HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-11-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Auditor-General's Report

Auditor-General's Report

In committee.

(Continued from 1 November 2016.)

The CHAIR: It is a formal set-up, so you need to stand to ask questions and to respond. We would like you also to cite where you are looking at in the report. Member for Davenport.

Mr DULUK: I refer to Part A, Executive Summary, page 54. Has the government extended Deloitte's contract to work as the Transforming Health implementation partner for another 12 months?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, we have.

Mr DULUK: Was a review of Deloitte's performance completed before the contract was extended, as the Auditor-General expected? If so, who conducted the review and when was it completed?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It was an internal review and, yes, it was completed.

Mr DULUK: Given the Auditor-General's criticism of SA Health's failure to obtain cabinet approval prior to entering into the original contract, was cabinet approval obtained before the contract extension was finalised?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, it was.

Mr DULUK: Can you advise whether the value of the contract extension was more or less than $11 million?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: My advice is that it was less, but I will check. If it is wrong, I will come back and correct it, but my advice at this stage is that, yes, it was less.

Mr DULUK: Can you also come back to us to let us know how much the state would have to pay Deloitte for a disengagement cost if the company had not been retained as Transforming Health's implementation partner at the conclusion of the first three months of the contract in early 2016?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I will have to get advice on whether I can release it. It might be commercial-in-confidence, but if there is no obstacle to me releasing it I will; there may well be an obstacle to me doing so.

Mr DULUK: Can you also let us know the total spending on all consultants for the last 12 months, including Deloitte?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is in the financial statements.

Mr DULUK: I refer to page 44. How much was the Transforming Health program projected to save in 2015-16?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I have to get advice on that. We do not have that to hand. I will get some advice on that, and if that is something that we are able to provide then we will.

Mr DULUK: I am just confirming that you are not aware of how much Transforming Health was meant to save you in the year 2015-16 to hand.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We have total savings, obviously, for the department in the budget papers, but we do not have to hand a breakdown of how individual programs are going to achieve those savings. What I would say is what I have said publicly before: we obviously hope to achieve efficiencies for Transforming Health, but the first priority of Transforming Health is to get better patient outcomes. If patients get better sooner and spend less time in hospital because they are better sooner, that obviously is going to create efficiencies in the system. That is the way Transforming Health works. I will see what information we have, and if we can answer the question we will.

Mr DULUK: What are the projected financial savings flowing from the Transforming Health program across the forward estimates?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Likewise, I would have to get that information.

Mr DULUK: Can you confirm that the Southern, Central and Northern Adelaide Local Health Networks failed to achieve their savings targets in 2015-16?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: That would be correct, but I make no apology for that. Obviously, we put patient care before meeting savings targets, as every other health minister would. We achieve savings where we can, but they are very much predicated on the demand, presentations that we have. If we have significant growth in presentations that obviously significantly restricts our ability to deliver on savings. There is nothing new in that, that is something previous health ministers have had to grapple with.

We do everything we can to meet the savings we are given through the budget process, but our ability to realise those savings are very much dependent on the number of presentations we have. We make efficiencies everywhere we can, but it is not unusual, under any health minister on either side of politics, to have difficulty in realising those savings.

Mr DULUK: On those savings, when you took the Transforming Health submission back to cabinet in regard to keeping Deloitte, were any savings tabled to cabinet in the documentation?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I am not going to go into what information is in the cabinet submission; no minister would.

Mr DULUK: Going back to each of the local area health networks, what were the savings targets and why were those targets not achieved, obviously in addition to just looking after patient outcome as the primary reason?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: What did you want to know, what were the savings targets?

Mr DULUK: Yes.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Per LHN? We have not got a breakdown of savings targets per LHN. There are different methods the department has. Once we get a savings task through the budget process we then allocate those savings to different units within Health, and I think generally that is done on a pro rata basis. Sometimes there might be a particular initiative that will have savings attached to it; however, you could generally expect it would be allocated between different units within a Health department on a pro rata basis.

Mr DULUK: Are you expecting those units, on a pro rata basis and the LHNs more broadly, to make up the shortfall in savings in subsequent years going forward that were not achieved this year?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Are you talking about this year or previous—

Mr DULUK: Going forward, the savings—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: In terms of previous years, which is what the Auditor-General's Report is about, no. That is why there was supplementary funding as part of the budget process.

Mr DULUK: What steps has SA Health taken to improve the quality of the reports that local health networks produce to identify the risks arising from the Transforming Health changes?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Do you want to give me what you are referring to? Where in the Auditor-General's Report—

Mr DULUK: About quality of risk reporting, on the bottom of page 43.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The Transforming Health delivery support office will work with the respective LHN risk leads to improve the quality of Transforming Health risk management reporting. SA Health will establish the revised role of the THOMC in monitoring LHN risks with the aim to improve oversight of Transforming Health risk and escalation to the Transforming Health implementation committee where required.

Mr DULUK: At the moment, how are these risks documented and to whom do the LHNs provide these reports?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The documents are an established risk reporting system and they are sent to the Transforming Health operational committee.

Mr DULUK: Moving to Part B, page 142, why did the health department employ 520 FTEs over and above the number it was funded to employ in 2015-16?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is important when looking at these things to remember that they are only a snapshot at a point in time because the staffing in health will fluctuate according to different seasons, different presentations and how many beds we have to open. The number of employees or FTEs that we have in the health department will fluctuate quite a bit. What I think you are looking at is at a point in time but, if you look at 30 June 2016, we are actually 210 under our FTE cap. That is in the supplementary report for the year ended 30 June 2016, page 37.

Mr DULUK: But at some point there were extra staff employed, so how much did it cost the department to employ these additional staff?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: As I say, the reason sometimes we will be over is because of seasonal factors and the number of presentations. We open and close beds according to presentations to the hospital. We do not turn people away at the door. If someone requires admission and we need to open additional beds to admit that person, then we will do so and, under the enterprise agreement with the nurses federation, we have to employ a certain number of nurses per bed. We are not in a position to strictly control how many FTEs, but over time we make sure that as far as possible we are living within our means.

