Estimates Vote

Department for Child Protection, $648,072,000

Minister:

Hon. R. Sanderson, Minister for Child Protection.

Departmental Advisers:

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

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

Ms J. Male, Acting Chief Financial Officer, Department for Child Protection.

Mr M. Burton, Chief Human Resources Officer, Department for Child Protection.

Mr T. Rich, Parliament and Cabinet Coordinator.

The CHAIR: Good morning, everybody, and welcome back to committee A. This morning, we are examining the Department for Child Protection, and the minister appearing is the Minister for Child Protection. I declare the proposed payments open for examination and I call on the minister to make a statement, if you wish, minister, and please introduce your advisers.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I would like to introduce Cathy Taylor, the chief executive; Fiona Ward, my deputy chief executive; Joanne Male, the acting chief financial officer; Michael Burton, the chief human resources officer; and Tom Rich, the Parliament and Cabinet Coordinator.

This budget for a stronger South Australia is delivering better services in my portfolio of child protection right across South Australia—in the regions and in metropolitan Adelaide. We are delivering better services for families, children and young people and also creating jobs.

Since coming into government in 2018, the Marshall Liberal government has had a whole-of-government approach to child protection. We have regular meetings as a social affairs cabinet committee where ministers for health, human services, education and child protection meet to discuss our whole-of-government response to child protection.

Child protection is extremely complex, and we need to work on the causes of why children come into care, such as mental health, domestic and family violence and substance abuse. That is why in this current budget we have really focused right across government on the causes of why children come into the child protection system.

For example, we have a commitment of $21 million of new money in domestic violence measures and have provided record spending of $163.5 million for mental health and focused efforts on the major causes of why children are removed from families. It is also why we are heavily investing in intensive family support services to strengthen families to give them capacity where possible for children to remain safely in their homes.

Following the success of our family group conferencing pilot, we have secured both future and recurrent funding and expanded the program. Family group conferencing will now include unborn child concerns, as well as an Aboriginal-specific program to be delivered by Aboriginal Family Support Services. We have guaranteed future funding for the family group conferencing of $3.7 million over the forward estimates, which I am really pleased about, as we have had wonderful outcomes so far through the two-year pilot.

In addition, $11.3 million has been committed for the Resilient Families social impact bond for intensive home-based family support intervention program which will be delivered by the Benevolent Society. We have also heavily invested in reunification for children who are removed so that we can work with their families.

The Marshall Liberal government is investing a record $57.4 million over nine years on recommissioning improved family reunification services and additional specialised support throughout South Australia, including in remote and regional communities. In order to successfully reunify families when it is safe to do so, we recently announced our Newpin family reunification program, which is also a social impact bond. That is just about to start with Uniting Communities.

This $18.2 million program will help an anticipated 200 families over the next seven years to work in a centre-based intensive therapeutic service to teach parents how to parent safely so that their children can be returned safely to them. For those children who are unable to return to their family, we have done a great deal of work on expanding our family-based care.

Along with our family scoping of relatives and family members, we have also recruited and retained many more foster care families. I am pleased to say we have a net 66 new foster carers to the end of May this year. We have also set up a foster care recruitment and retention task force. This task force has done a lot of work on how we can better support, recruit and retain our foster carers. Last year, we released our statement of commitment in conjunction with Connecting Foster and Kinship Carers, the peak body for carers. We continue to work closely with them.

I am proud to say that this financial year we have negotiated priority access for a number of services through our Investing in their Future initiative. These include:

Catholic Education scholarships for 200 children in care;

dental services to age 25;

ambulance cover extension to the age of 21;

therapeutic services, for example through the NDIS supports and mental health services; and

an online carers portal.

We continue to look for ways we can better support both kinship carers and foster carers who are doing such a wonderful job looking after our children.

When we have been unable to find family-based care for children and young people, we have our individualised placement and support packages. The 90-day care model has been very successful in putting intensive supports around a young person when they first come into care with the hope of settling them down so that they can go into a family-based placement or, if not, into a residential care home. We continue to roll out the Sanctuary therapeutic model of residential care and training continues for all our staff.

We are well underway with a two-year pilot using three Aboriginal community-controlled organisations to deliver kinship care services. These include:

Aboriginal Family Support Services;

KWY in partnership with Lutheran Community Care; and

InComPro in partnership with UnitingCare Wesley.

All signs are very positive with this new pilot.

Our department has ensured that children and young people in care with a disability have a current NDIS plan and are receiving the necessary support. As at 31 May this year, 1,096 children had an NDIS plan in place.

I recently announced $3.8 million over 2.5 years to fund our Treatment Foster Care Oregon pilot program. This is an exciting pilot program, which will provide specialist care for children and young people with complex needs, which has an international track record of success. It is an evidence-based and internationally acclaimed program that supports children and young people aged 12 to 17 with complex behaviours with the aim of these children being able to then go into family-based care placements.

We continue to move away from large bed facilities, having closed several already, capping the numbers in others and ensuring that further purchases or rentals are home-style houses that have three or four bedrooms.

For those leaving care, we commenced our Stability in Family Based Care program where supports are now being expanded to include children in non-family based care. This budget provides $2.7 million over four years for a pilot program, the Stability Post Care program, to provide increased support to young people leaving care in non-family care placements up to the age of 21 and those with complex needs who are at risk of homelessness and housing instability.

In addition to what I have mentioned, over the last 12 months we have progressed a number of policies programs and services. I recently launched the department's Child and Youth Engagement Strategy. We have redesigned our supported independent living services. We have convened the inaugural missing persons round table, which also met recently for a second time.

This budget also provides $1.2 million over two years to establish the Significant Incident Reporting Unit in the Department for Child Protection in line with the Rice review recommendations. Our broadening of qualifications policy introduced in March 2018 has ensured that the department now has an additional 64 case managers and 238 social workers as at 30 June. We are delivering more frontline workers in child protection than ever before. The Marshall Liberal government has provided growth funding of $9.9 million in the 2021-22 year, increasing to $12.2 million in the 2024-25 year, to deliver 25 additional FTEs across service delivery areas.

Finally, I would like to recognise all the staff across government, non-government organisations, carers, service providers and volunteers across the child protection system and the whole community who have been working together to help us realise the many achievements I have outlined. I continue to look at research and best practice internationally and interstate for ways that we can continue to improve outcomes for children and young people. I will continue to strive in conjunction with my department to further improve practices that safeguard children from harm, keep families together where it is safe to do so and help vulnerable children in their healing.

The CHAIR: Before I call on questions, in my flurry to find a mask this morning I omitted to make my opening remarks; one of them actually relates to masks. I am going to encourage people to wear masks today unless they are either asking or answering a question.

