Department for Child Protection, $479,666,000

Membership:

Ms Sanderson substituted for Mr Bell.

Minister:

Hon. S.E. Close, Minister for Education and Child Development, Minister for Higher Education and Skills.

Departmental Advisers:

Ms C. Taylor, Chief Executive, Department for Child Protection.

Ms J. Browne, Chief Financial Officer, Department for Child Protection.

Ms F. Ward, Deputy Chief Executive, Department for Child Protection.

Ms B. Schumann, Acting Executive Director, Strategy and Performance, Department for Child Protection.

Ms J. Riedstra, Deputy Chief Executive, Department for Education and Child Development.

The CHAIR: We are now looking towards the line for care and protection and the portfolio is education and child development. The minister appearing is the Minister for Education and Child Development. I declare the proposed payments still open for examination and refer members to the Agency Statements in Volume 1. I call on the minister to introduce her advisers and make a statement if she wishes to.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will introduce the advisers and also give a brief opening statement. On my right is Jenny Browne, who is the Chief Financial Officer of the Department for Child Protection. On my left is Cathy Taylor, the Chief Executive, and on her left, Fiona Ward, who is the Deputy Chief Executive of that department. Behind me, I have Brette Schumann, who is the Acting Executive Director of Strategy and Performance in the department, and next to her is Juliann Riedstra, who we know from the previous session is the Deputy Chief Executive of the Department of Education and Child Development.

Clearly, the reason that we have people from both departments is that the department was formed during the period we are discussing, so we want to be able to answer questions quickly and accurately. I will make a brief statement.

The 2017-18 budget continues to build on the reform of child protection and child development systems in this state. Prior to the release of the Child Protection Systems Royal Commission report in August last year, this government made an initial funding commitment of $200 million to fundamentally change the way we manage child protection in South Australia. Following the delivery of the report, we committed a further $232 million, for a total of $432 million in the 2016-17 Mid-Year Budget Review, to re-orient and better build systems that protect our children and young people, provide assistance to vulnerable families earlier, help improve parenting practices and better support our invaluable carers.

The 2017-18 budget commits a further $86.5 million to bring this government's current funding commitment to child protection to $518.5 million to meet the extra costs of children in care. As we have outlined in our first progress report, released last month, considerable changes have taken place in South Australia for the protection of some of the most vulnerable children in our community. This includes increased funding and FTEs to support children and young people with a disability and broader support for carers through the introduction of four relationship managers.

With the creation of a new Department for Child Protection on 1 November 2016, and the appointment of Ms Cathy Taylor to head this new department, we are now embarking with our partners across the government and non-government sector on some of the most significant child protection reforms this state has ever seen. These reforms have already begun to improve areas that Commissioner Nyland and the rest of us agreed required significant focus.

The first of these I am pleased to report on is the wait times people experience when contacting the Child Abuse Report Line, known by many as CARL. In the 2016-17 year, the call centre received a total of 64,899 phone calls. It may be of benefit to the community to know that since December 2016 the average wait time has steadily improved, and for the month of June 2017 an average call wait time of 23 minutes 14 seconds was recorded, which is approximately half the wait time for December 2016. In the months since December 2016, we have been seeing a steady reduction in the average wait time, and we anticipate this positive trend will continue.

Another very important improvement I am pleased to report on is that, as of today, there are no children or young people in motels, hotels or caravans. Furthermore, significant work is currently underway to place all children, where appropriate to do so, in family-based care settings. This is especially important in our regional communities, where a concerted effort is being made to find family, kin and community for Aboriginal children and young people needing care.

As you would be aware, as part of the Child Protection Systems Royal Commission, Commissioner Nyland recommended refreshed leadership in the new department with an emphasis on the attraction and retention of leaders who have recognised credibility in child protection and who have the capacity to lead a major reform of organisational culture. This has occurred with a number of key appointments made to the department's senior executive group, creating a revitalised leadership team along with a new organisational structure, which came into effect from 3 July this year.

In November 2016, the government released 'A fresh start', which responded to commissioner Nyland's report, 'The life they deserve'. To make progress on the 256 recommendations that the government accepted from Commissioner Nyland's report, the Department for Child Protection Reform Implementation Team was established in January 2017. This team is overseeing a number of positive child protection reforms, including the creation of the Child Safety Pathway.

The new pathway relies on multiple agencies to offer a broader range of responses for families and children at risk. The aim is to refer families to the services they need early, when they might otherwise have fallen through the gaps. This is part of the focus on implementing strategies that offer support to families early and preventing issues escalating to the point where statutory intervention is needed. The state government has in particular committed resources to early intervention and protection measures, including through funding the Family by Family program and the Triple P parenting program.

We are also ensuring that every dollar we spend on child protection goes towards what works. We are investing in world-leading research and building the evidence base of child protection programs. That is why we have established the Early Intervention Research Directorate in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. The EIRD brings together Australia's best child protection researchers to review early intervention and prevention programs, evaluate the extensive reforms that this state is undertaking and provide advice to the government on these most important areas.

This government acknowledges that there is still much work to be done, and we are committed to the ongoing reform work that has commenced under Cathy Taylor's leadership. We will continue to report on progress as per our last report to the public on the implementation of the royal commission reforms, which I invite all to review on the public website. I thank my advisers for being here today, and I look forward to questions.

Ms SANDERSON: In Budget Paper 4, Agency Statements, Volume 1, page 89, Program 1: Care and Protection, under description/objective, point 2 states:

receiving and responding to reports of concern about children and young people, including investigation and assessment where appropriate

My first question is: how many notifications were there for the 2015-16 and 2016-17 years? Is there any difference between the number of notifications and the number of screened-in notifications or are they interchangeable terms?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will go to your last question first, which is around the terminology. I believe that when someone contacts the CARL or goes to eCARL they intend that to be a notification, so we will often talk about that larger figure, which was around 60,000 in the last year.

