HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2022-11-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Auditor-General's Report

Auditor-General's Report

In committee.

(Continued from 1 November 2022.)

The CHAIR: I declare the examination of the Report of the Auditor-General 2021-22 open. I remind members that the committee is in normal session. Any questions must be asked by members on their feet and responses provided by members on their feet. All questions must be directly referenced to the Auditor-General's 2021-22 Report and agency statements for the year ending 2021-22, as published on the Auditor-General's website.

I welcome the Deputy Premier, and minister for a whole range of things, and also the leader. I call for questions. Leader, the floor is yours.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Thank you. I refer to the Auditor-General's Report, Part C, both page 111 and page 114 of the same report. This is the section that includes reference to the prescribed burning program under SA government grant subsidies and transfers. In Part C: Agency Audit Reports, on page 111 the report notes that there was a $7 million increase in the community emergency services funding. Can the Deputy Premier please clarify what programs the $7 million was allocated towards?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Can I just say, while the advisers are clarifying the answer to the question, that I have a number of staff here, public servants. If the leader would care to say in between questions if there are any departments that are not being asked questions, they can go back to their work. If he could also just give me some advice on order of departments, that would be useful.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Most questions will be directed to the Department for Environment and Water. I think we can send the EPA back to do better things.

The Hon. S.E. Close interjecting:

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Pardon?

The CHAIR: Industry and innovation.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Those other parts of your portfolio, yes. I have nothing for them at all. I am not the shadow minister for those.

The Hon. S.E. Close interjecting:

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: No, it is just me.

The CHAIR: We have the big guns in.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I should say that Green Industries can return to doing better things as well.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The money has been applied to prescribed burning on public land on Kangaroo Island and also the Mount Lofty Ranges.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Could the minister provide any clarity as to the status of the department's prescribed burn program, including the budget allocation for the 2022-23 financial year, as referred to in this report on both page 114 and page 111? Specifically, the 2022-23 budget papers refer to a reduction of $772,000 in the program. Can the minister clarify whether this is in fact a reduction to prescribed burning in the Mount Lofty Ranges and on Kangaroo Island?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: There is no reduction in the amount of money being allocated to the prescribed burning program. There was a diminution in the capital fund allocated, which is about the establishment of fire tracks and so on. As the opposition leader may well be aware, there is currently a program to determine the track management response at the western end of Kangaroo Island. We expect that the funds will be sufficient to undertake the works required but, if not, we will be seeking assistance with that through either the midyear budget or the budget process. In terms of prescribed burning, the amount allocated is the same year on year, as is the target of hectares to be undertaken in prescribed burning.

As the leader will be well aware, having been the minister for the previous four years, at no point in those last four years was that target reached in hectares. I was at some pains to be clear in the media interview questioning that this is not a matter of political responsibility. The challenge in prescribed burning is significantly associated with the weather conditions at any given time and also occasionally with concerns about smoke taint in nearby vineyards, both of which are legitimate reasons for curtailing some of the prescribed burning that is able to be done.

When comments were being elicited at the budget period, my hope and expectation were that this year would be a good year for prescribed burning and that we would be able to get closer to, if not actually hit, the target for the first time in some time. However, it has been a very, very wet spring, as people would be very well aware, and so again the weather pattern has caused a serious challenge for us in being able to hit the target.

We are obviously at the end of the season. We are not at the end of the financial year, but there are concerns that, yet again, we are not going to be able to hit the target, as has happened in the previous few years. It is not a financial challenge; it is an on-the-ground logistical challenge.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I appreciate the Deputy Premier's clarification and understand and respect the constraints within which the program must operate, particularly in the current climate, and I mean the climate as in the weather rather than financial. However, the budget papers do show that $772,000 reduction. Can I clarify this for complete clarity. Is that a reduction in capital expenditure with regard to one-off purchases or activities, such as the clearing of fire tracks, and not a reduction in staffing and operational expenditure?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am absolutely happy to answer this question, but I would note that we are talking about budget papers rather than the AG's Report, which does not address this issue.

The CHAIR: Sorry, I did miss that.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: But I will confirm, because we have nothing to hide, that it is the investing figure that has the slight diminution as opposed to the prescribed burns program.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: During the Economic and Finance Committee meeting on 10 June 2022, it was confirmed that there had been a $1 million reduction in the funding which had been allocated to the Department for Environment and Water for the purposes of the prescribed burn program. Is this funding cut on top of the $772,000 reduction in the annual program, or is it an approximation as provided by the public servant questioned, Ms Karen Prideaux, Business Manager of the Community Emergency Services Fund in the South Australian Fire and Emergency Services Commission?

The CHAIR: Leader, can you just remind me which page?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: There are broad references to the prescribed burning program on page 111 and on page 14.

The CHAIR: Page 111 and 14.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes.

The CHAIR: So they deal with the 2021 or 2022 financial years?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: They deal with both.

The CHAIR: Well, 2022 I assume finished on 30 June 2022, so you are looking at—that is what the Auditor-General does, looks back, and I can say that with some authority because I used to work there once. So, as to the questions you are asking, I cannot see the reference that you are talking to in terms of 2021-22.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: If you go to page 14—

The CHAIR: Page 114?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes, there is a 2022 and 2021. You can see the $3 million less than 2021. That is looking back, if that is your requirement: looking back.

The CHAIR: Which $3 million are you referring to? Can you just go down the page and point it out for me, please?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: So, if we start at the bottom of the page, we have $28,420,000 under Total.

The CHAIR: Sorry, on page 114?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Page 14.

The CHAIR: Page 14, sorry. I am on the wrong page; I thought it was 114. Bear with me for a second, I do apologise. Which report number is it?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: It is in the financial statements.