I have a short statement to make as Chair. The estimates committees are a relatively informal practice and procedure and, as such, there is no need to stand to ask or answer questions. I understand that the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition have agreed on an approximate time for the consideration of proposed payments, which will facilitate a change of departmental advisers. Can the minister and lead speaker for the opposition confirm that the timetable for today's proceedings previously distributed is accurate?

Ms HILDYARD: Yes.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Yes.

The CHAIR: Changes to the committee membership will be notified as they occur. I have already done that for this morning's meeting. If the minister undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the Clerk Assistant via the Answers to Questions mailbox no later than Friday 24 September 2021.

There will be a flexible approach to giving the call for asking questions. A member who is not on the committee may ask a question at the discretion of the Chair. All questions are to be directed to the minister, not the minister's advisers. The minister may refer questions to advisers for a response. Questions must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget papers and must be identifiable or referenced.

Members unable to complete their questions during the proceedings may submit them as questions on notice for inclusion in the assembly Notice Paper. I remind members that the rules of the debate in the house apply in committee are consistent with the rules of the house. Photography by members from the chamber floor is not permitted.

Ministers and members may not table documents before the committee; however, documents can be supplied to the Chair for distribution. The incorporation of material in Hansard is permitted on the same basis as applies in the house, that is, that it is purely statistical and limited to one page in length.

The committee's examinations will be broadcast in the same manner sittings of the house are broadcast through the IPTV system within Parliament House via the webstream link to the internet and the Parliament of South Australia video-on-demand broadcast system. I declare the proposed payments for the Department of Child Protection open for examination.

Ms HILDYARD: Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, minister, for your opening statement and thank you to all the departmental staff here. My first set of questions refers to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 84, and relates specifically to the minister's and Department for Child Protection's objectives at the start of the agency statement on page 84, very specifically the second sentence of paragraph 2 where it says 'the department is responsible for the provision (either directly or indirectly) of quality care and case management'. Minister, how would you assess the role that you have played in the provision of quality care and case management over the past 12 months?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: As to quality of care, and being the minister, it is really looking at all the different policies that we have been bringing in and all the different announcements that we have been making—so looking to international research and programs that are provided interstate that are successful. An example would be the Sanctuary model of therapeutic residential care we researched for several years. That was announced about a year ago. It is a three-year rollout of training. It is whole-of-department training, in particular for residential care staff who may have a different practice approach towards young people.

We have recently announced Treatment Foster Care Oregon, which is another program that better supports children aged 12 to 17 who have been in residential care. That is being used interstate. Again, that is a program I have been researching since I was in opposition—so for many, many years. In my role, one of our first trips when we were allowed to travel was to Leeds to investigate the child-friendly city policy, family group conferencing and family led decision-making. As a result, that has now been rolled out throughout our department and is very successful.

You will see in this budget family group conferencing. The pilot has been completed very successfully. The funding has now been secured for the future, and it has been expanded to include unborn child concerns as well as an Aboriginal-specific program. So there are a lot of things that we are doing in terms of programs that we are rolling out to ensure better care for our children and young people.

Ms HILDYARD: Thank you, minister. In the two terribly shocking cases looked at in the Rice review, one teenage girl in care lived with a paedophile for two months and another teenage girl in care was pregnant and abused by a paedophile. How would you rate the provision of quality care and case management in those two tragic cases?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The Rice review did not condemn any of the practice of our staff. In fact, wraparound services were provided immediately as soon as staff were aware. They were the ones who actually reported the incident and did everything possible. There was no criticism of my department's response to the young people as far as their care goes; however, it was a reporting issue. As a government, we have accepted all the Rice review recommendations. We have expanded on those recommendations, and the team (the Significant Incident Reporting Unit) will be starting by the end of September.

Ms HILDYARD: What do you believe that you personally did wrong in those two shocking cases in terms of your responsibility for oversight of—

The CHAIR: Member for Reynell, you are making an assertion there and providing argument. Remember, of course, that the rules of debate in the standing orders apply today. Perhaps you would like to rephrase that question.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, how do you believe you fulfilled your responsibility for the oversight of systems and reporting mechanisms with reference to those two shocking cases?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will read for you the recommendations that Rice actually made as a result of investigating fully the circumstances. Recommendations 1 to 3 in the Rice review related to improving guidance for staff regarding reporting significant incidents to the chief executive and the minister. The DCP was assisted in this task by an outposted senior solicitor from the Crown Solicitor's Office, Joseph Maniscalco, who worked with DCP executives from 22 February to the end of May. This phase of work was completed with Mr Maniscalco, delivering his final report to the government at the end of May. This is now under consideration.

The government's response to recommendations includes the development of a dedicated client incident management system, improved reporting guidance and a commitment to a new permanent significant incident reporting unit. The Significant Incident Reporting Unit, which will commence operation by the end of September, will be staffed by a manager and three full-time staff.

Rice recommendation 4 required the Chief Executive of the DCP to establish a comprehensive staff education program to ensure clear staff understanding of significant incident reporting requirements. DCP was supported in this work by the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment.

An online training module, called Reporting Obligations and Code of Ethics for the South Australian Public Sector, was made available to all DCP employees in May this year. This is a compulsory training module and participation is being tracked through the HR Directorate. As at 31 May, 23 per cent, or 610 employees, had completed the training since it was released on 24 May.

Rice recommendations 5 and 6 were the responsibility of the Attorney-General's office. The Attorney-General introduced legislation amendments into parliament on 16 March 2021 to increase the penalty for a breach of written directions, to three years for the first breach and four years subsequently, and to make bail less available in these instances by making a person arrested for breach of a written direction a prescribed applicant.

Along with my own amendments to the Children and Young People (Safety) Act that seek to broaden the application of written directions, which were introduced on 12 November last year, the Attorney's amendments will undoubtedly significantly strengthen the protections afforded to vulnerable children under written directives. The Attorney's bill was assented to on 25 May.

The department's incident reporting procedures are in the process of being updated and the Significant Incident Reporting Unit established. The client incident management system project is responsible for building a client incident management system to support centralised reporting, management and documentation of client incidents via customised workflows with the department, thereby promoting a culture of safeguarding and continuous quality improvement.

Procurement for the original system was finalised in March 2020 and an additional module was recently purchased to support the work of the Significant Incident Reporting Unit, which is the Significant Incident Management Register for the long-term monitoring and reporting of significant issues. The implementation of a client incident management system aligns with the department's strategic direction, along with the state and national strategies and recommendations of the Rice review. As I mentioned, it will commence by the end of September.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, do you take any responsibility for what the Rice review labelled as your 'serious failure' in relation to the two tragic cases?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: As I have already mentioned, the Rice review was not damning of the response to the children by my department at all. This is a reporting issue; it was a failure for the incidents to actually be reported up, so I was not made aware of the incidents. That was a failing of the procedure. We have had a full education process, we are rewriting the procedure, and there will be a Significant Incident Reporting Unit that will be up and running by the end of September.

