have that level of detail here in front of me. I only have the audited reports. I do not have policy position papers with me, so I will have to check my records and get back to the house.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I think it was also, so I was just looking for that confirmation. I would be grateful if you could come back. When you come back with your answer, can you tell me whether you will be continuing that policy? Is it a savings measure or is there a cost attached to it? If there is a savings or a cost, how much is it either way?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: As Treasurer, I hope the government is buying the most efficient and cheapest type of power we possibly can to try to give maximum savings to the taxpayer. I will get a detailed answer for you and get back to the committee.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Page 1139 states:

supporting the mineral and energy resources sectors to deliver outcomes that continue to build South Australia's international profile and strengthen the State's economic prosperity through sustainable development and best practice regulation.

Can you explain what due diligence was done by the government prior to issuing Ambassador their exploration licence in the Cooper Basin, given the company had no operating history in the oil and gas industry?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is an offensive question. If the member has an accusation to make, he should make it and then he should walk outside and make it again.

Ms Chapman: C'mon, Tom.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, you can just hush and be quiet for a moment. First and foremost, I play absolutely no role in the allocation of these PRLs. They are done independent of me. I delegate my authority to the department and they do it. I have absolutely no say in it at all and the accusation that Ambassador Oil has no capability is inaccurate and offensive to the people who work tirelessly in that industry.

Quite frankly, when it gets out to the industry that you have repeated an accusation made in The Australian in the parliament about a long-term industry worker who works for Ambassador and who was involved in that process and you make those type of comments, this type of question shows an ignorance of the industry and probably why at the last election the Liberal Party released no resources policy and probably why right now every major resources company and resources industry group is condemning the Liberal Party today because of their actions. Tom Playford looks down at all of you disapprovingly at the way you are conducting yourselves in this industry and I think the shadow spokesperson should know better. His job is to stand up for the industry.

An honourable member interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! Next question, member for Stuart.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Thank you very much, Chair. There is no accusation there whatsoever.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, there was.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: No, the question was about what due diligence has been done—

The CHAIR: Yes, we have had that question.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —and I actually said nothing about their capacity either, so that was completely fallacious. I asked about—

The CHAIR: Order!

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —their operating history, Treasurer. Check the Hansard. If an exploration licence is put to tender, are there any prerequisites for the winning bidder with regard to their prior operating history?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: This process is independent of me. The Australian made inquiries into this and I know that members opposite are the first to jump at conspiracy. I will say that Barry Goldstein is an industry advocate and regulator of the highest possible standing and they are the people—

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: Nobody doubts that. Nobody questions it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Obviously other than your loaded questions.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: Rubbish.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sure, no worries, you have the highest standing in the industry. The Liberal Party right now is top of the pops when it comes to the resources sector. They all think you are fantastic.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: Just answer the question.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Look, I am answering the question and you will sit there and listen to it.

The CHAIR: Order!

Mr PISONI: Point of order, Chair: it is disorderly to respond to objections.

The CHAIR: You are all being disorderly, so sit down and let's finish—

Mr PISONI: I beg your pardon, I haven't said a word.

The CHAIR: You are on your feet.

Mr PISONI: It is a point of order. My point of order is in order.

Mr Gardner: The Treasurer is acting like a thug.

The CHAIR: You are interjecting and you have run out of time. The amount of time having expired, I thank the Treasurer and his advisers for their attendance and call on the next section which is the Minister for Education and Children's Services.

Mr PISONI: The first question, minister, refers to page 494 in Volume 2—Consultancy fees. Can you explain the significant increase in consultancy fees listed between 2013 and 2014?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Yes, I can. The department engaged the services of five consultants during 2013-2014. If you want a sum of the information around them, the Australian and New Zealand School of Government was engaged. That expenditure was around $51,000. GK Corporation was engaged and was helping with the redesign and restructure of Families SA. That was $73,000. ARTD Consultants, their expenditure was a little over $97,000, and that was looking at the Innovative Community Action Networks and doing an evaluation of that. They were also engaged to evaluate mentoring programs, and it was a $52,000 consultancy. Community Matters and Mayhem Two services were engaged for evaluation of the youth development program, and that was a $42,000 consultancy.