If you take the answered calls and the eCARL for 2015-16, there was a bit under 67,000. Then, for what we regard as notifications in the sense that people are actually trying to give information, in 2015-16 there were around 55,000. The screened-in is another level again that we need to record on our system, and I can give you those figures for the two years that you have asked about. The notifications for 2015-16 actual are 21,424. If we look at the 2016-17 year, it is an estimated result at present. As I believe you are aware, we go through a process of confirming the data, so our report is somewhat later. There is an estimated result that is very similar at 21,100. You just asked about notifications, did you not?

Ms SANDERSON: That was the screened-in?

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

Ms SANDERSON: You are saying that there were 54,000 of just notifications last year. Do you have an estimated figure of just notifications for this year?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, around 51,200. What we see is that the number of calls will be around 60, and now up to 75, which are answered calls plus eCARLs. The number of what we would regard of those phone calls being notifications, another level down, is around the 50,000 mark, and then around the 20,000 mark are the screened-in notifications that we are putting onto our system. As you can see, that gives a pretty neat illustration of the funnel. We get a huge amount of information and a lot of interaction with people that are many times what we end up with as these screened-in notifications.

Ms SANDERSON: If we know that for 2016-17 there were 64,899 calls—some of those were answered, some were not—what was the eCARL for that same year then so I can try to make the figures work?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: For both years, there were around 30,000. For 2015-16, there were 29,000. The reason I am hesitating is that I have a recollection of a figure that is not exactly what is here, so I will say that, for both years, the eCARL is around 30,000. I will not give a precise figure because I am just wanting to test the one that is in front of me.

Ms SANDERSON: Thank you. How many of the calls for both years were closed with no action (CNA)?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We do not have that data here. What we can say is that roughly 20,000 contacts are regarded as screened-in notifications, and we make about 4,500 investigations each year. We are talking about around 13,000 kids in a given year. That will vary slightly from year to year but is actually reasonably stable. I can give you that data. I do not have those individual notifications that are closed, which might be for a variety of reasons.

Ms SANDERSON: Is it possible to bring that back to the house?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will take it on notice.

Ms SANDERSON: Also, for the same two years, how many were deemed notifier only concerns?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will take that on notice.

Ms SANDERSON: Of the total screened-in notifications, what is the breakdown of tiers 1, 2, 3 and interfamilial? I already have last year's, which you gave me in estimates, but this is for the 2016-17 year.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Again, I can give you that, but they are not finalised figures for that year, as they were not last year either, so they are estimates. Tier 1 is 1,240, tier 2 infant is 3,788, tier 2 not infant is 7,604—there are two lots of tier 2s, so give me a minute.

Ms SANDERSON: Is infant to age one or two?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: What I will do is give you this: tier 2 infant is 3,788, the remaining tier 2 is 12,908, tier 3 is 538 and extrafamilial is 2,542.

Ms SANDERSON: Tier 3 was how much?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It was 538.

Ms SANDERSON: And interfamilial?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Was 2,542—extrafamilial, so they are not related to the person who is thought to be—

Ms SANDERSON: Is it interfamilial?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Interfamilial is all the rest or legal guardians. Extrafamilial means that, if they are not related to the child or they are not a legal guardian, that is recorded separately and it is usually a SAPOL matter. The others are about the way that children are being treated by their carers, usually their parents.

Ms SANDERSON: What is the current backlog of eCARL reports and the average time to assess those?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will take that on notice.

Ms SANDERSON: As per the royal commission recommendation 36, they recommended that the eCARL notifications are assessed within 24 hours. Do you have a goal of when that will be achieved?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: In our response to the Margaret Nyland report, we had the reform of the call centre team and the Child Safety Pathway in the first tranche of our response, which means over the next year. We are now in the financial year where we are starting to build that team. We have already seen a change in process that has seen a drop in the wait time for answering phone calls, for example. We will see another level of improvement as we start to put together the Child Safety Pathway project, which was funded in the previous Mid-Year Budget Review and is a response to the Nyland report.

Ms SANDERSON: So there is not a set time then; it is just ongoing at the moment.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is an active project at present.

Ms SANDERSON: You may have mentioned this amongst the figures, but for the 2016-17 year what is the total number of investigations and substantiations?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is always around the 4,000 mark. We believe that for 2016-17 it is 4,058, but again that is not a verified figure. We think the substantiations for 2016-17 are just under 1,500. All that will be verified in time for the annual report. You do not necessarily need to write this down, but there are a number of ongoing investigations that may turn into substantiations. So you will have an investigation come in and it might not be complete by the cut-off, but that does not mean that that is not being undertaken; it will just be captured in the next year.

Ms SANDERSON: On the same page under grants and subsidies, can you explain the drop of the $60.271 million for the 2017-18 budget, as opposed to the 2016-17 estimated result?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: There is a net decrease, but there are of course ons and offs that then net out to the net decrease. The biggest movement has been the decrease in out-of-home care expenditure, as children move from the more expensive non family-based care options to cheaper family-based care options.

Ms SANDERSON: I believe that, for the current year, there was a $99.7 million overspend on emergency care. It looks like the drop of $60 million means you think that you will be overspending by only $31 million. What is that based on—how many children and over what period of time?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The figure that you are referring to is not simply about emergency care, although I can understand why there is some confusion about this. It is also when we are using non-agency staff, non-departmental staff, within our residential care. If we have vacancies, we bring people in from external organisations, and that then contributes to that cost.

Ms SANDERSON: What was the total cost of residential care in the 2015-16 and 2016-17 years?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will take that on notice.

Ms SANDERSON: What was the total cost of emergency or commercial care, as it is also known, in the 2015-16 and 2016-17 years?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will take that on notice also.

Ms SANDERSON: Do the new figures in the budget estimates for grants and subsidies also account for single shifts in all residential and emergency care, as recommended by the royal commission?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: In response to the Nyland royal commission, we said that we would move to the double shifts in the third tranche of our response for in-commercial care offerings. If I can just interrupt this very detailed figure answer to say I am sure I would not be alone in feeling very strongly that, ideally, children and young people are in family-based placements. There are some for whom that is not possible, either through disability or behaviour, but there are far more than are currently in family-based placements.