We have what we call 'flex' beds. We will close those flex beds, particularly over the summer months when we do not require as many beds because we do not have as many presentations. Given that, where we are over, they would be for relatively brief periods of time and it would be fairly minuscule amounts of money relative to the overall wages budget for the health department. These would be relatively small amounts of money relative to the overall wages bill for the health department, and we do the best we can to make sure that we recover at those times when we have fewer presentations.

Mr DULUK: Sticking with these FTEs, these extra 500 FTEs over those budgeted for in the 2016-17, are they not for head office staff?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No, they are not.

Mr DULUK: It is 2,036 for Department for Health and Ageing FTE, not health sector FTE.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: You have 2,036 for 2016 and 2,096 for 2015, so you have seen a reduction in 60 staff. In fact, for 2014 it is 2,175, so you have actually seen a reduction in staff.

Mr DULUK: Correct, but in your 2016-17 budget papers, you have 1,516 budgeted FTEs.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: There will be staff who actually work in the local health networks, such as finance staff, workforce staff—those sorts of staff—and procurement staff. For budgeting purposes, the way that they are reflected is by including them in those head office numbers. What that figure shows is the total number of staff, even though they might be posted out within the LHNs. What the budget papers are showing is, strictly speaking, the people actually physically working within the building in the city. There has been no increase of 500, I can assure the member for Davenport of that.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to the Auditor-General's Report, Volume 2, page 478, Country Health repairs and maintenance. There was $22,299,000 spent on repairs and maintenance. Minister, can you tell the committee if that was for capital upgrades to meet health and safety compliances?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It would be for a range of things including that, among other things.

Dr McFETRIDGE: The repairs and maintenance issue is obviously a significant one now with Transforming Health, so I will go to page 282 of that same volume. Under 2.23, valuation of existing Royal Adelaide Hospital land and buildings, it states that 'management have decided to value the buildings and site improvements at nil value'. Can you explain to the committee why it is nil value? Can you tell us what previous valuations were in previous Auditor-General's Reports?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: At that stage, we did not know what the outcomes of the Renewal SA process would be. It certainly will not be of value to us as a hospital site, obviously. Depending on what happens with the Renewal SA process, then that is something that might be valued back up, if the advice is that there is value to those buildings that we should have on our books. This is just a conservative approach that was taken for the purpose of valuing those buildings.

Dr McFETRIDGE: On that same topic, minister, I recall from having been in this place that a valuation of about $1 billion was put on that site down there for the buildings, the equipment and certainly the land. When did that change?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I do not know about the $1 billion—I will have to check that—but given that it is used at the moment as a hospital site, that in the very near future it will cease being a hospital site and the uncertainty of what it will be following that, then the appropriate accounting approach is to give it zero value is my advice.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to the same reference, minister. If we go back in budget papers and in auditors-general reports, would we see a change in the balance on the government's books with having that valuation of that hospital altered?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, it would have a net operating balance effect. So, if we revalued the capital improvements to that property based upon future use, then, yes, that would have the effect of creating an improvement to the net operating balance, is my advice.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Minister, can you come back to the committee with the changes on the state of the books because of the change in valuation of the hospital? Can you come back to the committee with the changes in the monetary amounts in the Treasury balance with respect to the change in the valuation of the hospital?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, I think that we do it every year, so it will be reflected in the budget papers. Yes, we can do that.

Dr McFETRIDGE: On that same issue, how is the equipment at the existing Royal Adelaide valued, and how will out-of-date and surplus equipment be disposed of; and, if there is any sale, do you have any idea of what will be recouped?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Is this with respect to the valuation of the new RAH site?

Dr McFETRIDGE: No, the valuation of the current equipment in the existing Royal Adelaide Hospital.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: So, of the equipment that is at the old RAH that can be used, that equipment will be moved up to the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. Other equipment will be used elsewhere in our health system. So, a lot of it will be moved and used in other hospitals, and then there will be equipment that we will not be continuing to use, and I am advised that the accounting treatment of that is to write it off to zero value should that happen.

With regard to the question about a disposal process, I think that the work on that is continuing. But I know that I have had approaches from organisations looking to use equipment, to send it overseas and so on. I am open to that where it can be safely done. We are going through that process at the moment.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Page 283 of the same volume refers to 'Class of assets' and 'Depreciation and amortisation of non-current assets'. Under 'Class of Assets' it has 'Buildings and improvements' and then 'Useful life (years)'. It refers to 'Buildings and improvements 1-80' years. Minister, what is the useful life expectancy of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Under the contract with SAHP we have 30 years, and then the contractual requirement of SAHP is then to give it to us in an 'as-new' condition. You would expect that you would have at least another 30 years out of that, so I would have thought that it would be close to the 80-year mark that is intimated in the report there.

Mr DULUK: Looking at page 301, Volume 2, can you confirm, minister, that, over the last four years, the government has reduced the total amount of funding it provides to not-for-profit organisations by more than 60 per cent?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: My advice is it is just a change in the way that we are paying NGOs for services. Whereas, previously, it would have been done as a grant to an organisation, now the way we do it is purchase of services. A good example, I am advised, is RDNS. Previously, we would have, in an accounting way, treated it as a grant. We now treat it as a purchase of service. No: there has not been a reduction, certainly not a reduction of that quantum, but just a change in the accounting treatment of those payments.

Mr DULUK: Can you provide a comprehensive breakdown of the funding provided to not-for-profit organisations last year and the purpose for which this funding was provided?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I am very happy to do that.

Mr DULUK: Within that, can you also provide a breakdown for each of the generic items in the list on page 101, including the name of each organisation and the amount they received? For example, $490,000 was provided for mental health support. Obviously, that is to a number of organisations.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We can do that.