Mr PISONI: I did not quite get the name of the consultancy that did the redesign work but, nevertheless, I will pick it up in Hansard. Are you able to detail to the house the experience that organisation has in managing the design of child protection systems?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I do not have with me the detail around them, but we do have a consultant who came over from the US working with Families SA, working on solution-based case work. I am not sure whether GK was that particular organisation but I am happy to take that work on notice.

The redesign program is really about Families SA working in a different way, and that is working on the strengths of families, working with families, hopefully in maintaining the family and strengthening that family rather than taking a child away. Members would know that when there is a real concern about the safety of a child we will go to—

The CHAIR: Do you have a point of order, member for Unley?

Mr PISONI: The minister is drifting away from the substance of the question. The question was whether that company had any experience in redesigning.

The CHAIR: I am listening very carefully.

Mr PISONI: That has been answered and an answer will be brought back to the house, the minister said.

The CHAIR: So you have another question, do you?

Mr PISONI: Thank you very much. This refers to page 506 of the same volume. Provision of current workers compensation, legal claims and fire claims all appear to be significantly up. We have gone from $18.4 million to $24 million in one year. Are you able to advise the house, minister, as to the reasons why we have seen that increase?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Do you want both legal and WorkCover?

Mr PISONI: Yes, thank you.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: The provision for legal claims increased by $228,000. The provision for legal claims fluctuates. It depends on the number of unsettled claims against the department and the estimated value of each claim as at 30 June each year. The number of outstanding legal claims against the department increased by 21 claims from 30 June 2013 to 30 June 2014. That would depend not only on the number of claims lodged during that year, as I understand it, but the number of claims that may have been settled. So each year they will fluctuate.

The provision for workers compensation increased by $7.3 million, and that is calculated by the independent actuary Taylor Fry, consulting actuaries who are engaged by DPC to value the whole-of-government workers compensation liability. There is a range of factors that have impacted on that.

There has been a decrease in the income maintenance payment trends for long-term claims, higher than expected section 42 payments, an increase in the medical payments accounting, an increase in the S43 payment trends, a decrease in the rehabilitation payment trends, an increase in physiotherapy payment trends, an increase in other payment trends, an increase in the recovery payment trends, a decrease in the discount rate combined with a decrease in the AWE inflation rates has accounted for the increase in the liability, and the projected increase in claims liability as a result of the additional year of exposure and unwinding of one year's investment earnings.

Mr PISONI: Can the minister advise the house how many legal claims against the department were settled in 2013 and 2014?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I do not have that number with me, but I am happy to take that question on notice.

Mr PISONI: Are you also able to provide the nature of the claims, obviously respecting the privacy of the families? When you bring that information back, minister, could you advise what the nature of those claims were?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I am happy to provide as much information as I can. There may be some issues that we cannot, but I am happy to provide the member with as much information as I can.

Mr PISONI: In reference to the workers compensation claims, the increase in the budget from the actual from last year to the previous year, are you able to anticipate what effect the workers compensation changes that have gone through the parliament will have for future workers compensation claims based on historical records that you have had previously?

I know that in the Department for Education about 52 per cent of workers compensation claims are stress related and I think there were changes to the Workers Compensation Act to minimise stress-related claims. Has your department done any work on what the expected savings will be, particularly through stress related claims, with the new Workers Compensation Act?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: The department has started some preliminary work in relation to trying to assess the impact. I would expect that, as we move forward with that, we will need to engage with the actuary again to make those professional assessments.

Mr PISONI: As to those currently on workers compensation or who have a claim, if they return to work but then the claim is re-engaged or they go into a relapse, will they be treated under the terms of the Workers Compensation Act before the changes or will they be then treated under the new act?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: The workers compensation legislation, as the member for Unley would know, is within the purview of the Deputy Premier, so he is the expert in how all of that occurs. My understanding of it is that all people with a compensation claim now start with the two-year process and new claims start with the two-year process as well. I am happy to seek the advice of the Deputy Premier in relation to that.

Mr PISONI: I refer now to page 462 regarding purchase cards. I appreciate you might not have this figure with you now and will be happy for you to bring it back. How many DECD staff have purchase cards and what is the nature of the cards? In other words, what are the limitations or what are they allowed to purchase/not allowed to purchase on those cards? Is there a set of guidelines or rules that they sign off on when they receive those cards?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: There are guidelines and limitations placed on cards. I am happy to get that detail and bring it back.