We are putting an enormous amount of effort into increasing the number of family-based placement options for children and young people. To return to your question, we have double shifts for children and young people in commercial care on the basis of how we analyse the need of the child or young person, and we will move to fulfil the Nyland recommendation in the third tranche of our response.

Ms SANDERSON: Do you know when the third tranche will be? Is it in the next financial year or is it in a couple of years?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No, it is not possible to give such a precise answer because it is about sequencing rather than timing. We are attempting to sequence a very big shift towards family-based placement, and putting a huge emphasis on that, and then any remaining commercial care that is absolutely necessary, and it would be lovely if there were none. We will manage that after we have made the big transition.

Ms SANDERSON: In your opening statement, you mentioned that there are now no children living in motels, hotels or caravan parks, yet as at 30 June your figures show that there are 162 children in commercial care. Where are they living?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: They are largely in residences that we have hired, rented, leased for these purposes. I think in the media there is an image that commercial and emergency care means hotels and caravan parks. It largely does not, and we have been able to eliminate that option. Because you mentioned the figure in June, today there are 147 in the category of commercial care. It is a somewhat difficult category; I do not think it is the most accurate or helpful.

There are some children—some very, very little babies or young people—who are in an arrangement where we require shift workers, who are paid to be shift workers, because the children have very serious disabilities. Some have end-of-life plans attached to their disability. I do not think that is the kind of care that is usually in people's minds when they hear about commercial and emergency care. They think that we have just removed the child and we have to temporarily house them in a hotel; in fact, we do not any longer use that form of accommodation. For some but not all of the children and young people, the option is the one that suits their needs best, and I think we are working towards having a better definition so that we are clearer about the different forms of care.

What it all comes back to for me is that if it is at all possible to have a child in a family-based placement, if that suits the child, then that is what we should be working hard to do. As you will have noticed, every time I am in the media I try to insert a request for anyone interested in being a foster carer to do so, whether it is respite or long term, because that is the answer to the vast majority of our children's accommodation needs.

Ms SANDERSON: On that point, on page 91, in the highlights, point 6, foster care placements increased by 4.1 per cent over 10 months. Firstly, do you have the figure for the full year ended 30 June, and how many of these were new families and how many went to families that were already in the foster care system?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We will have to take that on notice because we are still finalising the figures. We have seen real growth in the number of carers and also percentage growth in the number of kids who are in that form of care, but it is not finished yet.

Ms SANDERSON: Is it possible to get the figures for 30 June 2015, 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 for the total number of foster families that were there at the beginning of that year, then how many came in and how many left? In that way, I will have the total for each year.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will take that on notice. I would note that I think there has been a perception that we have lost foster carers over the years. In fact, the data can occasionally be messy because people stop being carers and stay registered. Then we have a clean-out, and all the ones who are no longer going to be carers are taken off the list. So the bumpiness of that register is different.

I have looked into the carers who have placements and that figure has increased steadily from the year 2011-12 through to 2014-15, at least, which was the last verified figure I had that showed a steady increase. The challenge is that we need to increase it still further, and we also need to look at the number of child placements per family.

Ms SANDERSON: I was not able to reconcile this figure last year, but in June 2015 you made an announcement of $4.4 million to be spent on foster care as $1.1 million per annum. Then in February, seven months later, you announced $9 million for foster care to be increased by $130 million over three years. I am just trying to reconcile, is it actually $9 million over three years, and how many extra foster carers do we have now and how much of that money has been spent?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will reply via taking it on notice because I do not want to mix up the different programs, as we have had that conversation previously. It will not be possible for us yet to fully test the effectiveness of more recent campaigns because there is a lag between people expressing an interest in being a foster carer and having a child with them—and even being registered. We are hopeful that the trend upwards that we have seen will continue because of the efforts we have made in the last 12 months. In terms of distinguishing between those two projects, I will take that on notice and provide a written reply.

Ms SANDERSON: In February of that year, you also announced a specific child only foster care plan with Anglicare. How many children have been placed as part of that program?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We will take that on notice.

Ms SANDERSON: On page 91, point 2, under highlights, the Nyland royal commission report, 'The life they deserve', is referred to throughout this year's budget. Is it possible to get a breakdown of the costs so far for the royal commission itself, the response, the 'A fresh start' report, the implementation so far (what has been spent) and then also the costs of the legislation (we have had the screening bill, safety bill and the children's commissioner bill) as well as the planned Family and Community Services changes. One that you might be able to answer now, because it is referred to but with differing figures, is the actual cost of transferring the department. Sometimes it is $4.5 million, sometimes it is $4.7 million and sometimes there is a minus figure somewhere and it is a bit hard to tell.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The original set of questions I will have to take on notice. Some of what the member referred to, as she will be aware, was referred to the Attorney-General's costs, so we will take that down seriously and work through that.

In terms of the cost for the new department, the new money that was required was $2.1 million. Other figures relate largely to transfers from DECD. There was money that was sitting in DECD that was transferred over. There is some $4.5 million.

Ms SANDERSON: The actual cost of moving over to the new department—

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The new money was $2.1 million.

Ms SANDERSON: That would have been letterhead and logos because you did not actually physically move anywhere. That would have just been stationery?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: So $31,000 of it was on formal branding. The $2.1 million figure referred to the initial establishment additional cost, which was borne from roughly 1 November last year. There are ongoing additional costs in having a separate department, so, although the branding itself was a relatively small amount of money, some $30,000, much of the cost is in having a separate department, human resources, finance and chief executive. Stand-alone departments cost more than small bits in other departments, so much of the cost is associated with that.

Ms SANDERSON: That was the $2.1 million in new funding?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It was $2.1 million for the 2016-17 year, which is not a complete year for a new department.

Ms SANDERSON: As to the budget for the Commissioner for Children and Young People, what is the 2016-17 estimated spend and the budget for the 2017-18 year?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Because that is housed in DECD, I will let my advisers from that department inform me. The ongoing expenditure for the Office of the Commissioner for Children and Young People, is that the question you have asked?

Ms SANDERSON: And the set-up costs.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The ongoing expenditure is $1.7 million a year indexed. I am not sure if I have the set-up costs, although they would not be particularly significant. It is not significant, so I will make sure that we are able to give you an answer on notice.

Ms SANDERSON: Are there any plans that you are aware of for moving the office from the Wakefield Street office? Has that been included in the projection for next year?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I know that there are some discussions about where the commissioner will locate. I do not know whether it is necessary to make additional budget provisions. It depends on the location. I am unaware of the detail.

Ms SANDERSON: Page 92 of the activity indicators, the number of children in out-of-home care as at 30 June, what is the average cost of placing a child in out-of-home care? I am going to ask for the breakdown for each of the categories—foster care, kinship care, residential care, commercial care—and then you would have the overall cost divided per child.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We report on that data through the Report on Government Services (RoGS), so we have no more up-to-date data than is sitting in the RoGS at present, and we will be working through reporting on that in due course.

Ms SANDERSON: Would it be possible just to get the total spend for each of those sections based on 30 June and I can divide it myself? Well, we can do an average anyway.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It would be roughly because you do not know how many are in at different times. I will take both questions on notice and I will provide what is available to us.

Ms SANDERSON: For the 2015-16 and 2016-17 years, could the minister inform the house how many children were in commercial care who stayed for longer than 31 days, the average length of stay for each of those years and the longest length of stay? I think you gave that last year for 2015-16.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I did. The detail I will take on notice, but I would just point out, as I was raising earlier, that the definition of commercial and emergency care is not particularly useful. The child I believe I reported on last year, who has been in very long-term care under these circumstances, is there due to significant disability. It is not that we are incompetently unable to find another location: this is the location that provides the needs that that child has. We have nurses for more than one of our children on constant roster.

I do not think that answering that question about who has been the longest really elaborates on the situation. That child will be there almost certainly for as long as that child lives because that is the care that it has been deemed that child needs. Fortunately, we have had the same stable group of workers with that child since mid-2013, which has been extremely helpful for the care of that child.

If the question is coming from how long we turn over children in what you might suggest, and not wrongly in some cases, is an unsatisfactory care arrangement if the children in fact are destined to be in a family arrangement—so you are looking for short term—the understanding of how that works is not helped through understanding that some children are there for a very long time because that is in fact the way in which we are caring for those children with those individual needs.

Ms SANDERSON: If a child is there because of medical or disability issues, would you not then put them in permanent residential care, or would there not be disability housing? Will that change now that we have the NDIS? Will there be purpose-built suitable housing for children with disabilities so that they are not staying in child protection?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The housing we are leasing for young people who have particular needs is suitable for their care, and we have made further accommodations to make that work. The way in which we operate with the NDIA is that we are in constant discussions about their role in the care of young people under state guardianship.

My advisers are pointing out to me that of course there are many children—in fact, something like 30 per cent of children under care—who have a disability, so by no means are all of them accommodated in this form. This is a particular form of accommodation that suits those individual children and their needs. As a result of the royal commission, we have brought on two staff who are working hard on the relationship between the NDIS and children with a disability under care generally, as well as, of course, specific accommodation for these children we are discussing.

Ms SANDERSON: One of the royal commission's recommendations was to have all the children under the guardianship of the minister assessed by 31 March. How many have been assessed and when do you expect to finish assessing them all?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will just clarify that in response to the Nyland report we did not say that we would be able to meet that deadline necessarily. We are working systematically through, but I do not have here the percentage that we are at to date.

Ms SANDERSON: For the last financial year, can the minister give me the number, the age and the frequency of missing person reports made by DCP staff for children who are in residential care?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will take that on notice.

Ms SANDERSON: I know that you are already looking up the number of children who have been in commercial care and emergency care for longer than 31 days, as well as the length of stay, the average length and the longest stay, but could I also have the figures for the number of children who were under the age of 10, and then the same figures for those who were in residential care—so over 31 days, average stay, longest and how many under 10?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will take all that on notice.

Ms SANDERSON: On page 92, activity indicators—and I know that I have asked this, but I do not remember if we got a final answer—last year in estimates there was a backlog of 1,500 in eCARL notifications, so I was wondering what your exact backlog was as at this year.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is under 400.

Ms SANDERSON: Do you have an anticipated time when they will be assessed within 24 hours, as per the recommendation?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We did have that discussion earlier about the—

Ms SANDERSON: It was ongoing.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: —establishment of the Child Safety Pathway, which is the new creation of what is currently the CARL centre. Part of the expectation of the Child Safety Pathway is that we are able to have a very speedy turnaround both in answering phones and also in eCARL mainly, both of those being unified by getting to see children who need to be seen more quickly. As we bring that new service on board, those are the service parameters that we are establishing and it is a priority for us.

We have already seen a decrease in the backlog, we have seen a decrease in the waiting time for people to answer and we have seen a higher proportion of calls being answered despite both more calls and more eCARL notifications, so we are already trending in the right direction. Once we have the Child Safety Pathway established, we would have a reasonable expectation that those figures will get better.

Ms SANDERSON: Regarding the Child Safety Pathway, under targets, point 1, page 91, there was a recent pilot. I am wondering if you could share with me the findings from the recent pilot.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: If you are referring to the first dot point under the target 2017-18, that is the project that we are currently engaged in.

Ms SANDERSON: I believe the pilot has already commenced and finished?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: This is an action that we are currently engaged in establishing. The term 'pilot' is used because what we are going to do in the course of this financial year, in establishing the Child Safety Pathway, is trial a number of different ways to manage the workflow. One of the very strong messages throughout the Nyland commission report was the importance of, first of all, taking our time; secondly, allowing trial and error; and, thirdly, working with the community and across government.

In that spirit, rather than being a hardwired model that we are implementing rigidly, the Child Safety Pathway is one that we have the shape of and the resources for, but we will allow some trial and error for the exact manner of its operation because what we know is that we want to get to more kids more quickly, and there are different pathways to do that, hence the terminology 'pilot'.

Ms SANDERSON: In particular, I am talking about the reference the PSA brought up. Has the department resolved its differences with the PSA over the proposed separation of receiving and recording notifications from the actual assessment of notifications?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, we have.

Ms SANDERSON: Will the people involved in that also be social work qualified?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, they will be.

Ms SANDERSON: I refer you to page 92, activity indicators—again, children in out-of-home care. What is the average cost of accommodation per child per night and the total cost per year, broken down by month for the 2016-17 year?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think we have already taken a question on notice that includes that.

Ms SANDERSON: I asked this question last year in estimates and I got back the answers, but I only have the 2015-16 year, not the 2016-17 year.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: You are just asking about the accommodation costs, as opposed to the total cost of care?

Ms SANDERSON: That is right. For example, for the month of July 2015-16 it was $428,508.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We will take what we can on notice. The difficulty is that in some cases we lease the accommodation and in other cases the providers do, so it is hard to disentangle the separate accommodation costs.

Ms SANDERSON: Yes, I am not sure how you did it last time. As long as they are comparative, then that would work. Regarding the performance indicators on page 92, the investigations within seven days, do you have a percentage figure now as at 30 June?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We do not yet have an update on the figure that appears in the papers.

Ms SANDERSON: It was estimated to be 72.3 per cent and you have next year's target at 80 per cent. That is a pretty big jump. How are you planning to achieve that?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Much of the Nyland reform and our response to it will result, if working, in an improvement in those figures. It is not simply a matter of saying, 'It will be nice if we could reach 80 per cent.' It is a matter of entirely reforming our service provision and providing significantly more resources in order to make that real. The only challenge we have is the constant increase in the number of notifications we are receiving and the complexity of the children we are dealing with and the circumstances they are in.

Before long, we will have what we have called a backlog team, another team in the northern area of some 53 FTEs, which will be able to assist the current team working on investigations to focus on investigations. At present, there are so many children who need help in that area that the investigation team is also spending time looking after children once they are under orders. The backlog team, which will exist for a two-year period, will assist in smoothing out the workload for the investigation team, and we anticipate seeing a lift in figures as a result. That is certainly our aim.

Ms SANDERSON: When you get that final figure to 30 June for the percentage of investigations commenced within seven days, could I also have the percentage of those substantiated within one year of a previous substantiation?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will take it on notice and absolutely work on replying. The difficulty is that the data closes off sometime in August to September. RoGS is where we then report, so it may be that there is no advantage in taking it on notice because RoGS will have that verified data, but I will take it on notice with my best endeavours.

Ms SANDERSON: Often I have found that the RoGS is a complete year off what we need; we do not usually get the current information in the RoGS. Could we now move to page 91, highlights, point 2. Actually, I think we have already talked about the NDIS and we have also talked about the commissioner, so we will skip that one. I will move to a different section, part 2, Budget measures—child protection, page 17. You mentioned in your opening statement the $86.5 million increase in the budget. What programs and services are being implemented with respect to early intervention and prevention and how does the government intend to consult with stakeholders and the community to implement those effectively?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Early intervention is largely not the province of the Department for Child Protection, which is really concerned with the statutory process of intervening and supporting children and young people. The work you are asking about largely sits within DECD as the lead, with a significant contribution from Health and other community-based departments like DCSI. Importantly, we have invested in the Early Intervention Research Directorate, which sits in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Although much is said about early intervention, at this stage there is not enough reliable evidence that has been tested worldwide to determine which form of early intervention is most effective in different circumstances. There is some evidence for some work, but it is not a comprehensive and deep knowledge. The Early Intervention Research Directorate is not only important in assessing and advising on projects before us but I believe will also be very useful for other states and places in the world to draw on the research evidence they produce.

As an example of the kind of early intervention work that DECD is taking on as part of this new approach to child protection, DECD is running the CFARNs, the Child and Family Assessment and Referral Networks. There were three that were recommended as trials by Margaret Nyland, and we have decided to do four after a lot of feedback from the community about the need to trial a regional network. We are in the process of establishing all those, one of which will be run by an NGO.

It is important to understand that these are trials. That is why we have gone with an NGO running one and government running others—so that we can also test out what the best delivery mechanism is. A combination of that kind of work and the research being undertaken on its effectiveness is at the crux.

You may also be aware that the Department for Education and Child Development is leading the development of legislation on early intervention, which is a rarity. In fact, it would probably by some casts be the first in Australia if we are successful in having the legislation come through to being an act. The intention is to really identify the way in which legislatively we establish early intervention and indeed prevention.

I will give you just one more example of work that is being undertaken within the Department for Education and Child Development: the 60 wellbeing practitioners who started last year. We are getting the Early Intervention Research Directorate to do the analysis of the effectiveness of those positions from a perspective of early intervention for vulnerable children.

Ms SANDERSON: I refer to page 89, program summary, the FTEs. Given the government has been unable to fill its FTEs for years and the figures show there is a considerable difference between what you anticipated and what you have now estimated at the end of the 2016-17 year, can you explain both the shortfall for 2016-17 and how you expect to increase this by 411.2 by the end of next year?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: There is just a clarification to make, in that we may have vacancies for people to be established in a position, which does not necessarily mean that we are not paying people to do the work. I will explain. We had an approved budget FTE cap of 1,853.5 as at June 2017, and we paid 1,803.8 FTE, so very close to the approved cap. While we have carried vacancies for some time, we have been employing people to do that work. It is just that those vacancies have not been filled, and that is in part because the Residential Care Directorate is just employing agency staff to come in and do the work because we have the children.

Ms SANDERSON: Was that a difference of 50?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is a difference of essentially 50; that is right. However, we have had a much higher attrition rate than other government departments in recent years—unsurprisingly, given both the nature of the work and the way in which it has been spoken of in public year after year. We are putting a lot of effort into not only doing a better job but also improving the culture and making it a more attractive place to work. I will ask Cathy Taylor, as the CE, to speak briefly about some efforts we are making to really have a good recruitment drive and get some more staff.

Ms TAYLOR: Quite rightly, the focus on recruitment and retention is a really big issue for us this year and in the coming years. One of the things we are really ensuring is that, whether it be residential care or right across the board, we have a fully functioning HR department. It was one of the critical findings and recommendations that was made as a result of the royal commission.

We are backing that up then by investing in learning and development and in good supervision for our staff. We have an up-to-date workforce strategy, particularly targeting what is happening for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff. We currently have nearly 5 per cent of our staff identifying as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, and we have given a commitment to increase investment and recruitment to closer to 10 per cent, recognising the numbers of our clients who identify. We have actually given an increased commitment to the support we will provide them. We are actually meeting 100 per cent of the costs now, which has not always been the case, of the costs associated with studying for each of the subjects, and also meeting the costs of their placement.

We find that it is not enough for us just to recruit staff. We need to then ensure that we continue to support them once we have recruited them, so we are going to pay as much attention to retention. We have recently undertaken some focus on wellbeing as well because this is difficult work. I do not know that there is any more difficult work than child protection. We need to ensure, when our staff are dealing with this sort of complex trauma day in and day out, that we are providing them with access to support and debriefing, so we are also doing that.

I think it would be fair to say that it is a significant focus and it is going to take a lot of effort. If I could talk about residential care for a moment, just this Monday, 24 July, we had an additional 13 new recruits come on board. The next lot of 13 further recruits come on board on 21 August. We also have a further 13 staff who have previously been found suitable in residential care but have deferred their start dates, so we are going back to them to confirm when they can start. So you are right: it is a big task. It is a challenge, and we are embracing it and moving forward.

Ms SANDERSON: I have a question, through the minister, based on what you have just said. For the extra—I heard there were 13 and another 13; there were quite a few mentioned there—for the residential care, I assume they have all had the psychometric testing, which is now part of your policy. What percentage of people fail that? How many candidates applied that you have ended up with 13? Are a lot of people failing?

Ms TAYLOR: I cannot tell you how many have failed, but I can certainly say that under the regime that was established in 2016 we have certainly moved to take all new recruits through the new endorsed provision, which is obviously the battery of psychometric testing and the one-to-one interviews. We have now introduced, from January of this year, that requirement within the department.

The new legislation that has recently passed also extends that to both licensed departmental and non-government residential facilities. I can certainly inquire as to whether we keep a record of those that are found unsuitable. I am not sure whether we do because obviously, in terms of new recruits, we are really only focusing on those who are successful.

Ms SANDERSON: It is just a percentage really. I was just wondering how rigorous it is if only 50 per cent of people pass or if 99 per cent get through. One issue that has been raised with me is that different departments are competing for the same social work graduates and that the Department for Child Protection often advertises for an Allied Health Professional 1, whereas the health department will ask for an AHP2, so they are sort of taking the best of the people coming through. I do not know if anything is being done about that or whether you think that is true.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I do not think that we could comment on that; it is not within my control.

Ms SANDERSON: This time last year there was a discrepancy between the vacancies. I think this time last year you had recorded 120 vacancies, yet the PSA was claiming shortfalls of between 180 and 200. Currently, the PSA is claiming 149.5 vacancies with 160.5 new positions promised and 80 future positions for growth, which totals 390. Perhaps that is where you are getting your 400 extra planned by the end of 2017-18. Would that be right?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is broadly correct, that there is what we are describing as a movement of some 411 FTEs. Obviously, as I have explained, we are paying people to do the work, but they are not filled positions. There is always a slight detail between the PSA and ourselves over counting people who are on WorkCover or otherwise in positions but away from the work and whether or not we regard that as a vacancy. That happens across the Public Service. The bigger truth is that we are looking for a lot of people in the next year to come on board as employees.

Ms SANDERSON: I refer to page 89, point 6, securing permanent out-of-home care where it is determined that a child is unable to be returned to the care of their parents. How many children have been placed under the Other Person Guardianship in 2016-17, and can I have a breakdown of those who were placed with foster carers and kinship carers?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: There were 18 who were placed under OPG through the courts in 2016-17. Did you just ask about kinship as well?

Ms SANDERSON: Yes. For example, in July 2015, there were 112, and 52 per cent went to foster carers and 48 per cent to relatives or kinship carers.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: So you would like the total who are under OPG orders at present?

Ms SANDERSON: Yes, the total would be good.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: For the end of the financial year and what percentage are with people who are not related to them and what percentage were placed with people who are related?

Ms SANDERSON: Yes; if I can get the total, that would be great. The new ones were 18, and last year there were 17 new ones, despite a lot of money being invested in pursuing this. It does not seem to be increasing. Can you think of any reasons why we are not getting many?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It has increased since the year before, or the year before that, when it was lower. We have already had four this financial year under orders for OPGs, so we are starting to see an increase. However, the challenge has been having a process that works well for carers; it has been too lengthy. In fact, the very first conversation I had with Ms Taylor was about Other Person Guardianship. Since her arrival, I have seen an increase in focus amongst the workers on OPG and, therefore, I anticipate a better outcome.

Ms SANDERSON: Do you have an estimate of how many families are eligible to apply for OPG under your rules, like how many years do they need to be with a foster family?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The new process is not really about rules; it is about the carers expressing an interest and then the circumstances of that child or those children being assessed for whether that is an appropriate way for those children.

Ms SANDERSON: Is there any difference in the amount of money that a carer would receive for the same child, whether they are a kinship carer, a foster carer or an OPG carer, including their normal payments and any changes or differences to reimbursements?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Essentially, there is no difference. The carer payment and the support for education remains the same. Although a lot of different views of child protection have been expressed within the community, OPG is not about the carers and their relationship to the department; it is about the children and stability within that family. Since Ms Taylor has been on board, that has been reinforced and made much more explicit. It is not about minimising costs for the department; it is about the child or the children in that household knowing that they are secure in that family.

Ms SANDERSON: That is why I cannot understand why the figures are not higher and, if there is no difference in money, why there would not be so many children now in stable placements.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am sure you would appreciate just how much work in reform has been going on in this newly established department since November last year. The work to refine and strengthen the OPG process has been taking place over the last several months, and the new process has been in place only since the first of this month.

Ms SANDERSON: I anticipate that OPG would cost less to the department in that you do not have to have so much regular contact over a haircut, a trip interstate or a school camp.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is right. While I am at pains to say that that is not the goal of OPG, there is a consequence that we are less involved in case management for the child because—

Ms SANDERSON: That would be better for the family and for the department.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: If that is what suits the carers and the children. For some carers and/or some children, engagement by the department is useful; for others, they want to be living as a family that is biologically related. The new process that Ms Taylor has brought in that started almost a month ago—it is almost the end of July now—will see a change in approach and ought to see an increase in numbers, assuming that that is suitable for the children, which I am confident it is for a larger number than we have presently under OPG.

Ms SANDERSON: Page 89, again under description/objective, point 5 states 'working with families to reunite children, who were previously removed for safety reasons'. In June 2015, the government announced $1 million per annum to reunite adolescents from out-of-home care with their family. How many, per annum, have been reunited in the previous two years?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We have not brought that with us. We will take that on notice.

Ms SANDERSON: If you are checking that, then for how many years is this initiative planned; and, if it is not going well, will you be changing that or going with a different program?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, we can include that in the answer on notice. I would point out that this initiative has been essentially a recognition that late reunification, adolescent reunification, is a pattern that we see anyway, where a percentage of young people feel the call to be back with their biological family, even though they had to be removed. That link can be incredibly powerful, and is also potentially of less risk to a young person than it is to, say, a small child. In recognition that there is a trend with a certain number of young people to reunite, the funding we put forward was to support that working well, rather than simply watching it happen from a distance so that the funding is spent where it is necessary and useful to so do.

Ms SANDERSON: Also on page 89 under description/objective, point 1 states:

providing family support services (directly or through referral) to strengthen the capacity of families to care for children

How many families have participated in the Triple P program of the anticipated 28,000 over four years now that we are two years into that program?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: As much of the early intervention is managed out of the Department for Education and Child Development, I will have to take it on notice from that department.

Ms SANDERSON: Could you then also find out how much of the $9.3 million that was budgeted for four years has been spent two years in?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Sure.

Ms SANDERSON: Prior to estimates last year, you announced $50 million to merge the Salisbury, Elizabeth and Gawler Families SA offices. Could you update the house on whether that is still planned and whether that will still go ahead at the Smithfield Plains High School site given that the departments are now separated? It is a DECD asset and a Families SA or Department for Child Protection plan.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think we started to have this conversation last time. I cannot quite recall the timing of when our view on what we ought to do changed. It is less about the separation of the two departments because it is all government, and if the site had been suitable and desirable we would have continued. The Playford city council came forward with a proposal for us to occupy and lease part of a building that they are establishing in the Elizabeth CBD, and we determined that that was a better solution than using a government site out of the central area.

I think I might have signalled at the time—but it has certainly become much clearer—that Gawler is not such a good candidate for the relocation, so it will be Elizabeth and Salisbury offices. The advantage of being in a location where it is easier for public transport to reach is one of the overwhelming reasons. Because they are building the building, it will be a space that is purpose-built for the design that we need, as opposed to trying to repurpose a high school site. Although the idea of merging the offices was where this came from, I think the change is an improvement for the service delivery.

Ms SANDERSON: When do you anticipate that that would be opening? Given that you have budgeted $15 million, would that then just be used to pay off the lease?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think what we have done is transform that capital into money that enables us to lease. I do not have a date for when it is expected to open, but we are in the design phase with the council at the moment so that they are able to design it in a way that is suitable. We are hopeful for late next year. We are not the builders, but that is our hope. As I say, the funding has just been treated differently by Treasury so that it is now enabling us to lease.

Ms SANDERSON: Was there a Nyland recommendation to merge any departments, or was this just a separate idea?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Margaret Nyland did not make any recommendations about co-locations, but it has just been drawn to my attention that we are looking at whether one of the CFARNs would also co-locate there, which would make a lot of sense. There is a lot of discussion going on at present about the best model of service design.

One of the advantages, of course, of the CFARNs not sitting in Child Protection but sitting with Education and Child Development is that it is about bringing together a variety of services in one place. Although I do not believe Margaret Nyland recommended that we merge offices of the department, her model for how we triage, support and refer did encompass a sense of multidisciplinary and multi-agency across government and non-government.

Ms SANDERSON: On page 87, investing expenditure summary, the investment program is listed as $6.3 million and this includes four individual residential care dwellings in the northern metropolitan area. On page 88, $5.94 million was budgeted in 2016-17, yet the estimated result is only $101,000 and $6.339 million is now in the 2017-18 year. I am assuming that means there has been a delay of a year. I am just wondering what happened.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is a delay in the project.

Ms SANDERSON: There is a delay? On page 96, it refers to the completion of a residential care facility in Davoren Park of $6.3 million, so I am wondering if Davoren Park is one of those four and why that says it has been paid for but the money is not spent yet.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is unlikely that the figures are quite referring to the same things, but because we are dealing with the budget that was being held by the unified Department for Education and Child Development and now we are dealing with a separated budget, we do not have a clear answer here today, so we will find out. I am sure it will make sense because if there is one thing that both of those departments do well it is the finances, but it is just not easy to explain here.

Ms SANDERSON: Do you think that the Davoren Park residential facility is one of the four that were listed in the residential care facilities?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No, we think that Davoren Park is in addition to the four that we are building, but allow us to be clear on notice because, as I say, it is difficult to cross two departments.