Mr DULUK: Looking at pages 301, 360 and 363, did the $440,000 provided to the Health Consumer Alliance of South Australia in 2015-16 include any funding to meet the costs of the work it is undertaking in relation to Transforming Health; and, if so, how much?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I do not think so. I think what happens with the Health Consumer Alliance is they have a regular grant that has been there for some time to basically support them as an organisation. I will check, but I do not think we have any sort of fee-for-service type arrangements with them. I think they operate within the grant that is provided to them by the Department for Health and has been for some time.

Mr DULUK: Is the chief executive of the alliance considered to be a government employee and, if not, why is he not remunerated for the work he undertakes as chair of various SA health committees and groups?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I would have to find out. He is not a government employee. I will double-check, but I know with local government, where we have chief executives of local government and councils serve on government boards, often we do not pay the remuneration to the chief executive but we pay the remuneration to the council for the time of their employee. It is not unusual for us not to remunerate someone for their work on boards, and so on: we may well be remunerating the organisation. I am happy to check and find out. But he is not a government employee.

Mr DULUK: How much funding did the department provide to the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation and the Public Service Association in 2015-16 to support their involvement with Transforming Health?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I think it was in the vicinity of $100,000, but I will check that.

Mr DULUK: Where is this money accounted for in the Auditor-General's Report?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is probably under 'other' on page 301. It is pretty small, relatively, in the scheme of things, $100,000.

Mr DULUK: Going back to Part A, Executive Summary, page 68, looking at contractors, how does the department's heavy reliance on contractors and temporary staff impact on its overall costs and savings targets?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Those contractors include nursing agency staff. While obviously we do rely on agency staff to give us flexibility with regard to workforce, we think there are opportunities to achieve savings. If my memory serves me correctly, some of our LHNs have been very successful in reducing their reliance on agency staff. While they are important, there is plenty of scope to improve our reliance on nursing agency staff as we rely more on staff who are employees of the department.

Mr DULUK: So, you do have a plan to reduce how much you spend on contractors and temporary staff?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: All agencies are looking for those opportunities, and certainly it is one of the first things we look to. Where there is an opportunity to reduce expenditure on contractors and agency staff, then we do so.

The CHAIR: Unfortunately—

Mr DULUK: One more?

The CHAIR: One more, only because we were not quite ready on time.

Mr DULUK: Thank you, Chair, you are very kind. In 2015-16, head office spent more than $30 million on contractors and temporary staff. How much do you expect to spend on these items this year?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: That includes IT projects as well, but we would expect it to be considerably less.

The CHAIR: The time having expired, we thank the minister and his advisers and call the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure and the Minister for Housing and Urban Development for 30 minutes of examination of the Auditor-General's Report.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will be asking the minister questions in respect of the urban renewal authority, and I commence on page 11 of the Executive Summary, Part A. The Auditor-General suggests that there has been a tax equivalent loss for the 2015-16 year of $153 million. Has the minister received the annual report from the urban renewal authority for this financial year?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Page 11 of the Executive Summary?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Part A?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, at about point 2 on that page: 'The URA made a loss before income tax equivalent in 2015-16 of $153 million,' under Accumulated Losses.

The CHAIR: That is 2.3.2.

Ms CHAPMAN: Correct. My question is: has the minister received the annual report yet for the urban renewal authority for that financial year and, if so, does it record the same amount of loss?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised that the annual report has been submitted to my office. Whether it records the same amount or not, I cannot recall and do not have those details here.

Ms CHAPMAN: When do you plan to table it in the parliament?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Sorry—I am advised it does record that same amount of money.

Ms CHAPMAN: The Auditor-General has identified that he will be preparing a further report in respect of the Festival Plaza development, expected before the end of the year. I have written to the minister and requested that he make himself available for 15 minutes upon receipt of that report for questioning on the Auditor-General's Report on that. Does he agree to do so?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will be available much more than that. I will be available each sitting day after the receipt of that report at the time designated by the house for question time.

Ms CHAPMAN: I take it then that the minister declines to make himself available specifically for the purposes of dealing with the Auditor-General's Report on that issue, other than at question time, which is for all government business.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will make myself available for any matter the opposition wishes to raise with me for the duration of question time at the time set aside by the house, unless, of course, for some other reason, I am paired from the house.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will take that as a no. Point 7 on that page commences with the words 'Over the past two years the URA,' etc., and refers to the review being undertaken 'obtaining independent expert advice on the value and marketability of the URA's entire land portfolio to help formulate an achievable land sales strategy'. My question is: who did provide that independent expert advice?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised that the firm is MacroPlan Dimasi.

Ms CHAPMAN: Have they provided a report?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, I am advised that they did.

Ms CHAPMAN: Will the minister make that available and public?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I think our initial reaction is yes, unless, of course, there is something in it that might provide some sort of obstruction to any sort of sale process that we might be entering into because, of course, part of URA's activities is to hold properties and sell them from time to time. Barring that, our default position would be yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: When was the report received?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: We are not sure exactly when it was received, but we think it was certainly last year, perhaps in the earlier part of the second half of last year, but I will come back with a particular date.

Ms CHAPMAN: On page 12, there is reference to the Gillman site transaction. Events have subsequently indicated that that arrangement will not be proceeding. My question is: when was the Auditor-General first informed of the Gillman settlement option deed not being progressed?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do not have that date, but I will endeavour to find it out and bring it to the attention of the house.

Ms CHAPMAN: In respect of that proposal, can I ask when the minister first became aware of the proposal submitted to the Premier by ACP, apparently received on Tuesday of last week, to propose an interim payment arrangement change from $45 million to $15 million payments?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: To correct one thing in your question, my advice is that a proposal from ACP to change the arrangements for the settlement on the land was received last Monday, 24 October, and I am advised that there was a meeting between the State Coordinator-General on the immediately preceding Friday, 21 October, where ACP flagged with the State Coordinator-General that they would be seeking to put to the government an alternative settlement arrangement and then, as I have just said, that was received the next working day, on the Monday.