Mr PISONI: The audit has raised a number of serious issues associated with the management of the cards in your department—for example, interstate travel arranged and paid for before being approved, entertainment costs that are not approved, and the Auditor-General had identified an employee who had a limit of $10,000 instead of $1,000. Are you able to advise why it is that travel has been paid for before it has been approved?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: There are clear guidelines about how people are to use these travel cards. The department is, as a result of this finding, undertaking a training program for all cardholders and supervisors to further alert them to their requirements.

Mr PISONI: This is not the first year that the Auditor-General has raised that concern, so you are saying you have only just started now training staff in how to use their credit cards?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I am advised that this is the first time the Auditor has raised this particular issue and so we are drilling down to further check what he is referring to, but in the meantime we are reasserting, to make sure people understand that when they purchase items they have to provide the proper taxation receipt for that, that when they travel—this is interstate travel, by the way, not overseas travel—they have to get proper authorisation. We will be doing monthly sample checks of transactions to make sure that the requirements are being complied with.

Mr PISONI: Entertainment costs that are not approved: are you able to advise the house as to how much is spent on entertainment by cardholders annually, certainly what was spent in 2013-14 and 2012-13?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I am advised that we can get that information for you.

Mr PISONI: Are you able to advise what the credit limit is for cards and how many cards are issued with credit limits above $1,000?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Obviously, depending on the person's position in the department and the work they undertake, the upper limit on those cards differs. For those cardholders, it is quite different across the department. I can see whether that information can be easily accessed.

Mr PISONI: Could I also have, while you are accessing that, the highest limit available on a DECD credit card?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: We are happy to provide the credit limits for you.

Mr PISONI: The Auditor-General also found that terminated employees had been detected with cards that have not been deactivated. Are you able to advise how many terminated employees still held cards that were not deactivated?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I am advised that there were three instances of terminated employees whose purchase cards had not been cancelled. They have since had that happen.

Mr PISONI: Were those cards used after the termination of employment, and what was the value of the purchases?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: No, I am advised there was no activity noted from the termination date.

Ms SANDERSON: This relates to pages 464 and 465 in the Auditor-General's Report and concerns the annual carer reviews. In 2011, the carers were continually exceeding the 12-monthly review. In 2012, the Auditor-General noted they were still behind in reviewing 239; in 2013, still behind in reviewing 207; and in 2014, the annual review showed 98 had passed their one year. Given an annual review is required in accordance with the standards of alternative care in South Australia, what is the minister doing to ensure this happens, and what are the safeguards or penalties that apply?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I thank the member for Adelaide for her question. I am pleased that she has been able to acknowledge that there have been significant improvements in addressing the number of outstanding reviews over the last couple of years. The issue is, of course, that we need to get that information from non-government organisations, so we have been actively pursuing those non-government organisations in relation to those reviews. As you would realise, I think we have in excess of, or around, 1,000 foster carers and slightly more kinship carers, so it is a big job. Obviously we want non-government organisations to complete that work. As far as I am aware, we do not place any penalty on our non-government organisations for not providing that information.

Ms SANDERSON: Does this also cover Families SA workers who work in residential facilities with children? Are they also subject to an annual review?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: It is a completely different process, yes.

Mr PISONI: I refer to page 460. Can the minister confirm that the department still has salary overpayments of $2 million as of June 2014, as detailed in the Auditor-General's papers? Can she advise how old those overpayments are?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I am advised that unrecovered salary overpayments was $2 million as at June 2014, and that has decreased since June 2013. The value of the debts has been managed by Shared Services. DECD reduced it by a further $129,000 over the period 30 June 2014 to 23 October 2014, so we have had a $776,000 reduction and a further $129,433 between June and October this year.

Mr PISONI: Minister, it is down from last year, when it was 2.695, but in 2012 it was less than $1.3 million, in 2011 it was just over $1 million, and in 2010 it was $847,000. We have seen a continuous increase. Obviously, we are starting from a very high base, or the highest level of overpayments for 2013, more than double the figure of two years earlier. Can you advise why these overpayments are occurring?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I will restate that we are on the decline, that we are seeing improvements in this, and I have outlined those amounts for the committee. I am advised that the majority of overpayments are in relation to leave applications that are lodged late, as I understand it. We are working with Shared Services to make sure that we rectify those problems.