Ms HILDYARD: How many children currently reside in care not directly managed by the department—just a number?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I would have to take that on notice.

Ms HILDYARD: Exactly how many children are currently reunified with their parents after going into care?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: As at what date? From when they went in? You need to give more specifics to know—

Ms HILDYARD: In the budgetary period, in the last financial year.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: So for the last financial year 2020-21 you would like to know how many?

Ms HILDYARD: Yes.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: As at May—because we do not have the final figures for the end of the financial year—there were 200 children who were reunified in the last financial year.

Ms HILDYARD: From residential care?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: No, that is reunified.

Ms HILDYARD: That is my question: after going into residential care. Do you need to take that one on notice?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Yes.

Ms HILDYARD: Other than the two tragic cases that are known of paedophiles accessing children in care, have there been any other similar cases during the last financial year?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I meet regularly with my department, my CE and my deputy CE every week, when I am briefed on significant incidents; however, I can pass to Cathy Taylor, my CE, for further information.

Ms TAYLOR: Thank you very much for the question. As the minister indicated, we meet on a regular basis and brief the minister on significant incidents. In terms of children and young people and online exploitation, it has been a matter of significant commentary by the eSafety Commissioner nationally. She recently released a report together with the Australian Federal Police Commissioner, identifying that during the period of COVID more children and young people have been contacted via means such as social media.

We have worked hand in glove as part of agencies around the country with the eSafety Commissioner on how we strengthen, if required, our current policies and procedures, not just in residential care but in out-of-home care. We have also been really well supported by the work that has been done nationally with all the education departments.

At this point in time, I can say to you that, while I am not aware of another child or young person, it is an ongoing issue that we continue to manage and monitor because we are really aware of the advice from the eSafety Commissioner. They have seen a significant increase—something close to 50 per cent—in children being contacted via social media inappropriately, particularly during the last 12 months.

Ms HILDYARD: Are any children in care currently pregnant?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: As I have already said, I am briefed weekly. I will not be discussing individual children. I think it increases the stigma that is already around children in care that we do not need to make worse.

Ms HILDYARD: Are children and young people in care subject to a curfew?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Currently, around 86 per cent of children in care are in family-based care, so that is with either foster carers or kinship carers. Of course, they would have their own rules.

Ms HILDYARD: Residential care, just to be clear.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: As to residential care, there are DCP homes and there are non-government organisation homes. I have met with many of them and discussed this very issue. Generally, the times—sorry, it is very distracting having someone wander through the chamber.

The CHAIR: Residential care, minister.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Yes. Of those in residential care, the majority would have social workers. In general, it is the social workers who would determine their curfew and conditions. Some of them have part-time jobs; some of them might have a girlfriend or a boyfriend, friends, sports, or things they do outside the home. From my experience of meeting and talking to a lot of the children, it is individualised to the specific child and their age group. They do have times that they are expected to be home by.

Ms HILDYARD: How many reports has the department received of children in care—

The CHAIR: There is a point of order.

Mr PEDERICK: Do you have a budget line?

Ms HILDYARD: I indicated specifically a point at the beginning of these questions.

Mr PEDERICK: That is fine, but it probably should be updated all the time.

Ms HILDYARD: I can repeat it if you like.

The CHAIR: Can I just respond to that, member for Reynell. The member for Reynell identified at the outset that her first set of questions at least would be related to the objectives, paragraph 2 on page 84, where it states:

…the department is responsible for the provision (either directly or indirectly) of quality care and case management…

I have been listening to the questions carefully and thus far they have all related to that, in my view.

Ms HILDYARD: Thank you. How many reports has the department received of children in care being out unsupervised, uncared for and unsafe at night?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: If you are actually discussing missing persons reports—is that what you are getting at?

Ms HILDYARD: No.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I do not know how there would be a register of that. However, every child who goes missing from a placement should receive the same system response and support as the community would expect in South Australia. The government recognises that children and young people may be at an increased risk when they are missing from their placements. DCP is committed to a timely response when this happens. This response has an interagency focus, with SAPOL being one of DCP's key partners.

Before discussing the department's response in detail, it should be noted that DCP is required to report a young person as missing—

Membership:

Mr Malinauskas substituted for Mr Hughes.

The CHAIR: There is a point of order.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The point of order is standing order 98, debate. The question was incredibly specific, the question being, 'How many reports has the department received of children in care being out unsupervised and unsafe at night?' I note that in the minister's remarks she said, 'I'm not sure if we have a register of that.' Obviously that would be very newsworthy if the department and the minister do not even know if children are out.

Either the minister does not know that children are out, in which case we obviously have a monumental scandal, or the minister does know if children are out unsafe at night, in which case we would invite her to answer the question rather than just read pre-prepared statements that other people prepared for her. She is the minister and she is responsible for these children. She likes to tell us that she is responsible for these children. She should answer the question.

The CHAIR: There is a point of order. Member for Schubert.

Mr KNOLL: Standing order 98: this is time for asking questions inside the standing orders rather than commentary.

The CHAIR: Leader, your point of order related to debate. You went on to make quite a speech about that point of order and what your view of the minister's answer was. The question was around reports of children being out and unsafe of an evening. Being out and being unsafe are, in my mind, probably two different things, but the reality is we ask questions of a minister in this committee and the minister is actually at liberty to answer that question in the way she sees fit.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Thank you, and I am answering that question. DCP is required to report a young person as missing if they do not return home at the expected time or if they leave home without permission, which is exactly what you asked about. Reports are made even if the whereabouts of the young person are known. Multiple reports can occur for one child even on the same day.

Various data issues impact the reliability of our statistics, including variability in approaches of data entry between DCP and NGOs and an overstatement of missing persons reports, given system limitations that preclude the reclassification once submitted, e.g. a child's location might become known. DCP is working to improve system capability to produce a more accurate picture.

In terms of a coordinated response, on 18 May 2021 DCP convened a round table of key stakeholders and experts, including SAPOL, the Guardian for Children and Young People, SA Health and NGO representation, to discuss ways to keep vulnerable children and young people safe when they go missing, often running home to their families.

This is a national issue. There is a national report that has just been released, as well as a full inquiry in Victoria. The first roundtable discussion considered a variety of options for improving the government's response to the challenge of children and young people missing from care from their placements, such as having a dedicated focus of specialists from across government on delivering more tailored responses and support for individual young people, streamlining the way information and data are shared across agencies to support better understanding of patterns and behaviours, continuing the rollout of the Sanctuary therapeutic supports, and involving young people through the CREATE initiative in discussions to ensure that any steps taken are responsive to the needs of children and young people in care.