Ms CHAPMAN: My question was—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, sorry. The State Coordinator-General then advised my office, the Premier's office and Mr Hanlon of that, and I was informed the evening of the Friday that they were seeking revised settlement arrangements.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, the meeting with the State Coordinator-General and ACP was without your knowledge?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Until I was subsequently advised of what occurred at that meeting after the fact.

Ms CHAPMAN: Was the meeting known to the Chief Executive of URA, Mr John Hanlon?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Before it occurred? I will find out.

Ms CHAPMAN: In respect of the Part B: Agency audit reports, the URA is specifically dealt with commencing on page 542. I am sure that the minister is aware of the significant number of concerns that have been raised by the Auditor-General, and his recording of what claims the URA management has responded to in respect of a number of issues. Apart from his summaries on page 544 of the number of frameworks which have not been prepared, drafted, delivered, etc., he goes on in respect to the finalisation and approval of a framework on page 545 and states:

It is of particular concern that the URA has operated without an approved ownership framework for more than four years.

In respect of the response from the URA on this question of the ownership framework, which has also been the subject of recommendation by the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption, he goes on to say at the bottom of that page:

The URA responded that…recommendations were submitted to the Minister to address the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption's recommendations.

My question is: when did you receive those?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do not have the exact date, but there are two separate issues to which I think you are referring; one is the establishment of the government over the ownership framework, which is usually established between the government, via the Department of Treasury and Finance, and the agency in question, particularly public non-financial corporations. I understand that this has been a matter that has been unresolved for some time. I think you have used the term of 'four years', which certainly would not seem to be inaccurate, given how long this matter has been unresolved.

My understanding is that matter is to be resolved once a matter arising from the activities of this year, that is, the transfer of TAFE assets to the urban renewal authority, is finalised. That will put both the urban renewal authority and DTF in a position to get on with finalising that framework. You went on in your question to talk about some recommendations from the commissioner's report about governance arrangements separate from the government ownership framework. Those governance arrangements have been discussed with me. Indeed, the chief executive has developed and raised with me a manner in which those concerns about governance can address the commissioner's concerns.

I have discussed that particular way of dealing with those issues that the commissioner raised with the commissioner himself, which occurred only a relatively short period of time ago. Once cabinet resolves its position on the matter, I will be in a position—depending on cabinet's decision of course—to put into practice the way in which the government chooses to resolve those issues the commissioner highlighted.

Ms CHAPMAN: I was going to come to page 546 in relation to the board of management policies and the recommendations in that regard. If I go back to the ownership framework, and I was referring to the Auditor-General's comment of being four years in arrears, my question is: has that ownership framework, which you say was held up because of the TAFE transfer issue, been resolved and has it been put cabinet?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Sorry, I did not mean to imply, if you took my previous response, that the reason that it has not been resolved for four years is because of the TAFE transaction because, of course, it only happened in the recent period. Has it been resolved? No, it has not. Has cabinet considered it yet? That would be a matter for the cabinet to consider, whether it has appeared on its agenda, and it certainly would not be for me to reveal that to you or anyone else.

Ms CHAPMAN: It is just that it says, minister, at the bottom of this page that the ownership framework will probably be submitted to cabinet in November 2016. I am asking you whether it has happened, not what the deliberation or determination was.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, and as you know, we do not disclose what goes to cabinet let alone how that might be considered if and when it goes to cabinet.

Ms CHAPMAN: In relation to 'Negotiation and acceptance of offers' on page 547, the Attorney-General highlights some of the deficiencies in respect of the person who can authorise a sale below market valuation. He states:

However, the policy does not indicate who can negotiate and accept counter-offers from buyers that are below the authorised price...

Who has that responsibility, or have all offers below the market price only been approved by the chief executive?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My advice is that for dealing with general property transactions, not the specific ones that you refer to, there exists a delegation framework depending on the value of the transaction. I think the URA recognises the criticism of the Auditor-General about the lack of policy, or perhaps an unclear policy, about the management of offers below market value and is reviewing that policy, which will set out who is able to authorise a below market-value offer. Was your question: who currently does that now?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes. I am really asking who does it now, or who has approved it now? If it has not, if it is only the chief executive who has done that, I just want a reassurance that that is what has happened.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I have to take that on notice and come back to you.

Ms CHAPMAN: While you are taking it on notice, could you identify who has done it, if there is anyone else other than the chief executive, and on what proposals?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Sure.

Mr PISONI: I refer to Volume 3, page 636. What is the status of the Passenger Transport Research and Development Fund at the moment?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I might have to take that on notice.

Mr PISONI: Could you also advise where the income has come from? There is $11,000 sitting in there now. There have been no outflows or inflows for 2015-16. Are you able to advise the last time there were outflows and what they were for?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Sure.

Mr PISONI: Will the new taxi and chauffeur vehicle industry reform package that was in the budget supersede the role that the Passenger Transport Research and Development Fund is now playing? I notice, in that, that the Auditor-General has said that the purpose of the fund is for carrying out research into the taxicab industry, for the purpose of promoting the taxicab industry, and any other purpose considered by the minister to be beneficial to the travelling public, in the interests of the passenger transport industry, and the appropriate application of money standing to the credit of the fund.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: With the funding arrangements for the industry assistance package, which has been developed as part of the reforms to the taxi and chauffeur vehicle industry, it is not my understanding that those moneys are designed to flow through that fund—albeit, as you point out, that that fund seems to have a related purpose. As to which account administered by the department that those appropriations from Treasury and expenditures to those different parts of the industry flow, I will come back and provide you an answer.