Mr PISONI: Are you saying, then, minister, that it is only leave that is causing—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: I didn't say that.

Mr PISONI: Well, that's all you mentioned, so I have asked for the reasons for the overpayments. Why are the overpayments happening? Are they happening because of staff errors, such as teachers and SSOs? My understanding is that these overpayments are heavily weighted towards support staff rather than teachers. Are you able to confirm whether or not that is correct? Can you confirm, perhaps, the percentage of our teachers, the percentage who are support staff, and whether it is mistakes being made by the staff in claiming the payments or whether it is the processing of the payments by the department that is causing the overpayments?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: As I said, the majority are, as I understand it, the submission of leave requests and the management of leave entitlements. I am happy to get more detail for the member for Unley, but the department is working with Shared Services to streamline this process so that we can reduce the debts even further in these events occurring.

Mr PISONI: I did ask you earlier just how old the $2 million worth of debts are. Do they relate to that year only or is there a higher accumulated amount in the figure?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I will take that on notice and see what detail we can get for the member.

Mr PISONI: The other question I have has to do with the FBT liability. This is the same page, where it states:

Audit understands that where the overpayment recipient is still a departmental employee the ATO treats the salary overpayment as an interest free loan, and where repayment does not occur prior to the end of the financial year there is an additional cost of FBT to the Department.

Are you able to advise the total cost of fringe benefits tax payments to the ATO from the department due to overpayment of salaries since 2010?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I can certainly get 2013-14 for the member.

Mr PISONI: With due respect, the Auditor-General goes back to 2010 in his report, and I believe that we are examining the Auditor-General's Report today.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I will ask my department to get as much information as it can for the member for Unley.

Ms SANDERSON: I refer to page 465, regarding the carer approval and registration manual. In 2012 the Auditor-General's Report stated that the manual was still in draft. It was still in draft in 2013 and is still in draft in 2014. Given that the manual has been in draft for three years, why is this taking so long? And is the minister 100 per cent certain of the new 1 January 2015 completion date that was given in response?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: The manual has been delayed because we are going into the new redesign. So the practices that Families SA will be undertaking will be different to what the current manual is. The rollout of the redesign and the solution-based casework has delayed that. I hope very much that we have the manual ready to go for next year. I know that people are working on that as quickly as they possibly can, but there has been a lot of work in relation to the redesign and the solution-based casework, turning the focus of the department around so that we are working with families to help them improve while the children remain in their care, rather than getting a court order, taking them away and causing that trauma.

It is very difficult, and I know the member for Adelaide understands the trauma that both families and children suffer. We want to work with them so that they see Families SA is there to help them, rather than policemen taking the children away and then telling the families what they need to do to get their children back.

Ms SANDERSON: That was also the same response that was given in 2013 to the Auditor-General, that the solution-based casework had delayed it. This is a year later and the response is now that it will be ready on 1 January. Is that still the date you are giving?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: That is what the department has told me. This has been a monumental shift across the department. It is not something that can be done quickly. People need to be trained and retrained in the new process. We have had to redesign the teams, the way people work, relocate them, so it has taken time, but hopefully it will be worth it. The outcomes will be more families staying together and more children staying safely with their families.

Mr PISONI: Just back on the overpayments, minister—I understand that you will not be able to do this immediately—are you able to advise how many overpayment plans there are that will take more than 12 months to pay? Can I also have the average size of overpayment debts and the highest and lowest amount that the department is chasing?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Whatever information we can provide, we will. Obviously, there are a range, from relatively small amounts to larger amounts of overpayments, so we are happy to do that.

Mr PISONI: I just want to take you to page 456, the proposal to modify non-government school funding arrangements. The Auditor-General has noted that the minister has sought to waive the requirement for non-government schools to participate in the enrolment census. Can you advise on what advice that decision was made?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I can. Essentially, what we wanted to do was reduce the admin burden on non-government schools. We decided that we would take the commonwealth government's census on students as the funding base for schools so that they do not have to report a census amount to the commonwealth and do another census amount for the state government. I have been advised:

the commonwealth has in place controls that include different levels of access to online census;

the requirement for the approved authority signatory to certify that the numbers are accurate with warnings of the penalties for making false statements;

up to 200 business rules built into the system that provide multiple layers of validation;

all submitted census returns being validated by a commonwealth officer; and

a sample of non-government schools participating in a census post-remuneration process where the commonwealth officers validate census data against schools.