Ms SANDERSON: Is it possible to get any more information regarding the four individual residential care facilities, for example, the age group that you are going to be placing there, the CAT (complexity assessment tool) rating, whether it is a therapeutic treatment facility, whether it is going to be run by DCP or whether that will be outsourced to Anglicare or a different provider?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We are still clarifying the service model that we will use. We agreed with Commissioner Nyland's recommendations that we not outsource future services, so it is anticipated that we will be running it. Bear in mind that Margaret Nyland gave us lots of permission to make mistakes and to change our views as we refine how best to serve children, but our starting position is that they would be ours.

The model of care in terms of the age of the children and their needs is still being refined. It is a question of recognising that there are some children and young people who need to be cared for in that kind of setting but a desire to see more children in family-based placements than are currently in family-based placements, determining how far along we are on that transition, and therefore what the needs are of the children who need to remain in that kind of setting and what kind of care model and also physical construction are required.

As I have indicated earlier, for some kids it is about disabilities; for others, it is behaviour, and being with other children and other young people can be problematic. We are working through the detail of the most useful and flexible physical space to accommodate what we can best anticipate to be the needs of the children and young people.

Ms SANDERSON: Even though this was budgeted for to be completed last year, are you saying that you do not even have floor plans and that they have not even started to be built yet?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The physical building is due to start soon, so we are a long way down that planning, but that does not entirely close off the question of the age of the kids and what kind of care model we have wrapped around them.

Ms SANDERSON: Do you know the capacity of each building, at least?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: They are three-bedroom facilities. That does not necessarily imply that there will be three children in each due to the different needs of different kids.

Ms SANDERSON: One could be for the overnight carer, so that would be a one to two ratio.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: There is an office separate to those facilities, with a bedroom.

Ms SANDERSON: So up to three children?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It really is around what the needs of the cohort of children we are looking after at the time require.

Ms SANDERSON: How many residential care facilities have been closed in the last year, if any?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We do not believe we have closed any in the last financial year.

Ms SANDERSON: I know there was a report several years ago recommending the closure of many of the larger capacity residential care facilities at the time. Have they all been closed, or are there plans in the future to close those facilities?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will take on notice a summary of what we have and what we have closed in recent times. Bear in mind that the dramatic increase in the number of children under orders without a similar dramatic increase in the number of carers able to take children into their family homes has made it hard to accommodate children. I would rather that we did not have very many children at all in residential care, only those who absolutely need it, but we have to house the children and we have to care for them the best way we can.

Ms SANDERSON: Just back to the FTEs on page 89, in previous years I have been able to get the breakdown of the FTEs. What they have been called has changed in different years, but is it possible to get the breakdown of however you have now named them all for the 2015-16 and 2016-17 years? In previous years, there were corporate services; practice and policy; statewide services, which included CARL; and residential care, country, southern, northern and metropolitan. Sometimes there is one called central metropolitan, but in other years it must have been included in general metropolitan. Is it possible to get a breakdown or to know how they are broken down now?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We will take that on notice. We have had a restructure as at 3 July, so we can give you 30 June, which is the old structure.

Ms SANDERSON: Thank you. Back to the NDIS, I am informed that around 25 per cent of the children who are in child protection have a disability of some kind and they are really there because their family could not receive the support to keep them at home. So there is a large percentage of children—not all of those children—who could be at home if adequate supports had been made available to them. Is that something you are looking at when you go through and do the assessments of the NDIS, whether children could go home?

For example, minister, when we both visited Tregenza House, there were two children, one child on that side of the road and one across, who were there due to having cystic fibrosis. I would have thought it would be less stressful on the child and the mother, and better for the child and cheaper to have a nurse visit morning and night. Even if you had to have meals sent in, it would have been a cheaper way of dealing with a complex health issue and keeping the child and mother together.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: About 30 per cent of children in care have a disability. By no means are they all in the situation where they are only in care because their parents have been unable to manage their disability, and they would be able to with some additional support. There may well be some families in that situation and, of course, the NDIS is designed to address the kind of care and support that people with disabilities, including children, need and deserve. Unfortunately, there are a lot of children with disabilities who have also been subjected to abuse and neglect and have been removed for that reason. Their care then with us is dictated by their needs associated with their disabilities.

I do not know the figures because in some ways it would be a subjective analysis of how many children are in our care who might be able to stay at home safely, but as we work through with the NDIS each individual child, the kind of support the children need will be much clearer. Also, as the NDIS has come on stream, as we work with the NDIS and children coming into our system, I presume it will be a more straightforward proposition to ensure that the first step for a family that is otherwise caring and protective of their children is receiving all the support they can get from various government and non-government services.

Ms SANDERSON: Just on that, will there be a possibility of a top-up? For example, I met a mother who had given up her disabled child because she was not coping. In fact, unfortunately, she was coping better before the NDIS. The NDIS ranked her and measured her in a different manner and gave her fewer hours per week. All she really needed was 15 hours top-up to actually manage her child. However, on the fewer hours under the NDIS, she was not managing at all; and now there is another child with eight-hour shift workers caring for this child because she does have a severe disability. Are you looking at that, because I know of children who are being given up for that reason, before the NDIS and after the NDIS?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: There is a live discussion going across Australia at present at the officer level and also at the ministerial level soon, when we will be having a meeting in the next month, about the way in which disability and child protection interact. The NDIS is an opportunity to have the discussion about how that particular model works. I have no way of knowing how many instances are as you described, nor is it really easy to understand, when parents are dealing with the very difficult challenge of giving up their children, how much actual additional support would be required to take them out of that situation. Subjective reporting is not always necessarily entirely blisteringly accurate.

It is an incredibly emotional and difficult experience, but you are right to talk about that interaction of the extent of support for a child to remain in a safe home versus parents not being able to manage the situation, as opposed to parents who are not safe for their children regardless. As I say, that is a live and fairly earnest discussion at the officer level through the child protection systems across the country, and I will be raising this, as I am sure others will also, at our ministerial meeting soon.

The CHAIR: The time has expired. As there is no longer any time for questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payments completed. I thank the minister and her advisers, the members of the committee and the table staff, and Hansard suffering at the top, for all their help today.

At 15:01 the committee adjourned to Monday 31 July 2017 at 09:00.