As I mentioned, there has also been a second round table. There is a lot more I can say, but I can see that you might have other questions.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I thank the minister for her articulation of the criteria and messages around round tables. That is useful, but the question we are seeking to get some answers to are some figures, so let me go back a step: does the minister have at her disposal or collect any figures in regard to reports of being missing?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: As I have already said—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Okay, so what are those figures?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: —DCP is required to report a young person missing if they do not return home at the expected time or if they leave their home without permission.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: How many times has that occurred?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: So you are asking for the missing persons' reports, which was what I asked originally and you said no.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Well, no—

The CHAIR: Somebody is going to clarify the question.

Ms HILDYARD: There are missing person report numbers, which are under—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! Member for Reynell, just a moment, please. I cannot hear the question that is being clarified while there is argy-bargy going on.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Leader, you are called to order. Member for Hammond, you are called to order.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, I appreciate the 10,166 missing person reports that were made last year, up from 8,968 the previous year. What I want to understand is the number of reports in total that are made in relation to children being out unsupervised late at night. There are missing person reports but, as I understand it, there are also reports of particular behaviours, etc., that are noted when children are out unsafe at night.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It is 10,166.

Ms HILDYARD: Can you confirm that there are no other reports, other than those shocking 10,166 missing person reports, made about children in care being out unsupervised at night? Is it just that terrible missing person's report number, or are there other reports?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I thank the member for her question. To be clear, last financial year, the 2019-20 year to which you are referring, the 10,166 refers to 387 children, which represents 8.9 per cent of the children in care. This is a decrease from 2014, when 10.2 per cent of children went missing from care in missing persons' reports. In the 2015-16 year, it was 9.7. In the 2016-17 year, it was 9.5. In the 2017-18 year, it was nine. So this figure is consistent or lower, as you might say, as a representative of the percentage of children who go missing.

Any child who goes missing is of course very disturbing for their carers. Of course we want to know where they are and there is a formal process, which I have said twice already. DCP is required to report a young person or child missing if they do not return home at the expected time or if they leave home without permission. All those reports, to the best of my knowledge, would be reflected in that 10,166. There is no other separate reporting system. There is the one, it is centralised and it all goes into these figures.

Ms HILDYARD: That would include figures from members of the public who make reports, etc. Has the minister or the department received and/or viewed any CCTV footage of children in care being out unsupervised and unsafe at night?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I have not personally, and not to the best of our knowledge is that done.

Ms HILDYARD: Has anyone from your department seen that footage?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I do not know what footage you are referring to.

Ms HILDYARD: The CCTV footage of children in care being out unsafe at night?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: If you mean when police make an arrest and they go back and collect CCTV footage, that would be a police investigation. That is not something I would do. I have never done it and I am not aware of that happening.

Ms HILDYARD: Are you saying that no-one from your department has ever viewed that footage?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: We can take it on notice, but of course I do not know what 2,000 staff might have done separately. It is not standard practice. It would be a police investigation. If they needed to identify somebody, they might get a particular staff member involved, but we will take that on notice.

Ms HILDYARD: Given the number you have just confirmed of missing person reports, and given the earlier comments by the CE about the increase in children in care being contacted via social media by potential paedophiles during the COVID crisis, why have you not funded the community visitor scheme that the Guardian for Children and Young People has repeatedly called for?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: That is a very interesting link.

Ms HILDYARD: Well, she has repeatedly said, to quote from her report, 'Children in care—

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Could we have a budget line?

Ms HILDYARD: —are at ongoing risk of abuse by paedophiles.' That is in her latest report, which has been tabled by you in this parliament. Why have you not responded to her call to fund a community visitor scheme for children in care?

The CHAIR: Member for Reynell, we—

Ms HILDYARD: We are on the same budget line.

The CHAIR: Yes, but this is tenuous because you are asking a minister—

Ms HILDYARD: I think—

The CHAIR: Don't argue: just listen to me. You are asking why a minister has or has not done a particular thing that has been recommended. Now—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: That is perfectly acceptable.

Ms HILDYARD: It is. It is in relation to the objective to provide quality care to children—

The CHAIR: Member for Reynell, my view is that it is a tenuous question. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer this, and then I know that the member for MacKillop has a question he would like to ask.

Ms HILDYARD: Of course he does. I can assume the answer will be about five pages long.

The CHAIR: Member for Reynell, I am going to remind you—and you have been in this place long enough now to know this—that during any estimates any member of the committee has the opportunity to ask a question of the minister—

Ms HILDYARD: Yes. I understand.

The CHAIR: —not just the lead speaker—

Ms HILDYARD: Yes.

The CHAIR: —for the opposition. That is the reality of it.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Absolutely, and we know, of course, sir—

The CHAIR: Leader!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —that only happens as a cover for ministers out of their depth.

The CHAIR: The leader is called to order again, and if I need to call him to order again he will be warned.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Firstly, this is not part of my budget. The Guardian for Children and Young People is in the budget for the Minister for Education.

Ms HILDYARD: She has called on you.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: He has the control over the budget and what funding is given to the guardian's office. It is not my budget line.

Ms HILDYARD: Have you advocated to him directly for funding that scheme, given that the Guardian for Children and Young People in a report about children in care, for whom you and your department are responsible, has called for that scheme to be funded because, quote, 'Children in care are at ongoing risk of abuse by adults.'

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: There are a few different points there. Firstly, my CE was discussing all children being at risk, not just children under guardianship. We know that e-safety is a particularly important area for all children. Just like in the Carly Ryan case, this can happen to any family and more things need to be put in place.

Secondly, I do not see the point when we are in lockdown. Nobody could visit anyway because we were in lockdown, so having visits would be of no use. Thirdly, the guardian already is able to, and does, visit residential care facilities as part of her actual job, as all the former guardians have been doing for decades, visiting residential care facilities.

Ms HILDYARD: So why has she repeatedly called for a funded scheme?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: And fourthly, this is for the—

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: —Minister for Education to answer. Direct your question to the correct person.

The CHAIR: The member for MacKillop has a question.

Mr McBRIDE: My question refers to Budget Paper 5, pages 12 and 13. Can the minister update the committee on how the Marshall Liberal government will deliver better services and support families through family group conferencing?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I thank the member for MacKillop for his question. Our budget for a stronger South Australia is delivering better services and supporting families, children and young people through successful programs such as family group conferencing. Family group conferences provide an opportunity for children and young people and their family and community members to make informed and timely decisions about their care arrangements where a risk of harm and/or neglect has been identified.

Through a family group conference, family and the extended network of an at-risk child or young person will work together with the guidance of a facilitator in a positive environment to build capacity and support a plan that will keep children safe. The family group conferencing program has enabled DCP staff to refer children, young people and their families to Relationships South Australia when a child is at risk of harm and their parents and broader family are willing to work to implement change, ultimately preventing the child or young person from needing to enter care. As at 31 May 2021, a total of 186 families had been referred to participate in the family group conference, many of whom were Aboriginal families.

South Australia's Aboriginal-specific Ngartuitya Family Group Conference Service is located at Hindmarsh and was launched in 2020. Feedback from participants has been very positive, with 90 per cent of families and professionals agreeing that the conferences went well. We are on track with our goal of supporting up to 200 families by the end of the year. It has been so successful that the Marshall Liberal government is investing a further $3.7 million over four years and has committed ongoing funding to secure and expand family group conferences following the enormous success of the two-year pilot.

Family group conferencing has been further expanded this year to also include services to unborn children. For the first time, we are referring parents much earlier and working to build family structures and support to prevent family separation. Relationships SA commenced the trial for a new family group conference for unborn child concerns on 1 April this year.

The Aboriginal Family Support Services are also engaged to trial an Aboriginal-specific family group conference program. Their service model is currently being designed and referrals are expected to begin soon. This successful program prevents children and young people from entering the child protection system and is another example of how the Marshall Liberal government is committed to supporting families and ensuring the safety of children and young people.

The CHAIR: Have you finished your answer, minister?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Yes. I have just received an answer to an earlier question.

The CHAIR: Do you want to furnish us with that now?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Yes. Twenty-nine children from residential care were reunified in the 2020-21 year to 31 May.

Ms HILDYARD: I refer to the same reference. When will the government implement Nyland recommendation 150 and ensure that there are always two staff members in residential care homes?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The Nyland report provided two recommendations to abandon single-handed shifts. Recommendation 132, in commercial care, was accepted by the former government for implementation in phase 3, which would have been January 2019 to January 2022. DCP has now ceased the use of commercial care contracts as at October 2020.

Recommendation 150, part C, was a recommendation regarding residential care workers. This recommendation was not supported by the former government. DCP is aware that the PSA continues to campaign for the removal of single-handed shifts in residential care facilities The department's position remains that single-handed shifts are appropriate unless otherwise clinically indicated. Care teams regularly monitor the needs of children and young people and adjust staffing where appropriate. There are also a number of initiatives in place to support youth workers including the mobile response teams called the mobile night team.

Ms HILDYARD: Just as a clarification in relation to that statement, in an earlier answer you spoke about non-government organisations also providing support to children in care. Is there a commercial arrangement between the government and those non-government organisations to provide that care?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will hand that to my CE to explain better.

Ms TAYLOR: Thank you very much for the question. Yes is the answer. Since 2016 when we first commenced the delivery of residential care by non-government services, we originally did 100 children and young people in 2016 and we have continued to work with the non-government sector, particularly in terms of the delivery of specialist areas.

Two of the areas in residential care where they have particularly assisted us is in relation to Aboriginal and young people residential care. We obviously rely heavily on the Aboriginal Family Support Services, for example. The second area is specialist disability residential services. Again, we have worked with a number of the specialist disability providers in South Australia to provide residential care. We recognise that it is important that the government continues to deliver residential care and also that there is the ability in the non-government sector to deliver residential care. We will continue to support that.

Ms HILDYARD: It is commercial care, thank you. What is the current ratio of staff to—

The CHAIR: Just before you go on, member for Reynell, had the minister completed her answer to the previous question?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I would like to comment. There still are commercial arrangements; however, this is not what was previously referred to as commercial care. Under the former government, commercial care consisted of children being placed in hotels, motels and caravan parks. We have stopped the use of hotels, motels and caravan parks. Children are now in residential care. We discontinued the use of commercial care—and we used homes, not caravan parks and hotels—in October 2020, as mentioned. Placement and support packages were instigated, which is a 90-day intensive support that is wrapped around the young person with the hope of either being able to scope family members or a family-based placement and, if not, they would then go into residential care.

Ms HILDYARD: I refer now to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, program 1, page 84, particularly the workforce summary on that page and specifically staffing in residential care homes. What is the current ratio of staff to children in residential care? What will be the ratio should any of your new staffing targets be fulfilled this year?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The total residential care FTE figure for June 2020-21 was 607.15 FTEs, excluding overtime, compared with 585.1 FTEs for June 2020. To go back to the 2017-18 year, there were 571.9. So there has been a dramatic increase—

Ms HILDYARD: There are more children in care.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: —in the number of residential care workers.

Ms HILDYARD: The ratio is what I am after because there are more children in care—not the number but the ratio.

The CHAIR: I think we have that clear now, but I would ask the member for Reynell not to interject. You can seek clarification at the appropriate time.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will just finish regarding this.

Ms HILDYARD: The numbers are not what I want; it is the ratio.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Back in the 2017-18 year, under the former government there were 42.5 vacancies in residential care. We have reduced that to 9.6 at the end of June, and we have 24 more in our July training. It is important because the ratios and the numbers are reflective of the staff, and I have been asked many questions on the numbers of staff in residential care. This government has worked extraordinarily hard with the department to recruit and retain residential care workers to ensure the best care for our children and young people, and we have made significant inroads. I will pass over to my CE for any further clarification.

Ms TAYLOR: Thank you, minister. The only thing I would add is that ratios are heavily factored around the individual clinical needs of children and young people. For example, I have previously flagged that some children and young people will have significant disabilities, and they will have often quite a different ratio, for example, to other children and young people. As the minister has flagged, it is individualised: we work on the premise of what are the clinical needs of children and young people.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, how do you think staff feel about current staffing ratios and your repeated insistence that staffing issues have been resolved by you?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: We will never stop recruiting until we have full recruitment. I have never indicated that it was finished and done and we are resting. We have a rolling recruitment and, as I just mentioned, we just had another intake for residential care workers. We have an agreement with TAFE to do our training. It is specialised training that targets the needs of our department and our residential care facilities. There will also be another bulk intake of new staff in October this year in terms of residential care. So we are doing our very best to recruit, to train and to get more people in residential care, and it is certainly not over.

The CHAIR: The member for Hammond has a question.

Mr PEDERICK: My question relates to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 87, Program 1: Care and Protection, highlights and targets. The topic is about reunification services, including Newpin. Can the minister update the committee on how the Marshall Liberal government is investing in programs to support families and return children and young people to their parents?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I thank the member for Hammond for his question and I can say that wherever possible our first preference for a child's long-term care is with their birth family. This is because it is widely acknowledged that, where it is safe to do so, supporting children to return home to their family gives better outcomes to their health and wellbeing and longer term outcomes, such as education, mental health and employment.

We are investing a record $57.4 million on recommissioned family reunification services and additional specialised support. The service providers will deliver services to a high standard across metropolitan and regional South Australia. In 2020, we undertook an extensive review and public tender process to ensure we secured high-quality services for 2021-22. This process resulted in nine agencies being contracted to provide services throughout South Australia, including in remote and regional communities such as Port Augusta, Ceduna and Mount Gambier.