Given this, I have approved for the August 2014 enrolment census data collected by the commonwealth to be used to determine state government funding entitlements for the 2014 year and waived the requirement of non-government schools to complete a separate state census for August 2014. This change in process, as I said, is to minimise the duplication. I think the Auditor was in fact approving of those particular control mechanisms.

Ms SANDERSON: I refer to pages 465 and 466: how many care and protection service agreements with NGOs expired on 30 June 2014, and how many have still not been executed?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I am advised there were 48 individual care and protection service agreements with non-government organisations that expired on 30 June 2013.

Ms SANDERSON: 2014?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Yes. What I did was approve emergency payments totalling $12.1 million so that those NGOs could continue—

Ms SANDERSON: Sorry, that is the wrong year; that was 2013. I am asking for this—

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I understand. The majority of the 2013-14 agreements were executed in October 2013. In relation to any contracts that have not been executed for 2014-15, if that is what you are asking about—

Ms SANDERSON: 2013-14; they have finished, so they should have now been executed.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: The contracts for 2013-14 would have been done in 2013.

Ms SANDERSON: So for 2014-15 then—the ones that should be signed up now.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Are you asking me: are there any contracts this financial year which have not yet been executed?

Ms SANDERSON: Yes.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Okay; well, we will find that out for you.

Ms SANDERSON: Thank you.

The CHAIR: The time allotted having expired, we thank the minister and her advisers and call on the Minister for Disabilities, Police, Correctional Services, Emergency Services and Road Safety.

Mr GARDNER: I indicate to the house that I will ask a couple of questions about police, then corrections, and then the member for Morphett can do the rest.

The CHAIR: Can you give us a page number and we will get ourselves ready?

Mr GARDNER: We will start with Part B, Volume 4, page 1550. Page 1550 identifies $60 million worth of land and $212 million worth of buildings. I am very happy for it to be taken on notice if you would like, but I would be very interested in a broken down list of individual sites and site values of those sites.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That will have to be on notice.

The CHAIR: Is it dot point 16 or 17 that you are looking at?

Mr GARDNER: It is under point 17, and I appreciate the minister taking that on notice. We will now move to our next book, which is Part C, page 21. I quote:

South Australia Police reported actual FTEs of 129 FTEs below its cap mainly due to delays in recruitment of sworn officers and the timing of recruitment of sworn officers and cadets.

I understand that the timing of recruitment of sworn officers and cadets can largely be relevant to the change from the six month to the 12 month cadet program, so that makes sense. I wonder if the minister can identify what the nature of the delay to recruitment of sworn officers is, apart from that relating to cadets?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The difference of the 129 FTEs mainly reflects the timing of unsworn vacancies, which are 92 FTEs, and takes into account the cadet intake plan being reduced, as police FTEs were 30 above establishment at 30 June 2013.

Mr GARDNER: On what date does the government project that they will now reach the recruit 300 target?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That was previously advised in the chamber and I have been asked on previous occasions. I am advised by the commissioner that that advice still stands.

Mr GARDNER: The previous advice has been the 2017-18 year, from memory. Can the minister confirm that?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That is correct.

Mr GARDNER: The minister has advised, I understand, that cadets will be included in that count. Can the minister advise when they will reach the target of 300, above and beyond the net figure of 300, if cadets were not to be included in that calculation?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: We will need to take that specific question on notice. However, having said that, cadets are people we recruit and they are subject to training. Once their training is completed, they will be fully sworn officers, so I assume we will meet that requirement still in 2017-18.

Mr GARDNER: In relation to that argument, the cadets obviously will be sworn officers. If you take it that, 'We would like to have this many cadets and sworn officers and we haven't yet recruited them, but you can count that number, too'—it is all very much 'will be'. Can I confirm that the minister is taking on notice and will provide an answer as to when they will reach the figure of 300 sworn officers higher than it was, and he will provide us with a date? Is that what he has taken on notice?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes.

Mr GARDNER: We can move on to corrections, so we are looking now at Volume 1, page 368. Under point 6, travel expenses, there is a listing of $1.035 million. My question is simply: what was that spent on?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Did you want the breakdown of the figures?