The CHAIR: Perhaps the advisers can assist me. So, in the prescribed burning program, there is 2022, which appears to have gone down from 2021, so you are asking about the 2022 period, I assume.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I am comparing and contrasting, I suppose.

The CHAIR: You can compare 2021 and 2022 as much as you like, I am happy with that, but you cannot ask about a future budget because the Auditor-General has not actually looked in the future budget yet.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The 2022 year is listed there.

The CHAIR: That is right. It is correct; 2022—

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: For the year ending there, so I am asking about the change between the two.

The CHAIR: Between 2021 and 2022?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes.

The CHAIR: So you are asking for the minister to report on the April, May, June period under this government.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The budget occurred during that time. Look, I did not have this trouble with the Premier yesterday. We can pack up now if we want and I will call the departments to another special meeting of the Budget and Finance Committee. It is what I had to do last time during estimates. There is an easy way to do this or a painful way to do this. I do not really care either way, but it just wastes everyone's time if we dick around like this.

The CHAIR: First of all, I do not appreciate your language. I suggest you retain your language in the parliamentary sense. Secondly, you can choose what you can do, but the standing orders make it very clear, and I read them out, that this relates to the Auditor-General's Report. The Auditor-General reports on the previous year's events and previous years to that. The Auditor-General does not, generally, report on future events. I am happy for you to refer it to whichever committee you wish; that is your decision, and if you wish to cease this process, that is your decision as well. I am happy to do that. The ball is in your court.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I have asked this question and the Deputy Premier has not indicated whether she will answer it or not. Perhaps she will.

The CHAIR: There are two things: one is I actually uphold the actual proceedings. Secondly, the Deputy Premier has made it quite clear. She has said this is a budget matter for the future, or words to that effect, rather than the report, so I think she is indicating that you are asking a question about stuff that has not happened yet, which is not the Auditor-General's purview. I am happy to be corrected if somebody thinks I am wrong. There is question time, there is Budget and Finance, there are a whole range and plethora of other committees and processes to undertake what you wish to do. This is not the right time, unfortunately.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I will move on to page 24 of the agency statement, which refers to grants, subsidies and other grants. There is a grant there listed 'other grants', the total being $3.922 million, some of which fell within the current government's time in office. Does this grant amount, the $3.922 million, include the contract with the Conservation Council of South Australia for $250,00 per year previously, and widely referred to as the hush money scandal?

The CHAIR: We will take the commentary out and just deal with the facts of the question. Deputy Premier.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I do not know why I make you so angry. Leader, are you asking if the nearly $4 million includes the previous amount of money allocated to the Conservation Council or the additional money that was promised—

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No, that was from the budget year commencing 2022-23.

The CHAIR: Post 1 July?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is right.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: So no funding was provided to them by the government in that period of time?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No additional money over the money that had already been contracted by the previous government.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Does that figure include funding to the Conservation Council provided by any government?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: My advisers believe that to be case, yes.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I move to page 112 and also page 24, working between the two parts of the report, in relation to the grants provided in the area of heritage, so heritage grants. The Auditor-General's Report references $6 million, which was allocated by the previous government towards heritage conservation grants. Can the minister confirm whether the $1 million of grant funding, which had been previously allocated in previous government's budgets for the 2022-23 and 2023-24 financial years, still exists to assist owners of heritage places to restore and preserve their needs, or has that program concluded as is listed here for the $7.063 million in 2022?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I believe the previous minister, now leader, announced in the lead-up to the election campaign a third round, and that third round was honoured.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Moving on to page 16, which includes the statement around the grant from local government, in this case the City of Marion, towards the playground at Glenthorne National Park, 'where the capital component is recognised during the construction of the asset'. What is the status of infrastructure works in relation to that nature play area at Glenthorne National Park as it relates to the component of the grant provided by the City of Marion? My question is: what has the funding from the City of Marion paid for?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The nature-based playground is scheduled to be completed by the end of this year still, and there are some additional elements that are not the playground itself that have been requested by the City of Marion that the department is funding and that will be constructed around March to May next year.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: They were requested by the City of Marion?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is what my advisers tell me, yes.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Can you give some examples of what those might be?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We will take that on notice so that you can get a detailed list.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Has the disability access changing room, which was to be included as part of that nature playground, been removed from the scope of the works, or is that one of the items that the City of Marion has requested?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: My adviser is not aware of the details, so I will take that on notice also.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I refer to page 11 at 1.4, budget performance. The original 2022 budget for total investing expenditure was $143.45 million and the actual 2022 total investing expenditure was $48.758 million; there is a difference of $94.69 million. What is the explanation for that disparity of $94 million?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think largely the explanation sits in the document itself, but this is about a carryover of project money so there are some higher actuals which relate to the South Australian Riverland Floodplains Integrated Infrastructure Program and the Park 25 program, but there are also some lower actuals, which are around the Sustaining Riverland Environments Program.

There is a carryover and reprofile of the commonwealth-funded and cabinet-approved projects, including the Sustaining Riverland Environments Program, as well as the KI Asset Reinstatement and Site Clearance Program. The leader will recall challenges in delivering those programs on time under his time also.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Will the $94 million be carried over to ensure that projects to which the funds were originally allocated are delivered in full, or are they likely to be scaled back or have their scope changed due to increased costs?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Sorry for that extensive conversation between commonwealth and state money. The challenge in answering this question is that we are talking about a carryover request that sits within the Mid-Year Budget Review, and obviously I cannot be speaking about the Mid-Year Budget Review prior to its publication.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I will move to the Native Vegetation Council item on page 14, which covers the Native Vegetation Branch within the department. Has the department briefed the minister in relation to a significant clearance of native vegetation which occurred at 104 Mount Lofty Summit Road, Crafers?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I do not think the advisers I have here are aware of that level of detail, so I will take that on notice.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Does the minister consider that appropriate resources are being applied by the Native Vegetation Branch to ensure appropriate adherence to and enforcement of the Native Vegetation Act?