Mr PISONI: Are you able to rule out whether any of the funding that is raised from the $1 levy will be used to deliver any of the services that the Passenger Transport Research and Development Fund has delivered previously?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That is a bit of a difficult question for me to answer, because I am not sure what service it has delivered previously. Perhaps to refresh our memories about what the revenue from the $1 levy collection is to be used for, it is to be used for revenue to the government to offset the very substantial decreases in fees being applied across the industry and a low-cost environment for new participants in the industry. It is also designed to fund the costs of some improvements to disability taxi services, to the Access Taxi regime, principally by introducing a new lifting fee, which is payable to the taxi driver and also, of course, to pay some compensation to those people who have invested in the taxi industry either as plate-owners or operators.

It is estimated by the industry and by government that there is roughly, within taxis themselves, about eight million trips a year. We would expect a number of additional trips from the chauffeur vehicle industry—obviously nothing in the order of eight million, like in the taxi industry—and we will wait to see what happens in the new entrants area.

Given that the total value of the expenditure that will be required of government in order to pay those different elements over the coming four years, over the budget forward estimates period, we think is approximately—and off the top of my head—about $64 million, it will take many years before we get to the point where the government has generated sufficient revenue from the $1 levy to offset its increasing expenditure for the industry. That may change if there is an increase in the number of trips, and hence revenue from that levy.

Mr PISONI: That $64 million that you mentioned, does that include any subset to the government or any replacement income for the five-year freeze on taxi plate sales?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, it does.

Mr PISONI: I now take you to page 304 of Part B. In 'Other matters raised' the Auditor-General refers to not all contracts being published on the SA government's tenders and contracts website, as required by DPC Circular PC027, Disclosure of Government Contracts. Are you able to give assurances that that will be corrected, that all government contracts will, in fact, be published on the SA government's tenders and contracts website? If so, when can we expect to see that?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My advice is that DPTI is responsible for a large number of contracts across government, as you could imagine, but not all. For the ones that we are responsible for, I am advised that, as the Auditor-General has pointed out, there was an administrative oversight where a small number of the total number that DPTI is responsible for were not put up. However, steps have now been taken to ensure that all of them, from our perspective, are being put up.

I am also advised that the DPC circular that you refer to refers to all government agencies and it is beyond the control of our department to ensure their adherence to the requirements of that DPC circular.

Mr PISONI: I notice on that government contracts page that not all entries have the contract attached. Is it a requirement that the contract must also be available to view through that DPC circular?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Without having the circular in front of us, the advice I have received is that we understand it to be a requirement of the DPC circular to make the contracts available online. Sometimes, given the size and the nature of the contracts with DPTI managers, it is not feasible to make those contracts available online. However, we do make them available upon request.

Mr PISONI: Is that a request through FOI or is that a request simply through the department?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Just through the department.

Mr PISONI: Perhaps you can give me the number, minister.

The CHAIR: Was that a question?

Mr PISONI: On notice.

The CHAIR: Are you still on the same page?

Mr PISONI: No, now we are onto page 303. The Auditor-General here has referred to instances where lease arrangements and memorandums of understanding were not executed. He goes on to say:

The risk of not appropriately documenting and signing agreed terms and conditions is that lease disputes with tenants may be difficult to resolve, potentially resulting in financial loss.

Are you aware of any lease disputes with tenants at the moment and what the potential total value of those lease disputes might be?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, I am. Certainly the member for Morphett has a constituent who is a voluble complainant about his leasing arrangement with DPTI. I am sure, given the Auditor-General has made note of this as an issue, that that may not be the only instance. If you are after the details of those other instances, I am happy to bring that back to you.

Mr PISONI: I do not want to know who it is, I am just interested to know how many and what the total value is. On that same page, debtor follow-up was not operating for the full financial year and there were a number of debtor accounts with unexplained credit balances, and some of them for several years. Are you able to advise what the total value of those unexplained credit balances were and how many debtors have those unexplained credit balances?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Given the nature of the question, there is likely to be a fair bit of detail, so I will have to come back to you on that.

Mr PISONI: Are you aware of how many purchase cards are held by DPTI employees?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised that there are approximately 800.

Mr PISONI: That is more than one-third of all employees, so one in three staff have debit cards. The Auditor-General has identified irregularities with the administration of purchase cards, and my understanding is this has been going on for quite some time. Are you able to advise whether there is a value on those irregularities in those purchases for the 2015-16 year that the Auditor-General is referring to?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will do my best to see if I can find that out. As the member may be aware, there has been a significant transition away from invoice-based purchasing and payment processes to the use of credit and debit cards to reduce the administrative burden and costs to government, but I will try to find a response to his question.

Mr PISONI: I will move on to another issue, which is on page 300. 'Improvements in the administration of authorised officers remain unresolved.' Firstly, how many authorised officers are there in the department and what are they authorised to do?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Sorry, just to correct an answer I gave you previously, I said approximately 800. The Auditor-General cites 700 purchase cards, but I will come back to you with—

Mr PISONI: I was looking at the same thing. I was saying the Auditor-General got it wrong. I did not think you would have got it wrong.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The member for Unley is too kind to me. Officers can be authorised for a variety of different purposes. For example, we have authorised officers in public transport services who are able to undertake specific things. Before we run out of time, did you want to be a bit more specific? Are you talking about authorised officers for financial delegations or purchasing decisions?

Mr PISONI: The Auditor-General is referring to authorised officers period, and he also makes a point about them not being appointed in accordance with delegations and that documented policies and procedures for appointing and approving authorised officers were inadequate. I was hoping to get an idea of who they are so we can have some understanding of the size of the problem, if there is one.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding is that there are different types of authorised officers who, as their name suggests, are able to undertake specific activities on behalf of the department. Perhaps I can provide to the member for Unley who they are and what they do, how many of them there are and then how many of the problems the member for Unley alludes to there are in each of those different categories.

Mr PISONI: Thank you.

The CHAIR: The time having expired for this particular examination of the Auditor-General's Report, I thank members and the minister and his advisers for their attendance and diligence, and call on the Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion and lots of other things to take her place with her advisers. Did you want to just give us an indication, member for Adelaide, what page you are looking at?