Mr GARDNER: Yes, please.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am advised that the $1.035 million in expenditure in that year consists of $314,000 for accommodation, $285,000 for travel expenses in intra and interstate airfares and other travel fares, $271,000 for meal allowances, $78,000 for private motor vehicles, $75,000 for taxi hire, and $12,000 for overseas travel.

Mr GARDNER: Is that $12,000 for overseas travel in relation to airfares?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It is airfares and accommodation.

Mr GARDNER: If that is the breakdown in terms of the nature of the costs, is it possible to break down the figure of $1.035 million in relation to the trips in particular: how much was spent on trip A, trip B and where those trips were to?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Can I clarify whether that question was for the whole lot or does it relate to the actual overseas travel only?

Mr GARDNER: I would suggest the whole figure.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: A lot of that travel actually involves staff in the city going intrastate and is broken up, so it might involve hundreds and hundreds of different transactions.

Mr GARDNER: Perhaps I could re-ask the question, rather than taking up public servants' time on a bit that is probably less useful. Can the minister provide details of interstate and international trips?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes, we can.

Mr GARDNER: I will ask two more questions before letting the member for Morphett have a go. On page 368 still, remuneration of employees, the 2013 number lists 24 people at executive-level salaries, and for 2014 there are 19. There appears to be a cut of five executive-level positions. I am wondering what areas those positions were in.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am advised that that figure includes not just executives but also all employees who earn over $138,000, which includes a whole range of allowances which people may be eligible for.

Mr GARDNER: Can the minister perhaps clarify that there has not actually been a reduction in executives; it is more that there are perhaps fewer people who, as a result of overtime and extra allowances, are putting themselves over that threshold that would mix them in with the executives in the payment list?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I can advise that there actually was a reduction of one executive, and the rest of the people have moved, because of allowances, into that income category.

Mr GARDNER: In what area was that executive?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I can advise that as a result of an internal review, to obviously find a whole range of savings in the organisation, the number of executive positions went down from seven to six and that one of the executive positions of strategy was abolished.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Auditor-General's Report, Part B, Volume 5, page 1611, SAFECOM.

The CHAIR: What page are we on?

Dr McFETRIDGE: Page 1611, Part B, Volume 5.

The CHAIR: Thank you, member for Morphett. What is your question?

Dr McFETRIDGE: Under Administered Statement of Financial Position, the Auditor makes the comment that in 2013-14 the government paid $108 million in levy remissions to the fund (I assume that he is referring to the emergency services levy), which reduced the net levies paid by fixed and mobile property owners to $134 million.

The Auditor goes on to say, 'The 2014-15 Budget removed government general remissions for all property owners, except eligible concession recipients.' The comment the Auditor makes which causes concern, and I would like the minister to clarify for the committee, is that, while in 2013-14 sufficient cash was held back to ensure that cash flows could continue, there is a concern that, because property owners are paying via instalments and mobile levies are dependent on the timing of motor registration, there is an issue. He states, 'Cash inflows into the Fund are dependent on when owners remit payment.'

Can the minister assure the committee that the emergency service organisations will not be in any way inconvenienced or their cash flows embarrassed by the current arrangements?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am advised that both Treasury and SAFECOM are aware of it and that they are working on contingencies should that problem actually arise. I know that the issue of payment of the ESL has had a lot of media attention, but every year there are a number of people who do not pay their ESL on time or do not pay their ESL at all, so these sorts of things we have to deal with every year.

Dr McFETRIDGE: On the same reference, will the government be topping up the ESL if there is an embarrassment of paucity of funds?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I can advise that on a number of occasions—for example, we had major incidents, such as Bangor, Wangary and Kangaroo Island—it has been the policy of the government to top up to ensure that the agency has sufficient funding, and it has occurred on those occasions.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Just moving across to page 1619, under Taxation, in paragraph (g) the Auditor states that SAFECOM is not subject to income tax and that SAFECOM is liable to pay payroll tax, FBT and GST. Does the CFS, MFS and SES (through SAFECOM I assume) pay the ESL?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am advised that under section 127 of the relevant act, the Fire and Emergency Services Act, the agencies are exempt from the ESL, which is not unusual given that the money is actually used for them—you would only be paying yourself. There are some small amounts we do pay, and they are very small amounts. I do not have the exact figure, which I can get for you, but there are some private properties which we have some involvement in which may be liable for ESL, but the last figure I saw it was less than $2,000 but I will confirm that. It was some small amount.