The CHAIR: Leader, you may wish to rephrase that question to make sure that it falls within the period under consideration by the Auditor-General.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Does the minister consider that appropriate resources were being applied by the Native Vegetation Branch over recent years, both during the time I was the minister and even prior to that, to ensure appropriate adherence to and enforcement of the Native Vegetation Act?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think that the legislation is being complied with by the department. I think that any environment minister would accept any additional amount of money in order to undertake all the activities that are the responsibility of the department, including compliance for native vegetation, that the council does an excellent job and that the department is fully legally compliant.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Moving on to page 5, which has a section on the impact of COVID-19 on the Board of the State Botanic Gardens. Have events at the Botanic Gardens, including events in Botanic Park and school visits, returned to pre-COVID scheduling, noting that this has been having an impact on the financial performance of the gardens over the prior two years? Can the minister confirm there are no ongoing health restrictions or social distancing requirements at the gardens?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I do not believe that there are any health restrictions currently affecting the gardens, but of course we have been seeing in the news just lately that there appears to be another uptick in the virus, so it will be a brave person who predicts the pathway of this pandemic. At present, there are no restrictions I am aware of that would restrict organisations and schools from visiting and enjoying the gardens.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Have events over recent months returned to pre-pandemic levels?

The CHAIR: Events over recent months which are post July 1 are not within the purview of this review or examination.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Until 20 March to 30 June?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I cannot expect my advisers to know the detail of that here, so I am happy to take on notice whether they returned to pre-pandemic levels leading up to 30 June.

The CHAIR: Is anybody else asking any questions in this examination? No, so we will change ministers and advisers. I remind both members of the government and the opposition that the committee is in normal session. Any questions have to be asked by members on their feet and responded to by ministers on their feet, and all questions must be directly referenced to the Auditor-General's 2021-22 Report and agency statements for the year ending 2021-22 as published on the Auditor-General's website. I just remind members that any questions that deal with matters post 1 July 2022 will not be entertained by the Chair.

Mrs HURN: Minister, I have just a couple of questions in relation to job plans for medical officers. There are a couple of references in Part C, and page 158 is one of those, 'Controls opinion findings', where it says:

No job plans for some senior medical practitioners and consultants. Those that were provided did not meet the requirements of the Enterprise Agreement.

There is another reference on page 163 as well. Do or could job plans make clear the needs of the LHN in terms of ward rounds and timely discharges?

The CHAIR: I remind you that the minister is only required to report up to 30 June 2022.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Thank you, sir, your chairing—

Mrs HURN: Potentially it is—

The CHAIR: No, it is very clear that this is an Auditor-General's examination. There is question time, there is the Budget and Finance Committee and there are a whole range of other forums where members of the opposition can ask questions. This is quite clear, and that is why we only have 30 minutes.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Thank you, sir. Your chairing is firm but fair. The member raised the question in relation to job planning, which is an area of ongoing work. Certainly, upon coming into the role relatively recently, there is, I think, a higher degree of variability in terms of where job planning is in place across the health system.

There has been some work done, particularly since the last enterprise bargaining agreement, with salaried medical officers to work on a job plan policy. There was a draft policy that has been developed. There has been, I think it is fair to say, some concerns from the Salaried Medical Officers Association in relation to that policy. There is now ongoing work being done between the Department for Health and Wellbeing and SASMOA in relation to that policy across the board.

I think there is certainly a willingness, from my discussions with SASMOA, to make sure that we improve job planning across the system because from their perspective it is important to demonstrate and to have as part of those plans some of the non-clinical elements that need to be part of those consultants' workloads, whether it be research training or their other non-clinical roles.

Obviously, from the department's and I am sure from the Auditor-General's perspective, there are other elements where it is important to have the job planning in place. I certainly would agree that this is an area for improvement. There is work underway. There are continual discussions, both at a local health network level, to improve job planning, and at a statewide level in terms of having a policy in place.

Mrs HURN: I have a secondary question in relation to the job planning. The report makes reference that CALHN is working with senior medical practitioners and specialists on this, and I am after clarification as to whether the ward rounds and the timely discharges are something that would be included in that.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Certainly, as the Auditor-General makes note of—bearing in mind your ruling, sir, in relation to keeping this direct to the 2021-22 financial year, which I think predates some of the issues the member is trying to raise in relation to a recent direction that has been put in place by the Chief Executive of the Central Adelaide Local Health Network—in relation to CALHN in particular, CALHN has advised that they will:

work with Medical Leads to ensure that a job plan is completed for their senior medical practitioners and specialists and that it is less than three‐years old

incorporate a declaration of completion of a job plan into the Scope of Practice document, including a link to SA Health’s directive. This will oblige senior medical practitioners and specialists to have this discussion every three years at a minimum as a part of the credentialing review cycle.

CALHN will also investigate options to record the existence of a job plan in the employee’s payroll record, enabling reporting and monitoring.

Certainly, if I am incorrect, I will correct the record, but my understanding is that job planning outlines clinical and non-clinical time that would be part of the consultant's work, which would vary depending upon which consulting area that person is working in and their specialty.

Mrs HURN: You do not need to turn the page; I refer you to page 164, in relation to mandatory vaccinations. I refer specifically to the targeted catch-up of vaccinations referred to in the CALHN response. Given the report deals to the end of June, the catch-up was scheduled to be completed by the end of September at the latest. Noting the Chair's persistent ruling and outlining of what our requirements are, can you just explain or outline how many vaccinations were outstanding in relation to diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis and how many staff are required to be vaccinated for that?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I thank the member for the question. As she says, there is a requirement to receive the diphtheria and tetanus booster every 10 years. As the Auditor-General notes, from the 2021-22 year, they have identified a significant number of employees who are overdue for that booster. CALHN advised that it would:

provide targeted catch‐up dTpa immunisations to outstanding designated staff across CALHN and SCSS in the next three months

build a report that will monitor at three‐monthly intervals the staff who are due for a dTpa booster

implement an escalation process for staff who remain non‐compliant.

I am certainly happy to take on notice to provide more information in relation to the rollout of that catch-up program and the work that CALHN has committed to doing in relation to that issue that has been identified by the Auditor-General.

Mrs HURN: Thank you, minister, for taking that one on notice. Moving on to page 227 in relation to noncompliance with the healthcare workers' COVID-19 vaccination directive, there is an analysis in relation to CALHN, which identifies that 864 staff have not been fully immunised.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: SALHN.

Mrs HURN: Yes, SALHN. Did I say CALHN?

Ms Pratt: Yes.

Mrs HURN: It very clearly outlines SALHN. Has any progress been made in relation to the 864 staff becoming fully immunised? If you would not mind, could you outline how many of those staff—and I understand, Chair, the point you are going to make—how many of those 864, would have had medical exemptions?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I do note, as the Auditor-General does, that for employees who had worked from 1 November 2021 to 1 May 2022 it did identify a number of employees who had not met the full requirements of those vaccination requirements. I am happy to follow up in terms of additional action, noting, of course, that SALHN had committed to the Auditor-General to take action in relation to that from July onwards. I also note that there will be changes happening soon in relation to the vaccination requirements across the health workforce.

Essentially, what is currently in place, under the amendments to the Public Health Act, is that there is still a direction in place for public hospital employees in relation to COVID-19 vaccination requirements. We have been consulting with SA Health staff in relation to a new policy that will be in place for SA Health in relation to vaccination across the board for staff who work in particularly clinical areas. The policy will outline those staff who do require to be up to date with their vaccinations. That policy has been out for consultation and is now being refined following that consultation, to be released soon, and will replace that mandate that has been in place for some time since the direction originally under the Emergency Management Act was in place.

Ms PRATT: Thank you, minister, for indulging the next set of questions with a purview to regional health. I am looking at page 133, in reference to supplies and services expenses. There is a line that goes to the $59 million increase in fees. My question is: what is the estimated annual increase in payments for a general practitioner under this fee for service with general practitioners?

The CHAIR: Can I just clarify the question. What was the increase or what will be the increase?

Ms PRATT: Where there has been a $59 million increase in fees for service in an agreement with general practitioners, and that commenced on 1 February, my question is: what is the annual increase in payment for an individual GP in that arrangement?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I thank the member for Frome for her question. I think it might be difficult to answer that because, under the terms of the new contracts that have been rolled out—for the benefit of other members, these are contracts that have been in place with general practitioners who provide services both for inpatients and for emergency work within our healthcare system—there was a protracted negotiation under the previous government between the Rural Support Service on behalf of the government, and on behalf of all the local health networks, and with the AMA and the Rural Doctors Association, representing the GPs. Eventually, an agreement was reached in terms of new rates of pay across all those workers that have now been rolled out to general practitioners across the state.

However, it is not a one-size-fits-all, 'Here's an amount of money that each of you get.' It is a very particularised model, where it depends upon the particular circumstances of the on-call arrangements, the attendances, etc., in terms of how an individual practitioner would be paid under that agreement. There is not a particular sum that each person would receive. However, if I could extrapolate the question to how that payment would be divided, on average, across all the GPs who are part of that agreement, then I think certainly we would be able to take that on notice and find an answer to that question.

Ms PRATT: Moving to page 153, in reference to new agreements between the LHNs and the AMA, the new agreement that I am referring to commenced on 1 February 2022 with an expiration in 2024. This is in reference to a number of contracts, minister. Of the 135 contracts that were eventually signed by both parties, the Barossa Hills Fleurieu LHN advised that 122 contracts were now signed by both parties and there was a remainder. My question to you is: where are the outstanding 13 GP contracts?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: As the member states, there certainly were a number of contracts out of the original set of contracts—of the 135 contracts, 122 were signed as at 1 August 2022. I think it is fair to say that of those remaining contracts, a number—if not the vast majority—have been signed since then. I will certainly take on notice in terms of what information we can reasonably provide about those remaining 13 contracts that had not been signed, and if particular progress has been made since that point in relation to the signing of those contracts.

Ms PRATT: Thank you, that would be very welcome. I have a follow-up question on the same line. Minister, how many of those include doctors at a hospital providing emergency department services, if you can?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I will take that on notice as part of the previous question.

Ms PRATT: I am moving us to page 208, retention attraction allowances, in reference to the Riverland Mallee Coorong LHN and a penalty rate of 45 per cent. Minister, has the 45 per cent retention and attraction allowance in the RMC LHN now been approved by the CE of the Department for Health and Wellbeing (DHW)?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Thank you to the member. My adviser has advised me that our understanding is that it has been now approved by the CE of the Department for Health and Wellbeing. We will double-check that, and if there is any correction we will provide that on notice.

From my understanding, there is a process where local health networks—this applies particularly in relation to a large number of regional local health networks—will apply to the CE for approval above that rate, which of course when it comes to attraction and retention is sometimes necessary, particularly in regional areas. This was raised with me as an issue recently in terms of the meeting I had with all the regional executive directors of medical services across the state going through that process.

There is some work being undertaken at a departmental level through the workforce branch looking at incentives, attraction and retention payments generally across the board because we are in a very competitive market for medical, nursing and allied health staff across the country. But, in relation to this matter, clearly the Auditor-General raised that it was not the appropriate approval from the Riverland Mallee Coorong Local Health Network for those payments above that original rate from the CE. Our advice is that that has now been approved, but we will double-check that.

Ms PRATT: Minister, thank you very much for that answer. I will follow up on that same topic with three questions that I think you have the capacity to absorb into one. What would then be the average retention allowance paid under the agreement across the LHNs? How are those LHNs accurately informed about those rates that are being paid? How would SA Health avoid LHNs competing against each other and driving up the cost? It is a bit of a bundle, so I am happy to go back to an individual question.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I will see what we can do in terms of answering those questions on notice, but I think that there is a good point raised in terms of competition. Certainly, regarding the question that was raised in terms of what the local health network would be aware of, well, they are the ones requesting this so they would be aware of what they are requesting to the CE; however, you raised the point in terms of awareness across the board.

I think the point to raise in relation to these matters is that we are not just competing across regional South Australia for these doctors. We are competing across all of Australia, and we do have a significant issue on that front. This is an issue that, in particular in this section of the Auditor-General's Report, is being raised in relation to salaried medical officers, as I understand it, and consultants, but where this is most acutely aware is in relation to locums. That is an issue right across the country and that is why we need to do a very significant piece of work not only here at a state level but at a national level in terms of workforce planning for this country.

There has been a workforce task force that has been established through health ministers around the country to address this issue because everybody is facing exactly the same issue and we are competing with each other across the board.

Ms PRATT: Minister, moving on to Chiron, pages 130 and 152 for reference, I will try to jump straight to the questions. I am sure that you are across it. Noting that only limited progress has been made with this issue, my first question is: does SA Health have any cybersecurity concerns in relation to the continued use of Chiron and what action has there been on the replacement of it?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I think it is fair to say when it comes to Chiron that there is a whole range of different concerns because it is a very outdated system and it does need to be replaced with the EPAS system. The previous minister rebadged it as Sunrise EMR, but essentially it is still the EPAS system.

It has been delivered to a very small number of regional sites, particularly at Port Augusta and Mount Gambier. It is almost rolled out across Adelaide. We are in the process at the moment of rolling it out to the NALHN, in particular Lyell McEwin Hospital and Modbury Hospital. Stage 1 of that happened in the last month or so. The second stage of that is due to happen by the end of the year. The next step in relation to that is at the Women's and Children's Hospital, where it needs to be rolled out, and then, clearly, we have to work in relation to regional hospitals. I can assure you that, upon coming to office a few months ago, all the local health networks across the state in regional South Australia raised this as a key issue.

So there is work that is being established, as the Auditor-General's Report notes. Digital Health SA has established a regional reform and digital foundations program board. Its work has commenced on the business case to replace the system and that is working at the moment. In particular, we are looking at some of the key sites that needs to be rolled out to.

A particular issue that has been raised across the board is in relation to the Mount Barker hospital, which is obviously a growing hospital. It is about to have its new emergency department and soon after about to have an entirely new hospital built, so having a new system in place there is a significant need but it is a need across the board. This work is being led by Wayne Champion, who is the CE of the Riverland Mallee Coorong Local Health Network, on behalf of all the other local health networks across the state, but there is a significant piece of work to roll this out.

There are sites, as I said, where it is rolled out and that may well make it easier to roll it out to other adjoining sites. For instance, Port Augusta has it in the Flinders and Upper North Local Health Network; Whyalla does not. That may well make it easier in terms of that health network being able to expand it. Likewise, the Mount Gambier hospital has it in place but Naracoorte, Millicent, etc. in that health network do not. It may well be that part of the work that comes out of that program board that has been established through Digital Health SA and the local health networks may well be to prioritise those areas where we have already a partial rollout of the system to enable that to be a quicker path to installing it.

Mrs HURN: Minister, moving on to page 117 in Part C towards the bottom, which service agreements for 2022 and 2023 have been finalised and signed?

The CHAIR: You mean up to 30 June?

Mrs HURN: That is the understanding of the entire committee, and I have asked this specific question about which one so he can indicate whether it is up to 30 June. I am sure he is capable of making that decision. It has been referenced. You are wasting time, frankly. It has been—

The CHAIR: Sorry? Actually, first of all, I do not appreciate your comment and you will withdraw that comment.

Mrs HURN: Yes.

The CHAIR: No, you will withdraw it and apologise.

Mrs HURN: Withdraw.

The CHAIR: Secondly, it is up to me to decide the proceedings. If the minister wants to go beyond that, that is fine, but he is under no requirement to go beyond 30 June.

Mrs HURN: With respect, Chair, the questions have all been phrased in the very clear understanding of the entirety of the parliament that the Auditor-General's is up until June—

The CHAIR: 30 June.

Mrs HURN: —and I did not ask a question beyond it. There is a very clear reference as to this question, and frankly this has wasted an entire minute of our opportunity to ask the minister—who is being very helpful in providing us with useful information. So, with respect, we do not need to be constantly reminded about this Auditor-General's Report being up until 30 June. So, minister, just again—

The CHAIR: I note you just wasted two minutes of the committee's time too.

Mrs HURN: Minister, the service agreements, how many have been finalised and signed?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Thank you to the member and thank you, through the Chair. I will take on notice in relation to the answer to that question as it pertains to the status of 30 June.

Mrs HURN: A series of questions in relation to page 125 of Part C: the Auditor-General's Report says that it is difficult to progress recommendations in the industrial workstream in response to the ICAC report due to industrial disputes. What industrial disputes are being referred to?

The CHAIR: Which page again, sorry?

Mrs HURN: Page 125.

The CHAIR: Whereabouts on 125? Sorry, I am just trying to find it.

Mrs HURN: The top.

The CHAIR: Thank you; found it.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: My advice is what the Auditor-General in this section is referring to is likely to be in relation to the issue that I raised earlier in terms of concerns that SASMOA had in relation to the draft job planning policy the department had previously.

While I am on my feet I might add to my previous answer as well in relation to the service level agreements. In relation to the service level agreements, I would just add as well that this has been an area identified by our new chief executive of health and wellbeing who has raised that this process has been traditionally starting far too late in South Australia, in her view, compared with what happens on a national basis, and her intention is to start this process much earlier.

My presumption in relation to 30 June is that it was likely that no service level agreement was signed by that date, which was probably similar to the year before and the year before and the year before that. This is clearly something the department is keen to make sure is brought in earlier into the future.

Mrs HURN: On the same reference, what is the process and I suppose the progress of resolving those industrial disputes? Could you elaborate the process the department is going through.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: My advice in relation to the job planning policy is that there was a workshop that was held between the department and SASMOA. Subsequent to that, SASMOA have provided their recommendations in relation to their concerns and suggestions for what the job planning policy should look like. Essentially, discussions are ongoing between SASMOA and the department in relation to finalising that policy.

Mrs HURN: Moving on to page 129, and there is also another reference on page 194 in relation to screening checks, what action is being taken to ensure that all workers who are required to undertake a working with children, aged-care and criminal history check complete those checks? Also, could you potentially outline, and you may not have these figures at hand, how many people are working without them.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I will take on notice what we can in relation to the issue of the numbers. There are particular sections where this has been raised in the Auditor-General's Report but, particularly since the member has referred to the page number that references the Northern Adelaide Local Health Network, I will point to the section that outlines that NALHN has developed a procedure outlining the requirements for an employee screening check and is looking to centralise the monitoring of compliance with this procedure to its human resources team, which will help to ensure that staff do not work in a prescribed position without a current working with children check.

Mrs HURN: Just to clarify as well there was a second reference given, Part C, 194.8 as well, but 129 references CALHN, SALHN and NALHN as well, so if you could take all those on notice that would be helpful.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I can do that.

Mrs HURN: In relation to Part C, page125, back to the ICAC references, has the updated conflict of interest policy been released and also what action has been taken to educate the SA Health community in the appropriate implementation of the policy?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: My advice is that the policy has been released and that SA Health, particularly the Department for Health and Wellbeing, is working on the implementation of that policy.

The CHAIR: That concludes the time allocated for this reference. We will now go to a new minister and a new member, the member for Frome.

I remind members, both the minister and opposition members, that this is a committee in normal session. Questions have to be asked by members on their feet and all questions must be directly referenced to the Auditor-General's Report 2021-22 and agency statements for the year ending 2021-22 as published on the Auditor-General's website. I remind members that questions must relate to the Auditor-General's Report. The Auditor-General's Report is up to the financial year ended 30 June 2022.

Ms PRATT: Minister, I will start in reference to page 423, eligibility requirements, where the background is that audit findings included that the South Australian Housing Trust 'does not require proof of income and asset eligibility from HomeSeeker SA applicants'. Can you advise the dates that the review of the HomeSeeker policy will start and be completed?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: In terms of eligibility, applicants are required to make a statutory declaration. I think the second part of your question was regarding a review; is that right?

Ms PRATT: In response to the Auditor-General's finding, the Housing Trust advised that it would review. My question is: can you advise the dates that the review will start and be completed?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: The review is already underway. The authority has had a look at different methods by which we can independently verify the statements. Following this, the options will be presented to the board, and I expect that to happen in the next few weeks.

Ms PRATT: In that vein, will the government then commit to releasing the outcomes of the policy review once completed?

The CHAIR: I draw the member's attention to the fact that that is not a matter in the Auditor-General's Report. It goes beyond that. It is a report outside the Auditor-General's Report. The minister is not required to address that if she does not wish to. I can read out the requirements of the Auditor's examination, if you like.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I am happy to make a statement on it. We are not reviewing the entire policy as such; we are just looking at the administrative arrangement. Those recommendations will be subject to the matters of the board. I am sure the arrangements, if they do change, will be publicised.

Ms PRATT: I refer to page 430, underutilisation of SAHT properties. Where it was referenced that about 26 per cent of tenanted houses are underutilised, I would do some rough calculations that we are talking about approximately 41,000 people. How can the government justify the 13,000 properties—26 per cent—that are being underutilised in the current housing and cost-of-living crisis?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I think it is fair to say that we acknowledge we are in a housing crisis, and we are doing a range of things. We have been assessing the process in which we turn around our vacant properties. I remember somewhere towards the end of last year that we had certainly 1,800 plus vacant properties in public housing, and that has created a great deal of discussion.

Certainly I recall putting a lot of pressure on in regard to that myself because we knew that we were hitting a bit of an issue in relation to housing and tenancy. The recent number—although the numbers vary every day—in fact dropped under 1,400 vacant properties in the last few weeks. I think last week I remember a number of about 1,435 or thereabouts, so it does move around, depending on people getting allocated to a property.

In terms of what you are saying, you are talking about the number of maybe empty bedrooms potentially. Is that where you were going—empty bedrooms, the numbers of tenants in properties versus the numbers of properties being utilised? Well, we cannot simply say to people, 'Look, you're in a three-bedroom property.' Maybe someone has become a single parent or their partner has passed away. There are a lot of sensitivities around the bedroom-to-person ratio within public housing.

We have been looking at bigger picture reform in relation to the investing of money into our public housing system. I have said over and over again that we have put in $177.5 million of new money. That is the first new money into building homes in many, many years. It is fair to say as well that we do have some bits of comparative that we have looked at with respect to certain regional areas.

Regional areas might be different from metro in terms of how many one, two, three or four-bedroom homes there are. Even though they are three-bedroom homes, some of them are very, very small and not fit for purpose in terms of what we would expect out of a family home in today's day and age. We have been looking at all those things and planning and mapping out how our construction program will better meet the needs of people moving into the future.

Ms PRATT: Further to that then, minister, and thank you for your answer, yes, on page 431 I am really referring to that graph of the three-bedroom properties. You have gone some way to answer this question, but how will the government ensure that it replaces the underutilised three-bedroom properties with commensurate one or two-bedroom houses to ensure that more people are afforded that opportunity?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Sadly, it does not happen overnight. We have been working over the last few months to map out where all these properties are and where the utilisation and the underutilisation do exist, as well as our building program (a) with public housing and (b) in terms of a social and affordable mix and where we can leverage the money out of the $10 billion HAF that has been announced, as well as other money that we can leverage out of the feds through their commitments through the Housing Accord. We will certainly be addressing those issues in terms of making sure that we have the right properties in the right areas for the right purposes.

Ms PRATT: Minister, I refer again to page 430, the Affordable Housing Initiative and continue with that theme, noting that SAHT has created an AHI project management team. Can you elaborate on my question that in light of the current housing climate—and we know that interest rates have gone up, as well as cost of living and house prices—what is the government's plan to increase affordable housing for South Australians separate to public, social or community?

The CHAIR: What was the reference again, for my benefit, please?

Ms PRATT: It is page 430, Affordable Housing Initiative (AHI).

The Hon. N.F. COOK: The Affordable Housing Initiative, as I understand it, does have a commitment around providing 1,000 housing outcomes with respect to that program. It is fair to say that the two years before we came to government produced for sale around 54 houses. We certainly have started to review how that program is operating. In fact, today I went to a site out at Woodville Gardens where there were another 14 houses starting under this project.

We are continuing the program, but the difference with what is happening now is that we also have a federal government that has committed to put money into affordable housing. For the first time in a generation, we have state and federal governments putting money on the table so that we can increase housing supply. If you look at the number committed over the next five years to be started through the federal government announcement, we are working at pace to make sure that we get a good chunk of it. Their total number is about 55,000 or thereabouts.

If you look at population ratio, we normally get about 8 per cent. If we are rough with that, we should say we expect to try to drag 3½ thousand housing outcomes to commence in partnership with the feds over the next five or so years. That with our public housing builds—and we can reflect on the Treasurer's speech where he pulled together our public housing initiative from the election plus the general renewal programs that are rolling out—I understand that number to be around 1,700 housing commencements during this term of government.

If we add that onto what the feds are offering that we can deliver in partnership with community housing providers, local government and other good roosters that want to put some money in—maybe even the piping shrike could swoop down from State Admin, as described by the Treasurer, and offer us some goodies; I think he owes me one—then I reckon we can look at somewhere north of 4½ thousand to 5,000 housing commencements, which is excellent in terms of social housing and affordable housing.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I am just going to ask one reasonably simple question in relation to page 269, which identifies the consolidation of the youth custodial services capital project. It is a very straightforward question. I think this is an important project. Is it on track, how is it going, is it going to be completed on time, when is it going to be completed and how is the budget going?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: That is a really good question, member for Morialta. I know how much you are committed to young people and their outcomes in life. I am pleased to say on track. Certainly, along with everything else, there are some budget pressures. We are expecting that this consolidated program will be due for completion in June next year.

In the budget, we did revise the costings from $18.7 million to $21.8 million, so there has been a small uptick in the cost, but it has been allocated and I think that is to be expected in this climate. We only need the one site and I think moving forward, that is an excellent indication of what we have been doing for young people over the last generation as such.

Ms PRATT: Minister, I refer you to page 273, turning over to 274, sales of goods and services. I note that there was an increase from roughly $23 million to $37 million and therefore an increase of approximately $15.5 million that the Auditor-General suggests relates mostly to SIL services. My question to you is in relation to that $15.5 million. Can you advise how much of the additional $15.5 million has been spent on the Transition to Home service and exactly what this means for the T2H clients?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I will not spend long, but I am happy to offer a conversation outside the chamber in regard to this because it does not relate at all to T2H: this relates to the cash-in-kind payments for the NDIS.

Ms PRATT: Thank you, minister, for that clarification. That is a learning curve for me as well, but I think that information would be welcome at another time. That being the case, I was not quite completed with SAHA and may invite the switch, thanks.

The CHAIR: Member for Frome, go ahead.

Ms PRATT: I will move at a faster pace. I refer to page 426 and I am heading to reporting and looking at the SAHT Board receiving no formal reporting on non-financial performance. I will give you the question and I will come back to it—I think you will know what I am referring to—rather than reading everything out. Will the minister release the information on a quarterly basis so that the SA taxpayer can assess the progress of the government's promises?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I can answer the question. I will just make sure I get it right for you. The reporting was to the board previously, in terms of pure financial reports, and now, moving forward, we will be looking at the non-financial measures as well and reporting that quarterly to the board. That is the plan. So there is going to be a change from purely the financial reporting mechanism.

Ms PRATT: I refer you to page 432, maintenance. This question is in relation to maintenance and multitrade contractors (MTCs). Can the minister please explain the impact of having six contracts zones as opposed to 14? How will this work and will this disadvantage tenants who require maintenance works in any way?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: The view is that this will actually provide a more streamlined service with fewer people being involved at that level. It should only affect the customer in a positive way in terms of the change to the KPIs and the other measures that have been put in place in terms of the contract. It is fair to say that maintenance is probably one of the biggest contacts to local members' offices, so we are very aware of that, and this is coming with some anticipation. It will roll over at the beginning of the next calendar year.

In terms of now, we would expect having some really well built-in expectation, with some reward and penalties systems in place, and also more transparency for the trade contractors in terms of delivery. We would hope that this will actually be a much more streamlined and improved service.

Ms PRATT: There is a line that references the pricing arrangement. Can you please explain how those pricing arrangements will or may change?

The CHAIR: We are getting pretty close to going way beyond—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: It is more like budget questions, but it is okay. I will give you a little bit of information for it. Previously, a lump sum would be paid to the multitrade contractor for a stovetop, for example. It would be a certain amount of money given to the multitrade contractor. They would then go out to Fred the stovetop dude and say, 'Order a stovetop and put the stovetop in.'

This contractor might have got a thousand bucks and said to the stovetop dude, 'Fred, you get $450. That's how much we pay.' However, the multitrade contractor over here might have said, 'Hey Fred, stovetop dude, you're awesome—here's 750 bucks.' He says, 'Hang on a minute, what's going on here?' But now there is a transparent service delivery fee for that item, so the contractor (Fred the stovetop dude) will know what he is doing. He is going to know how much money he is going to get. It is a much easier, much more transparent and fairer system.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: If we can go to page 278, I will potentially spend a little bit of time talking about concessions. Perhaps if I can just describe my question first it might be of some assistance. If you are looking at page 278, you will notice a chart talking about the concessions: 211,000 people receiving the energy concession; 201,000, cost of living; 197,000, water; and 129,000, sewerage payments. My point is that there is a reasonable amount of variation there.

The Auditor-General also talks about the changes to the cost of these programs, and $37.1 million is identified for cost-of-living concessions, particularly in 2021-22. My understanding is that there is just under $40 million budgeted to double the cost-of-living concessions at the moment. I just want to know if there is any update as to whether it is still that 201,000 people that we are talking about? Is there any advice to suggest that that is going to increase this year?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: The latest number of households to have their Cost of Living Concession provided in advance of the end of this year already has hit 204,000. It is fair to say that what this process of doubling concessions has done as well is actually activated a number of people who had not provided information. Many offices have received phone calls and had conversations. The team have done a really wonderful job and been able to get a whole range of people back onto the system as well. So, yes, there are more people benefiting from the doubling of the Cost of Living Concession. As you know, the ones for people who are renting, etc. have already been paid. People can still apply before the end of December, so that number could still go up by more.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I thank the minister for the answers. As I understand it from her answer, that is about 3,000 extra already this financial year. Is there any issue with the budget that is made available, or is that an uncapped budget allocation to the department?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: This is something that is very important, particularly in today's climate. It is an uncapped expenditure. It is what it is. We need to find that money and we will be paying that money. It is not a capped amount.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Has the department caught up with everybody who is applying for that money? For context, I understand there are a number of people who are waiting for some time for their eligibility to be confirmed by the department, including one of my constituents—and potentially many more than one of them.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: There could be, although I think my latest advice is that for pretty much anyone who has come to our ministerial office we have our response already back. Since 1 July, there have been 65,000 phone calls made to inquire about these concessions and 28,000 new applications have been submitted, with 23,000 of those processed.

You cannot put just anybody in to answer a call and do the thing. There has been some training, we have put extra people on, we have moved people around in the department and upskilled to this certain service delivery model. Those people are on board, working extra hours, taking the calls. There is still a bit of a wait time on some of the phone calls. We apologise for that, but the right people have to do the work.

However, we are reducing the backlog. The backlog is most definitely going down. Since it peaked last month or the month before sometime, it has reduced by about 30 per cent, so we are getting there. We feel very confident that we will really whittle away and get rid of that backlog this year.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I thank the minister for the answer. I think she said that it was 28,000 applications and that 23,000 have been processed. I stand to be corrected if that was inaccurate. As to the range of concessions, there being a variation from one concession to another, clearly there are a number of people—thousands of people, by this figure—who are identified as being worthy of at least some concessions but not others. Given the cost-of-living challenges we have described during this session, is the government considering any further extensions of cost-of-living easing in other concession areas?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: It was an election commitment that we would review concessions. In terms of the concessions folio you are seeing before you, that will all form part of this review. This review will happen once the department has been through this process and everyone has been paid their Cost of Living Concession.

We are very aware of the current pressures. We anticipated the pressures, and that is why we doubled the concession, and then we brought forward about a quarter of the concessions that were due to be paid in March. At the election, we also anticipated and we made that election commitment to review concessions. I am very happy to hear from members or members of the public if they have suggestions in regard to that. We will be undertaking that review.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: When will that review be completed?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: As you would understand, it is quite a complex set of relief measures. Times have changed since they were put in place, and they are changing all the time. We expect that the consultation and the review could take up to 12 months, but we will be kicking that off in the new year, and you can take it that we will do it as fast as we can while doing it properly.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Page 275 talks about grants and subsidies, and I am interested particularly, given the conditions we are talking about, in what new requests the minister has received in relation to funding requests from Foodbank or other community service organisations to support them in their work at these difficult times.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I can particularly talk to Foodbank, which we already fund, if my memory serves me correctly, by about $250,000 per annum or thereabouts, in that vicinity, along with other food relief that we provide. We did have a conversation in regard to Foodbank's increased clientele and the increased demand, which over the year is in the hundreds of thousands of meals. They also put to us the pressures they were under in terms of providing that food delivery with increased costs for them. We provided them with a one-off $50,000 grant to improve their capacity to deliver with the increased cost of fuel and other items, so we have addressed that in terms of one of our funded food services providers. We do take all requests on merit and do the best we can with what we have.

The CHAIR: The time for the committee examinations has expired.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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