Ms SANDERSON: Page 393.

The CHAIR: In which book?

Ms SANDERSON: Part B: Agency audit reports.

The CHAIR: This is housing. Would someone like to step forward?

Ms SANDERSON: All my questions relate to housing, if anyone wants to have a coffee. I refer to page 393 regarding the Proof of Income, the new POI. Firstly, can the minister confirm that the POI is the replacement of the HOS, which was the replacement of the HOD (Housing Occupation Declaration) and whether this includes the incomes of all occupants of a house?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: With respect, member for Adelaide, I think that you are getting the two things confused here. Obviously, the Proof of Income is something that we ask for in April and October of each year. I think that the Auditor raises some concerns about the timeliness of the reversion of the letters to the tenants who failed to provide their POI information in October 2015.

Obviously, we have tenants who are paying a reduced rent, and they are asked to provide details of their income either through the Centrelink Confirmation Service or by providing hard copy proof. We know that there are a high number of households that are on Centrelink income, and their eligibility for reduced rent is reviewed within a short period. If they are required to provide hard copy proof, they are sent a form and asked to complete and return it within 14 days.

Ms SANDERSON: Given the minister's answer, why did it take 4½ months for the reversion notices to be sent out for the November round, which means that it was only a 1½ months before the next notice would be sent out? How many households completed the POIs for both November 2015 and March 2016?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I thank the member for Adelaide for her interest in this area. One of the key things we are looking ahead at, obviously, is our Business System Transformation project, and I think that what we will find is the ability for people to change their details more effectively.

Just like you and I can look up our Telstra bill online to see our usage and change our plans online, that is what this Business System Transformation project will look up. We will always be concerned about proof of income, and obviously people need to talk to us about their housing occupation, the HOS. We feel that in the future this will be much more efficient and effective, and I see that happening in the near future.

Ms SANDERSON: Can the minister confirm how many households completed the POI for both November 2015 and March 2016 and why it took the 4½ months for the reversion notices to go out?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Member for Adelaide, my apologies, we do not seem to have that number. We will take that on notice. You talked a little about household occupancy, and I think that you and I have talked many times about our occupancy rates and looking at our 1000 Houses in 1000 Days, and our intention to renew 4,500 public houses, because we know that under-utilisation is an issue.

We have had some interesting politics around this in other states about a bedroom tax, etc. We are not interested in that, but we do want to work with our tenants, many of whom live on their own. About 60 per cent of people live on their own. We also encourage people to downsize to make sure that the number of bedrooms in their home matches their lifestyle.

You talked about our Housing Occupancy Survey. We have just done that, on 4 October 2016, and we sent letters to all tenants. It includes current household occupancy details and it is recorded on our mainframe system. Tenants who need to update their details have been asked to contact Housing SA, and tenants receiving a Housing Occupancy Survey are reminded that it is a condition of their tenancy to advise Housing SA whenever their household circumstances change, including occupancy and income details. Tenants are only required to respond if their household details are different from those in the letter. When a tenant contacts Housing SA following the receipt of the Housing Occupancy Survey, then a Proof of Income form is posted to the tenant and is processed upon return.

At this point, we do not follow up tenants who do not make contact. I think this has been raised in the past. Obviously, we look at the risk management within Housing SA, the time it would take and the number of staff if we were to follow up with every one of the tenants, but we have sent that letter to 31,000 tenants this year.

Ms SANDERSON: To confirm that, the Housing Occupancy Survey is sent to all tenants; however, only those with reduced rates of rent are expected to send it back. That was sent out in October, and in November and March each year you also do a mail out for the POI. Would you not save a lot of money, given that it is $1 per stamp, if you just included them both in the one envelope?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I actually think the thing that would save money the most is an email. I would look through the Business System Transformation to see whether we can be far more proactive with people and send them messages. One of the things we have done in regard to debt is send people text messages and remind them that they have outstanding debt. It is that instant communication that is really important.

What I really would like people who are our Housing SA tenants in public housing to do is proactively disclose. With the new system, I would expect that they will be able to log on themselves and update those details. So, those costs should be able to come down, and then we will have details that every week we can update and have that clear documentation. I think you and I are on the same page. What we would look to do is be more efficient and as effective as possible.

Ms SANDERSON: Given the issues in the paper last year regarding people owning their own properties who were also tenants of Housing Trust properties, does the POI (proof of income) or the HOS include any assets or cash at bank held (for example, houses or bank accounts), bearing in mind that people could receive an inheritance throughout the term of their rental agreement, other than just at the beginning, when I know you do check?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Member for Adelaide, what is the reference?

Ms SANDERSON: This is regarding the POI on page 393. My question is: does either the Proof of Income or the HOS allow for people to notify you whether they actually own property or have received an inheritance?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I think this was very clear when we talked about this last time. We crack down on people who do own property, and it is not acceptable. That is part of our conditions. We made some further clarifications in April last year, if I recall accurately, for people who have done that. We have a particular dedicated team in our compliance group that focused on people who own private property. Some of those people are in some very vulnerable situations and the risk is very high, and we are working with them and supporting them to encourage legal advice on how they can extract themselves.

I think we are talking about two separate issues because we have already addressed that private ownership aspect of it. Of course, we must be diligent, and we expect people to let us know, but we have that as a key part of our compliance. It was a separate group; now it is a core part of what we do in the compliance area.

Ms SANDERSON: Following on from that, my belief was that, at 25 August 2015, 377 investigations regarding 799 properties had been made, but this was an audit and an audit is a small portion. I do not believe that all of your 30,000-plus tenants were actually investigated to see whether they own property. I believe that you have a new policy that when new people enter the list you check it, but I am wondering whether you have checked everyone on the existing list. What if things change throughout the year? A parent or a grandparent could die and leave them a house. How do you find that out?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: One of the things we do is write to people every year about their staying on the waiting list and we ask a series of questions. In the rare circumstances that people have an inheritance that enables them to buy a house, we welcome that and we encourage them not to be on the list anymore. I think we are being very clear now, when people apply, about their need to tell us information about their income, about the make-up of their family and about some of the other issues that might be there. We have had a particular focus on this. You mentioned more than 300 who did have that issue, and my executive director is probably going to tell me exactly how many people that is now.

As I recall, we did a significant data-matching exercise with SAILIS, the South Australian Integrated Land Information System. We did a particular project on that, and that is where that figure came from. We have gone through each of those 300-plus groups and now we are going to talk to them. I think a few people left because of that—I think more than a dozen tenancies, if I recall accurately, are no longer with us—but of course other people have relinquished that ownership. Usually it was a part ownership, to be honest. In many circumstances it was a DV situation or land that perhaps might not have been valued, but we still asked people to relinquish their ownership.

Ms SANDERSON: Just to be clear for the record, it is more than 377. So you have actually investigated the whole 30,000-plus tenants and you have done a crosscheck with their names against the Lands Titles Office?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: That is my understanding. It was a significant data-matching exercise we went through. I am happy to report back to the house those people who are now still being reviewed by our compliance area, which is significantly less than that 300 because we went through with them and had individual case management, I guess, individual understanding of their situation. I am happy to report back to the house.

Ms SANDERSON: I refer to private rental assistance payments on page 394 and 395. What is the number and the value of bonds that were lost in the 2015-16 year due to Housing SA not validating claims within the required time frames?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: When we talk about private rental assistance, it is really important to understand its role in supporting people in South Australia for social housing. When most people think about Housing SA they think about the house, but in fact it is actually equal levels of support, as in equal numbers of people who we support through an actual home based on 25 per cent of their income, and of course those who we support with private rental assistance and a bond.

Sometimes it is a bond, and sometimes it is rent in advance or support with hotel or motel accommodation if necessary. In 2015-16, we had 49,387 assistances, of which 22,819 were bonds. I think the focus of your question was actually about challenging those bonds and seeing where they are. That was part of our debt blitz that we looked at. We looked at many areas, not only for Housing SA tenants but for those people in the private rental space, and we challenged those bonds. Now we have put on two extra compliance officers.

Also, once the business transformation system goes up, and our PR Connect system, for which we are doing a soft launch this month, people will be able to apply online, and we think that the transaction will be much quicker. We have done quite a bit of work with Consumer and Business Services. I understand that the Auditor-General talked about where Housing SA staff had not validated all bond claims received from Consumer and Business Services within 18 days. In that case, it is automatically forfeited to the landlord. When we have a look at that, we will look at some of the challenges that we have in here.

Recently, I did a 90-day project on private rental assistance and found there is a really big gap in regard to education, both tenants and landlords knowing their rights and their responsibilities. Part of our concern is to make sure people understand the bond claim process. Often, when private rental tenants do not agree with the amount claimed by their landlord, we can undertake an investigation on their behalf. Where the bond claims are found to be legitimate, Housing SA will pay the landlord agent and then raise a debt against the customer, which may be repaid in full. However, where there is insufficient evidence for a claim, Housing SA will dispute the bond claim through SACAT.

As I mentioned, we had two additional bond claims officers commence in May to increase our ability to investigate and dispute bond claims against SA Housing Trust bond guarantees. We are also working with Consumer and Business Services and SACAT to improve our processing and validation of bond claims. As I mentioned, we are launching PR Connect, and that will make it a lot easier when we are assessing people's eligibility and our ability to be in that time line.

Ms SANDERSON: I welcome that there are two new staff. You have given me the number of people and the number of bonds, but what was the value of the bonds that were lost due to them not being done in time?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I will have to take that on notice.

Ms SANDERSON: You mentioned the PR Connect system. In response to the Auditor-General, it said that that would be implemented in October, so it sounds like you are ready to implement that this month?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Yes. What we do usually is a bit of a soft launch and then we will go a full launch, and you will receive a media release from me about that. I always think it is good to make sure we have our ducks in a row and it is working effectively, and we will do that. I am happy to provide you with some more information about PR Connect. We might have some information here to provide to you. I will endeavour to brief you on that.

Ms SANDERSON: When do you envisage the full launch? How long are you testing it for with the soft launch?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I think it will be ready to go by the end of this month.

Ms SANDERSON: Has the minister or her department now established a process for assessing a customer's capacity to contribute all or part of the bond and, if not, do you plan to in the future?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I think your question is about the customer liquid assets limit when assessing their eligibility for assistance, and this will be part of that PR Connect. We want to be very open and very clear with people and, particularly if you have an online application, we can provide some examples of what should be included and not included. I think that will go a long way to doing that. PR Connect will ask the customer to declare if they have any interest in a residential property, which was an area of concern for you before. Of course, they will be ineligible for assistance without a social assessment conducted.

Ms SANDERSON: You answered before about the number of bonds, which I believe was 22,819 for the 2015-16 year. How many of these were for first-timers, so those who have never had a bond from the government before?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I will have to take that on notice. It is really important that we have our bonds. I know there has been considerable interest in people who have had more than one bond and, when we unpacked it, we looked particularly at the top 20, and most of them have had significant domestic violence/family violence situations.

This is one of the key things when we consider why people need our support, and it is often that they are in very complex and vulnerable situations. When we see repeat bond users, we might see someone who perhaps might be in a boarding house for a short time, and that does not work for them. They might then go on to a different level. We try to provide that wraparound support for them but, particularly if you have some complexities in your life, that is quite difficult.

Definitely, one of my challenges has been about debt, not just for the tenants but non-tenants, predominantly being people with bonds. We have done a lot of work in that. We have increased the amount that people can come back—I think it is now up to $15 per fortnight. We are also making sure that people are aware, if they are leaving one of our properties or private properties, of what will incur them expenses: things that they have not fixed, if they leave rubbish behind—these are the things that will impact on that bond.

The bond is a guarantee, and if someone has to use that bond to go back to a landlord that is then a debt against their name. As far as who are first-time users, I will have to come back to you with that figure.

Ms SANDERSON: What does the minister plan to do to stop multiple abusers of bonds? I know you now have the $15 a fortnight rather than $10, but your own staff have contacted me about people who continually do this and just rack up the next debt, the next debt and the next debt, and they are still given multiple bonds with no capacity to ever pay it off.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I go back to my other conversation about people who are coming to us with multiple bonds. I think what they are asking for is help, and they are saying to us, 'We are not able to sustain a tenancy.' That is why we utilise the risk identification tool when people come in. Initially, we rolled out Connecting People to Place primarily about Housing SA tenants, but we are now using that to assess people who are also coming in. What other supports do they need? Can we put them in touch with other services as well?

My concern is shared with you in the fact that we have had people who use bonds many times. I reiterate my issue and my concern about people who live very complex lives and are in very vulnerable situations. What we need to do is help them, and I think they are showing us with multiple bonds that they are not sustaining their tenancies, so we need to support them in other ways. A risk identification tool will really assist with that; it will understand some of the complexities and perhaps the supports that they need around them to maintain tenancies, whether it be in Housing SA or in the private rental market in the future.

Ms SANDERSON: It states in the Auditor-General's Report that $16 million was spent on private rental assistance—so that is not bonds, I assume. How many weeks' rent can somebody receive in advance?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Two weeks.

Ms SANDERSON: I am now moving on to a new topic, page 400, the Business System Transformation program. In May 2014, TIBCO, which supports 34 of the Trust's 38 mainframe-based business systems, confirmed it would provide software support until the end of December 2015 with limited extended support until December 2017. This increases the risk, as stated by the Auditor-General, of system failure and business interruption, which would carry significant legal, reputational and financial implications. My question is: what was the cost to extend the service agreement for two years until December 2017, and has the government negotiated a further extension? If yes, what is the cost?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Member for Adelaide, you should refer that question to the Minister for Housing and Urban Development.

Ms SANDERSON: Does that mean all of this page 400 is a different minister?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I think that is how we should take that.

Ms SANDERSON: So last year it was you, but this year it is not?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: No, that is not correct. In fact, I think I said very clearly to you that I was not able to respond to that question, and he will have carriage of that.

Ms SANDERSON: In that case, we will have to go back to pages 394 and 395. Given that Housing SA does not check that a customer's weekly rent is less than the average weekly rent for accommodation in the area before they provide rental assistance, how would you know whether you are getting value for money for the taxpayer and whether the rents are being inflated and kickbacks being made to the tenants?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: As we have expressed before, that is validated and confirmed through the POI and also the Income Confirmation Service from Centrelink. The vast majority of our tenants who are in Housing SA properties receive Centrelink support, so we can check that money. While I understand that we must always be diligent—and I certainly support that—I think that Housing SA is a privilege and not a right. People should respect the conditions that give them a tenancy that is based on their income, and it is 25 per cent, so that is what we do. I will say to you again that we have a proof of income review in April and October every year.

Ms SANDERSON: Sorry, I might have explained that poorly. I believe that Housing SA still administers the PRAP payments. I am not sure whether it is the commonwealth or state that would be checking it, but obviously when someone has a private rental and they approach Housing SA for the bond, and possibly the two weeks' rent in advance, it would be from the commonwealth that they get the CRA money, which is a separate thing. Before working out whether you would give them the bond and rent in advance, is there any checking mechanism? It was mentioned by the Auditor-General that there is not.

For example, I have helped people with private rentals in my electorate. From my own research, I would say that you calculate that in North Adelaide $110 per bedroom would be the rough estimate of a house, and in Prospect you would work out the rent for a house based on $100 per room. If somebody is renting a house in North Adelaide with the equivalent of $150 per room, is there a checking mechanism to ensure that the taxpayers are not subsidising a house in North Adelaide with a swimming pool or tennis court and that it is actually appropriate accommodation?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: When you are looking at appropriate accommodation, obviously when someone comes in to ask for private rental assistance we would look at their income, we would look at their situation. One of the things I see—and I see it in my electorate in Salisbury all the time—is when our private rental liaison officers say to someone, 'You can't afford this property.' When they support them through that private rental scheme and through Housing SA, of course they would potentially be eligible for the bond and the two weeks' rent in advance you are talking about. One of the key conversations with people is about what is affordable.

We know that if people are paying more than 30 per cent of their income each week it means that they are in housing stress. Whether you are paying back a mortgage or renting, the advice you should receive is about what is sustainable going forward. In terms of where people rent, I do not think there is a restriction on whether they rent something in Adelaide or North Adelaide. My concern is their ability to sustain the tenancy and whether they can continue to live there. We are about to launch PR Connect, which will have an online ability, and it will check a few other things—liquid assets, for example. The key thing for me is sustainability.

On Friday, I am heading off to the national meeting for housing and homelessness ministers. We have some pretty big things to talk about on the table. We know that COAG is talking about affordable housing. This is a national issue. We need to continue to ask ourselves what is sustainable for people going forward. If you lock yourself into a private rental that you cannot sustain, I do not think that we are going to help you by giving you a bond and two weeks' rent in advance. When we look at this assessment, we look at the person, and when we are connecting people to a place we have a risk identification tool. We can unpack that with people, and we can ask more questions about that.

I am not sure if I agree with your claim about how much a room is worth in whatever suburb. This is about that person, that individual and their family, the family they are responsible for, what they can afford and what is their income. Will they then be eligible for the bond and potentially some rent in advance? We will have to do that analysis.

The CHAIR: Time having expired for examination of this portion the Auditor-General's Report, I would like to thank the minister and her advisers for their attendance today, as well as the member for Adelaide for her questions.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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