Dr McFETRIDGE: That is reassuring, because it would be a nonsense to do that, which is why you do not do it. I am puzzled, minister, and the audit refers to it on page 1611, why the South Australia Police budget is topped up to the tune of $20.3 million out of the ESL. In fact, I think it was actually held back this year, according to page 1612. The payments to the police were not paid until October, last month. I assume it is the Star Force. Why do they take that money out of the ESL? Why is it not out of the police budget?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am sure you will like this answer. It is actually a policy decision made by the government which actually created the ESL, and you will know the government I am talking about. Secondly, it is provided for in the act. It is not just Star Force but a whole range of police activities which are directly related to emergency services, like attendance at a motor vehicle accident, water rescue, etc., and all those things that police are involved in that are emergency services related.

Mr Gardner: Like bushfire management?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Anything which is involved in emergency activity. They get charged to that levy, which is provided for by the act which I understand was brought in by a previous government.

Dr McFETRIDGE: We will go back to page 1603 and, for those in the know, we will talk about FMCPs which, for those who are not (including me, until I read it), means financial management compliance problems. I am just a humble veterinarian not an accountant so I look at these documents and do what I can to interpret them. The question, though, is: under the financial management compliance problems, the Auditor comments:

Past audits have reported that FMCPs prepared for the sector had a number of significant compliance areas for which controls were assessed as either 'neither effective nor ineffective' or 'ineffective'.

The Auditor goes on to say:

In response, the Chief Executive of SAFECOM advises that an action plan has been developed for 2014-15 with due dates.

Can the minister give the committee details of the action plans, and will this be reported again in the audit next year?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I can advise the honourable member that SAFECOM agrees with this audit recommendation and that we have developed through the Audit and Risk Working Group an action plan for 2014-15 which prioritises all items assessed as level 3 in terms of noncompliance. Previously, we had a lot of areas which were below the level 3. We have raised those to level 3, which means there is a greater level of compliance and, therefore, rather than being ineffective, they are now classed as either 'effective or not' or 'neither effective nor ineffective', or less, for action in the 2014-15 financial year. Due dates have been assigned for each item. An action plan is monitored by both the Audit and Risk Working Group and Audit and Risk Management Committee. If the member would like some more detail, I will have to take the rest on notice.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Moving to page 1604, regarding purchasing policy and recordkeeping. This one has been repeated in the audits over the years; in fact, I remember asking this in 2010-11. It was about the Port Lincoln fire station at that stage. I am concerned that the Auditor has made comments here that purchasing policy is yet to be approved and used by staff, resulting in management controls and recordkeeping practices being similar to previous years. Is purchasing policy and recordkeeping still to the extent when the Port Lincoln complex was built when subcontractors were not being paid or some were paid and did not do the work? Can the minister tell the committee whether that has been improved and audit will not be complaining each year?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I can advise that the matter the honourable member has raised is one of the action items mentioned in the previous question which is earmarked for attention this year. The action has been included in the Audit and Risk Working Group action plan for 2014-15, a responsible officer has been assigned and a due date of 30 June 2015 has been set to achieve that work.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Moving to page 1605, regarding banking arrangements and reporting, the Auditor talks about the fact that SA CFS brigades and SA SES units have balances of $4.7 million and I assume that is all from their own fundraising such as sausage sizzles and election day collection activities. The audit acknowledges then the important role of volunteers and the time they already invest in collecting revenue, supporting operations and administering numerous brigade and group accounts. I can speak personally on this having been a captain of a very busy brigade. I spent nearly two days a week doing this and it is quite onerous.

However, it is important for SAFECOM, SA CFS and SA SES to work with and assist the brigade and units to approve the overall control environment including for bank and deposit accounts. Minister, what assistance is the government, your department—SAFECOM—giving the poor admin officers and treasurers of these brigades and units?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I can advise there are over 811 accounts which are open for various brigades, units, etc., and, as the member has quite correctly pointed out, this is a lot of the money they raise at sausage sizzles and when you go to vote they grab your money as you are going to the booth and at a whole range of events. We are looking at e-banking as a way of trying to monitor it so that the brigades have independence on how they spend their money but also to make sure it is spent for the purpose intended. What I can say is it is going to be quite a big job given the number of different brigades and units involved. We are consulting with volunteers in accordance with the volunteer charter signed by the Premier and we hope to have a better understanding of how we should be able to provide the support they need.