Consistent with our new contracting arrangements, these new services are on a fee-for-service basis model to ensure we get the best possible value for taxpayer funding. I am pleased that these new services have a strong focus on supporting parents to address underlying issues that affect their ability to provide safe care and a safe environment for children, including practical issues such as the physical condition of their home.

We are now referring families as early as possible, and services offer infant-specific support. Bookyana Cultural and Community Services, an Aboriginal community controlled organisation, has also been included. This builds on our priorities of both supporting and addressing the over-representation of Aboriginal children and young people in care and supporting ACCOs.

Family reunification services are only offered where reunification is identified as both safe and possible. Many of the families these services work with are dealing with multiple and complex issues, including domestic and family violence, drug and alcohol misuse, and mental health issues. The parent or parents must acknowledge the child protection concerns and be prepared to address them through intensive support to improve their wellbeing and parenting capacity.

I recently announced the Newpin family reunification program for South Australia. This program is a centre-based, evidenced-based, intensive therapeutic family reunification program that works with families to return children to their parents. When the Marshall Liberal government was elected in 2018, I was determined to invest in evidence-based programs that would deliver real outcomes. The Newpin program has been established and operating in New South Wales, the ACT and Queensland for many years and is based on successful models first developed in the United Kingdom.

We have funded Newpin through an innovative social impact bond which builds partnerships between the non-government sector and investors to achieve social outcomes. This is a wonderful way to involve the community to be part of the solution. Newpin will be supported by state and commonwealth governments, with the South Australian government committing $15.05 million over seven years of the program. It is expected to support more than 200 families, with the initial centre based at Smithfield and other centres being established gradually in the southern and north-western suburbs.

We know that putting money up-front to support families to prevent children and young people from entering care is incredibly important for children and young people, but for the children and young people already in care, particularly those on short-term orders, I want to do everything we can to make it safe for them to return to their families.

Membership:

Mr Hughes substituted for Mr Malinauskas.

Ms HILDYARD: I refer now to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, program 1, page 85. Minister, why did you not achieve your target, in terms of the number of Aboriginal children placed, in line with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Placement Principle?

The CHAIR: I will just ask for some clarification there, member for Reynell. I understand the question, but where in the budget papers did you get the target?

Ms HILDYARD: There is a 4.1 per cent decrease on page 89. The broad subject is 85 and then that specifically.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will refer this question to my CE, Cathy Taylor.

Ms TAYLOR: Thank you for the question. In relation to the Aboriginal child placement principle, this is obviously a critical commitment that the department has signed up to. It is one where we recognise that the better we do the greater the outcomes and quality of care for Aboriginal children and young people.

As part and parcel of our commitment to the national Family Matters report each year, in addition to our reporting as part of this process we also report. I am delighted to say that over the past few years we have set ourselves a target that we think is both appropriate and aspirational because we believe we can do better. We want to continue to increase the target beyond 65 per cent.

I am really delighted to be able to say this is why we are investing, for example, in the three Aboriginal kinship care programs—because the evidence tells us that we want to support Aboriginal children and young people with Aboriginal staff and Aboriginal community agencies. Interestingly, the target for this year was 1,100, and I think it is really important to flag that as at 31 May we were at 1,077 in terms of the number of Aboriginal children and young people who were placed in accordance with the principle.

I absolutely agree that we have more to do. We remain committed, we want to be nation leading and we know this is going to help us, but we will continue to focus on building our level of commitment and delivery with the principle.

Ms HILDYARD: Thank you. Minister, has every departmental staff member who is involved in applying the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle received training in doing so?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will refer that to my CE.

Ms TAYLOR: I thank the member very much. The department has implemented a number of different initiatives. The first is our work that we have done jointly with SNAICC, who are the national Aboriginal and Islander childcare agency, to assist us and support us with understanding the Aboriginal child placement principle.

At the moment, only the placement hierarchy is located in the legislation. Certainly, the amendments the minister has introduced in the house seek to introduce all five domains of the Aboriginal child placement principle. What we have done is taken the opportunity through our Aboriginal practice directorate with our principal Aboriginal consultants and all our staff to do a number of mandatory training sessions to support them to understand the importance, firstly, of the placement hierarchy and, more importantly, to actually embed all those elements of the Aboriginal child placement principle.

What you would also be aware of is that we are continuing to roll out because from time to time we will see turnover in staff. We recognise that we need to have an ongoing program of support and training for our staff because it is not a static approach and it cannot be a static figure. We need to continue to invest, deliver and train.

Ms HILDYARD: Thank you. Minister, how many Aboriginal babies were taken into care over the past year?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: We will need to take that on notice. Just as a comment, approximately 30 per cent of all children who are removed are of Aboriginal background.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, can you guarantee that before every Aboriginal child was removed attempts were made to contact grandparents and/or other kin?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: That is operational, so I will hand that to my CE.

Ms TAYLOR: I thank the member for the question. We are certainly committed to ensuring that families, grandparents, aunties and uncles are contacted and involved in the process in terms of removal of children and young people. It is certainly the case that the investment in family group conferencing in particular and in family-led decision-making assists us to really deliver on this outcome. What I can commit to is that we continue to remind our staff of the critical importance of engaging with family as we seek to think about what are the best outcomes and options and how do we keep children safe.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, can you guarantee that before every Aboriginal child was removed family conferencing occurred and that translation services were offered where required?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: As I have mentioned in my previous answers, family group conferencing only began under this government. We funded it and we have just completed a two-year family group conferencing pilot that was highly successful. We have now provided and committed to recurrent funding. We have also expanded that service, as I mentioned, to include unborn children so that we can work with building the safety structures in the family rather than removing the child. We have also expanded the service to have an Aboriginal-specific service through Aboriginal Family Support Services.

Into the future, it is our goal to provide more and more family group conferences for more and more people. Because this was never provided by the former government, even with money there was not the actual staff or the capacity in the marketplace for people who could actually facilitate these family group conferences. So we are growing that ability and we are especially targeting our Aboriginal community-controlled organisations to provide that service.

Ms HILDYARD: And the translation services?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will need to refer that to my CE.

Ms HILDYARD: The question was: can you guarantee that before every Aboriginal child was removed translation services were offered where required?

Ms TAYLOR: What I can commit to is that our staff work alongside communities and Aboriginal children and families and, where translation services are required, they will access those translation services.

The CHAIR: Member for Reynell, even though we still have 20 minutes to go, I assume you have omnibus questions for this session.

Ms HILDYARD: No.

Mr KNOLL: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 87, Program 1: Care and Protection. Can the minister update the committee on the Marshall Liberal government's trial of a new model of specialist family-based care.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The Marshall Liberal government is piloting a new model of specialist family-based care. The Treatment Foster Care Oregon pilot will be provided with $3.8 million over 2.5 years. This includes the time for establishing the program. Treatment Foster Care Oregon is a specialised foster care program that supports children and young people aged 12 to 17 with complex behaviours.

We know that stability and permanency are vital for good outcomes for children, and this new state-first trial will give our most complex and vulnerable children and young people an opportunity to live in a loving, supportive and safe home. Children and young people in care often experience significant trauma, abuse and neglect, and finding the right foster care placement for them can be challenging. The ultimate aim of the program is for the child or young person to return to their family or stable long-term foster carer.

The Treatment Foster Care Oregon model builds a team of workers to provide intensive and directed support to the carer and to the young people placed in the program. For example, the worker will have daily contact with carers; weekly foster care meetings that focus on supervision, training and parenting practice; and the establishment of a behaviour management plan. Importantly, the program teaches children and young people interpersonal skills, coping strategies and problem-solving skills, and encourages participation in sports and hobbies.

The pilot will be delivered by OzChild, which has a 30-year track record of delivering this model both internationally and nationally. The model is backed by evidence-based international research and is proven to improve behaviours in children and young people via a family-based model of care and therapy.

The program will provide placement stability and care that meets the unique developmental needs, with a focus of increasing wellbeing and reducing the escalation of behaviours. It will also support the formation of positive peer relationships, including individual skills training and increased school attendance. The Marshall Liberal government is committed to growing family-based care, and this is another major commitment by which we are working to achieve this.

Ms HILDYARD: I will read in some omnibus questions right at the conclusion of the session.

The CHAIR: Give yourself a couple of minutes at the end.

Ms HILDYARD: For my next set of questions, I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, program 1, page 86, in relation to the residential care facilities project, but they will also go to the workforce summary on page 84. How many homes will be built as part of the project and how many children are expected to be housed at the properties?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The residential care facilities program provides for new homes for children placed under the guardianship of the chief executive. To date, this project has seen a number of older and less suitable DCP facilities decommissioned, such as the Queenstown residential unit, and replaced with more appropriate home-like accommodation. Included in this program is the Davoren Park housing project.

Significant sector consultation advised that a single high-needs intensive placement option with a revised model of care was required. Construction of a new property commenced in February 2021, with completion expected very soon. Theft of construction materials late in May, compounded by national construction material shortages, meant that completion of the construction is now set for September. Most recently, there were also issues around getting the electricity connected.

Ms HILDYARD: Will these homes include improved security and monitoring measures, given the persistent reports by the Guardian for Children and Young People and others that adults outside of the child protection system are preying on children in residential care homes?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will refer that to my CE.

Ms TAYLOR: I thank the member for the question. I can confirm that the most recent development, which is the Davoren Park project, which the minister just referred to, was consulted on extensively with the guardian, the Commissioner for Children and Young People, and children and young people themselves. It was designed so that we get the balance right between safety and security but also having a home-like environment because children and young people had, quite rightly, talked to us about not wanting it to feel like a correctional environment but much more a home-like environment.

In addition to that, we are also making significant improvements to the Sturt property, which previously had a very old-fashioned environment, and this will have a mix of both rooms and independent living. So, yes, I can confirm that they really do strike that balance between safety, security and also home-like environments and that we have consulted extensively with the various commissioners and the guardian.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, what measures have been put in place specifically in Port Lincoln to better protect children in care in that region in the wake of the tragedy there?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will pass that to my CE.

Ms TAYLOR: I thank the member for the question. Obviously, the incident that occurred in Port Lincoln in May was a tragedy—a tragedy for the community and a tragedy for the family. What we have done is to continue to work with the community, and that includes not just our own office but those services that are funded, including whole-of-government services. Ongoing support is being provided to the family of the deceased and that is being provided by a range of non-government organisations.

At the time, I know that we were in the process of recruiting a new manager for the Port Lincoln office. That manager has now been recruited and has commenced and we have a full complement of staff in the Port Lincoln office. What I think we would reflect upon is that it is so critical that we continue to work with all our partners to support this family and this community as we go forward.

Ms HILDYARD: Thank you. Have there been any missing person reports in relation to children in care in Port Lincoln since the tragedy?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will have to take that on notice.

Ms HILDYARD: How long has the Principal Aboriginal Consultant position in Port Lincoln and surrounding areas been vacant?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: That is operational. I will hand that to my CE. I do not even know whether your question is correct—your allegation.

Ms HILDYARD: It is on your website.

Ms TAYLOR: I thank the member for the question. The Principal Aboriginal Consultant for that part of the world is to the Far North-Far West region. I am aware that the Principal Aboriginal Consultant has been supporting the Port Lincoln office during both the time of the tragedy and since, so I am not quite sure what the question refers to, because we have continued to have a Principal Aboriginal Consultant working in the region supporting Port Lincoln.

Ms HILDYARD: Has the department been able to meet the terms of its MOU with SAPOL to help look for missing children in care over the past 12 months?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Our department works very closely with SAPOL. As I mentioned earlier, we have already held two round tables with our department, SAPOL, Health and many others in order to look at better ways to support and reduce the numbers of missing children.

I also referred earlier to several reports. This is a nationwide issue. It is on the top of everybody's mind at the moment. There is a national report that just came out that I have just finished reading. There has also been an inquiry in Victoria due to the high numbers there. We are taking the learnings from other states and other jurisdictions, and really, as a nation, we have to address why this is happening and how we can reduce the numbers of children.

Ms HILDYARD: I now go to page 89 and specifically in relation to performance indicators. Why did the department not meet its target of 83 per cent of investigations commencing within seven days from notification?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Obviously, with respect to the performance indicators we always set a target. Unfortunately, we have not. It is consistent with previous years. I note from reading many, many years' worth of RoGS that, as a jurisdiction, South Australia has repeatedly been pretty high—in the top two, generally—around Australia in terms of getting to reports and starting them within seven days. As a state, we are actually performing quite well compared to all the other states. Unfortunately, we have set the target again for 83 per cent for the next financial year.

Ms HILDYARD: How many children were at risk as a result of this failure to meet the target number of investigations within seven days from notification?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will just add something to the last question. South Australia commenced 76.9 per cent of investigations within seven days. This figure is 17.3 percentage points higher than the national figure, which is 59.6 per cent. I will pass to my CE for any further clarification.

Ms TAYLOR: I thank the member for the question. As you will be aware, we pay particular attention to those who require a response both within 24 hours and then 10 days. Actually, alongside our CARL and all our offices, we seek to prioritise and triage those 24 hours so they can be responded to. We certainly work then very hard, alongside all our agencies and those that we refer to, to be able to respond to the 10-day matters.

Ms HILDYARD: Exactly how many children were at risk as a result of the failure to meet the target number of investigations within seven days from notification?

The CHAIR: I do note, member for Reynell, that even in my mind that may be a very difficult question to answer, but I will let the minister have a go at it.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Just to add some clarification and then I will pass over to my CE, if there is a child in imminent danger you would call the police. For reporting, the next category is a report that needs to be made or an investigation within 24 hours and then 10 days. So this actually reports on seven days, whereas under our requirements I believe that we have 10 days, but I will pass to my CE to clarify.

Ms TAYLOR: I can confirm that children are not at risk. At the time we receive those notifications, we assess the nature of the response that is required. We prioritise those that require an immediate response. That deals with the issue of immediate safety.

Ms HILDYARD: Can you confirm whether there have been any additional resources allocated to further investigate initial substantiations and to reduce the number of repeat substantiations?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Yes, we have invested more money. The main thing we have done is we have 295 more workers who are on the frontline to be able to do these investigations and work with children.

Ms HILDYARD: How many calls to the Child Abuse Report Line went unanswered in the last financial year?

The CHAIR: While we are seeking an answer to this, I might suggest that after this answer the member for Reynell go to the omnibus questions.

Ms HILDYARD: Yes, thank you.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Call centre contact trends have changed in recent years so that an increasing proportion of reports are now being submitted online with the eCARL system. Calls to the call centre as at 31 May had increased by 2.9 per cent on the previous year and eCARLs had also increased by 10.9 per cent. As at 31 May, the call centre had received 61,307 phone calls across all phone lines. Of the calls received, 49,076, or 80 per cent, were answered, which is a 2.3 per cent increase on the 2019-20 year.

The call centre's telephone system provides information during the time callers are waiting on their call to be answered, including a suggestion to use the electronic notification system for non-urgent matters and this message is provided at the beginning of the call. A message explaining the information the caller needs to have ready to provide to the call centre is also detailed throughout the time they are on hold. We now have other referral systems. I might hand over to my CE because she will clarify further.

Ms TAYLOR: Specifically, I can say to you that at any point, as the minister outlined, a caller may decide to discontinue the call, to pursue the electronic notification option, to call back later, or on the option of leaving a message.

In an effort to better understand why callers were abandoning their calls, in May 2021 we undertook a survey in relation to callers whose calls were not answered and where a call back had not been requested because we wanted to understand what was their thinking and all of that. What the survey showed us was that 50 per cent actually abandoned their call because they were going to elect to call again later or to use the eCARL option, so they were very comfortable with actually using the alternatives. Only 15 callers stated that they abandoned their calls in relation to the wait time. There was no indication that any notifications were missed at this time. It was really helpful for us to understand why callers were abandoning their calls.

Ms HILDYARD: I will now move to the omnibus questions:

1. For each department and agency reporting to the minister:

What is the actual FTE count at 30 June 2021 and the projected actual FTE count for each year of the forward estimates;

What is the total employment cost for each year of the forward estimates;

What is the notional FTE job reduction target that has been agreed with Treasury for each year of the forward estimates;

Does the agency or department expect to meet the target in each year of the forward estimates; and

How many TVSPs are estimated to be required to meet FTE reductions over the forward estimates?

2. For each department and agency reporting to the minister:

How much is budgeted to be spent on goods and services for 2021-22, and for each of the years of the forward estimates period;

The top 10 providers of goods and services by value to each agency reporting to the minister for 2020-21;

A description of the goods and/or services provided by each of these top 10 providers, and the cost to the agency for these goods and/or services; and

The value of the goods and services that was supplied to the agency by South Australian suppliers?

3. Between 1 July 2020 and 30 June 2021, will the minister list the job title and total employment cost of each position with a total estimated cost of $100,000 or more which has (1) been abolished and (2) which has been created?

4. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors above $10,000 between 1 July 2020 and 30 June 2021 for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, listing:

the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier;

cost;

work undertaken;

reason for engaging the contractor; and

method of appointment?

5. For each department and agency for which the minister has responsibility:

How many FTEs were employed to provide communication and promotion activities in 2020-21 and what was their employment expense;

How many FTEs are budgeted to provide communication and promotion activities in 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24, 2024-25 and what is their estimated employment expense;

The total cost of government-paid advertising, including campaigns, across all mediums in 2020-21 and budgeted cost for 2021-22?

6. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, please provide a full itemised breakdown of attraction and retention allowances as well as non-salary benefits paid to public servants and contractors between 1 July 2020 and 30 June 2021.

7. What is the title and total employment cost of each individual staff member in the minister's office as at 30 June 2021, including all departmental employees seconded to ministerial offices?

8. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, could you detail:

How much was spent on targeted voluntary separation packages in 2020-21;

What department funded these TVSPs (except for DTF estimates);

What number of TVSPs were funded;

What is the budget for targeted voluntary separation packages for financial years included in the forward estimates (by year), and how are these packages funded; and

What is the breakdown per agency/branch of targeted voluntary separation packages for financial years included in the forward estimates (by year) by FTEs?

9. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many executive terminations have occurred since 1 July 2020 and what is the value of executive termination payments made?

10. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what new executive appointments have been made since 1 July 2020, what is the annual salary and total employment cost for each position?

11. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many employees have been declared excess, how long has each employee been declared excess and what is the salary of each excess employee?

12. In the 2020-21 financial year, for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, what underspending on operating programs (1) was and (2) was not approved by cabinet for carryover expenditure in 2021-22?

13. In the 2020-21 financial year, for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, what underspending on investing or capital projects or programs (1) was and (2) was not approved by cabinet for carryover expenditure in 2021-22? How much was sought and how much was approved?

14. For each grant program or fund the minister is responsible for please provide the following information for 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 financial years:

Name of the program or fund;

The purpose of the program or fund;

Balance of the grant program or fund;

Budgeted (or actual) expenditure from the program or fund;

Budgeted (or actual) payments into the program or fund;

Carryovers into or from the program or fund; and

Details, including the value and beneficiary, of any commitments already made to be funded from the program or fund.

15. For the period of 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021, provide a breakdown of all grants paid by the department/agency that report to the minister, including when the payment was made to the recipient and when the grant agreement was signed by both parties.

16. For each year of the forward estimates, please provide the name and budgeted expenditure across the 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 financial years for each individual investing expenditure project administered by or on behalf of all departments and agencies reporting to the minister.

17. For each year of the forward estimates, please provide the name and budget for each individual program administered by or on behalf of all departments and agencies reporting to the minister.

18. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what is the total cost of machinery of government changes since 1 July 2020 and please provide a breakdown of those costs?

19. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what new sections of your department or agency have been established since 1 July 2020 and what is their purpose?

20. For each department and agency reporting to the minister:

What savings targets have been set for each year of the forward estimates;

What measures are you implementing to meet your savings target; and

What is the estimated FTE impact of these measures?

The CHAIR: Having reached the allotted time, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the Department for Child Protection complete.

Sitting suspended from 11:05 to 11:20.