Dr McFETRIDGE: On that same topic, minister, can you assure the committee as to the $4.7 million as at 30 June and any other additional funds that none of that will be siphoned off as administration fees or anything by SAFECOM?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Could you repeat that?

Dr McFETRIDGE: Does SAFECOM charge an administration fee or Shared Services so that the brigades are not suffering through somebody else managing their accounts?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, in fact, we have a person who works full time assisting the various units and brigades. I can also add that we do sample auditing just to reassure ourselves as much as we can with the limited resources we have that those accounts are properly accounted for.

Dr McFETRIDGE: On that same reference, minister, is interest paid on those accounts and at what rate?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It varies because they have their own banking arrangements and it varies according to which bank they have their account with, what sort of account they have. The interest would accrue to them but it would vary from account to account.

Dr McFETRIDGE: So, minister, on that same reference, there is no requirement of brigades or units to lodge their funds with a central account. I think there was a move to do that a number of years ago.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Not at this stage, no.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I hope it does not happen at any stage. Moving on—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: There might be a change in government, which might have a different policy.

Dr McFETRIDGE: It will not be happening under us, mate; it will not be happening under us. They work too hard for it. Other audit findings on that same reference include dot point 2, which states that 'an approved version of the SAFECOM charter should be made publicly available as required by the Act'. Has that charter been made publicly available, and if not, when will it be made publicly available?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am advised that that charter is somewhat dated and does require review, and is one of the things that we will look at undertaking.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I am so tempted, but I won't. Page 1607, under Statement of Comprehensive Income, states:

Expenses are dominated by employee benefits expenses of $138 million…which represent 58% of total expenses.

In the same section the Auditor comments:

workers compensation costs increasing by $2.9 million, due mainly to recent presumptive legislative changes that increase firefighters' compensation for certain cancers associated with their employment.

On page 1612 there is another comment by the Auditor, where he says:

Consequently, there may be a significant increase in the workers compensation provision in future years as further claims are received and assessed.

As the presumptive legislation has been passed—we are very pleased about that and so are the volunteers—can you give us an update on what that presumptive cover will do to the costs associated with workers compensation?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I can advise the member that we had no claims in the previous financial year, apart from some small medical expenses, but no claim as such which has been resolved under the presumptive legislation. Obviously, with the passing of the additional legislation, what will be shown in the books are the provisions we will make from year to year to deal with any claims that do come in.

Dr McFETRIDGE: On that same reference, can you provide me as the shadow minister with a copy of the actuary report on the new estimates of costs?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That was a cabinet document, so I need to get advice on that. I also need to clarify, there were no settled claims in the financial year. That is why there are no amounts in the financial year. On the other matter, I will need to get some advice and get back to you with what advice I receive.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Thank you, minister. Just in the last few minutes, we will move on to Disability SA if we can. I refer to Part B, Volume 1, page 282: Disability SA—Receipt of services, where the Auditor notes:

Previous audits have recommended that the Department consider improving controls to ensure that services provided are adequately received before making payment.

Can the minister assure the committee that services are being provided before payment is being made and what protocols are in place to ensure that this is happening?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Can you just restate what item that is?

Dr McFETRIDGE: Page 282, Disability SA—Receipt of services. The first paragraph states:

Previous audits have recommended that the Department consider improving controls to ensure that services provided are adequately received before making payment.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: In 2013-14, as you mentioned, the department provided $134 million of brokerage services, and that is the amount you are referring to. Disability SA represents the majority of brokerage expenditure, with $120 million spent in 2013-14 for approximately 3,200 clients. Generally, these services are provided to clients in their homes. The department is not able to directly confirm that all services have been provided at times; however, overall, the department relies on a range of indicators, communications and workflows to ensure that the agreed services are provided to clients. Although client feedback and verification of feature services provided would be valuable, a balance needs to be struck between gaining the best assurance that the service is delivered and troubling potentially vulnerable clients. I can add that just recently I had a third-party complaint; and we do investigate anything that is raised.

The CHAIR: I can report the committee has further examined ministers on matters contained in the Auditor-General's Report and has completed its examination.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT