Department for Child Protection, $533,546,000

Membership:

Ms Stinson substituted for Dr Close.

Minister:

Hon. R. Sanderson, Minister for Child Protection.

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, Director, Office of the Chief Executive, Department for Child Protection.

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

The CHAIR: Good afternoon everybody. The estimates committee is a relatively informal procedure and as such there is no need to stand to ask your questions. I understand that the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition have agreed an approximate time for the consideration of proposed payments which will facilitate a change of departmental advisers. Can the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition confirm that the timetable for today's proceedings, previously distributed, is accurate? Minister.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Yes.

Ms STINSON: In that there is one session of an hour and a half, yes.

The CHAIR: If that is what has been agreed to, very good. Changes to the committee membership will be notified as they occur. Members should ensure that the Chair is provided with a completed request to be discharged form. If the minister undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the committee secretary by no later than Friday 26 October 2018.

I propose to allow both the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition to make opening statements of about 10 minutes each should they wish. There will be a flexible approach to giving the call for asking questions based on about three questions per member, alternating each side. Supplementary questions will be the exception rather than the rule. A member who is not part of the committee may ask a question at the discretion of the Chair. 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. There is no formal facility for the tabling of documents before the committee; however, documents can be supplied to the Chair for distribution to the committee. The incorporation of material in Hansard is permitted on the same basis as applies in the house—that is, that it is purely of a statistical nature and limited to one page in length.

All questions are to be directed to the minister and not the minister's advisers, and I will be hot on that. The minister may refer questions to advisers for a response. The committee's examination will be broadcast in the same manner as sittings of the house are broadcast, and that is through the IPTV system within Parliament House and via the web stream linked to the internet. I now proceed to open the following lines for examination: the portfolio being the Department for Child Protection, and of course we have the Minister for Child Protection here. I declare the proposed payments open for examination and refer members to the Agency Statements, Volume 1. Minister, if you would like to introduce your advisers and then make a brief opening statement if you are going to do so.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I would like to introduce Cathy Taylor to my left, the chief executive; Jennifer Browne, the chief financial officer, to my left also; to my right, Fiona Ward, the deputy chief executive; and behind me we have Brette Schumann, the director of the Office of the Chief Executive; and Michael Burton, the acting chief human resources officer. Before making my statement, I would like to acknowledge that we meet on the land of the Kaurna people today.

The Marshall Liberal government's 2018-2019 budget is the first opportunity in 16 years to reset the priorities for child protection in South Australia. For years we advocated 'A strong plan for real change' with the knowledge that the child protection system in South Australia was in crisis. As a government, Labor had failed in its duty to adequately protect and provide a safe environment for our most vulnerable children and young people.

The new state government takes child protection seriously. We take our responsibilities and duties to those children in care seriously. Billions of dollars were spent by the Labor government to bandaid a broken system. Sadly, research shows that if the Labor government had done nothing, the outcomes would have been the same or even better. It is well known that under the Labor government, most of the vulnerable children and young people were failed. Many were being accommodated in locations such as motels, caravan parks and hotels. Simultaneously, the costs of commercial care and residential care per child were spiralling out of control, as were the numbers of children in this type of care.

Over the years there have been multiple reviews, inquests and royal commissions, all damning of the toxic culture in what was Families SA. Many of the same recommendations were repeated by multiple experts. In 2003 Robyn Layton recommended the appointment of the state's first Commissioner for Children and Young People. The appointment was finally made in 2017, some 14 years later.

As early as 2005 the Guardian for Children and Young People first drew attention to the unsafe conditions for children accommodated in large residential facilities. Despite this, two years later in 2007 the Labor government announced it was building two additional 12-bed facilities, which opened in 2010. In 2011 the Labor government announced its intention to build two more large residential facilities, despite clear evidence recommending against it. In November 2011, at the urging of the guardian, the then minister for education and child development agreed to incrementally close the six larger and older residential care facilities. However, in February 2015 yet another large 12-bed residential facility was built.

On coming into government I was advised of plans to build another 12-bed facility, comprising four houses of three bedrooms each at Davoren Park. I had reservations about the development being, in essence, another large multi-bed facility, albeit in a different configuration. I also raised concerns about the economic model of three-bedroom as compared to four-bedroom single houses. The department is engaging in consultation as to what alternative models might be suitable options.

In response to shocking allegations of child sexual abuse within a Families SA residential home by a government worker in 2014, the Nyland royal commission was established. In 2016 the damning findings in the report 'The Life They Deserve' were delivered. I do acknowledge the positive action taken by the former Labor government in response to the Nyland recommendations; it promptly accepted an interim recommendation to establish a stand-alone Department for Child Protection on 1 November 2016. This had been a Liberal policy since 2014.

The Liberal government took this a step further by appointing a dedicated minister in recognition of the importance of fixing the huge mess that had been left by Labor. The new child protection legislative framework, the Children and Young People (Safety) Act, was passed in July 2017. Phase 1 of that legislation commenced in February this year, and the second and final phase is due to commence later this year. The act will underpin all child protection reforms.

Unlike its predecessor, the new act has an emphasis on listening to and incorporating the voices of children and their carers in decision-making. It establishes a framework to drive early decision-making and supports stability and permanency, with an emphasis on safe and nurturing placements where children and young people can develop and flourish. Where appropriate, the act encourages connection to family, culture and community. I acknowledge that at the time of the last estimate committees no children were living in motels, caravan parks or hotels. I am pleased to say that as at today's date there are still no children living in such arrangements.

Whilst child protection is a problem throughout South Australia, and indeed most of the world, South Australia has consistently performed poorly compared with other states, as reported in the report on government services released in 2018. I am focused on reforming our child protection system by better supporting our children under guardianship, by individualising their care, and focusing on family-based care options. Staff are being supported by filling long-term vacancies, improving their work conditions, and being listened to and respected when they express ideas on how to make positive changes.

As a government we are also focused on a whole of government solution to prevention and early intervention to stem the flow of children coming into care. With figures such as one in four children being reported to the Child Abuse Report Line by the age of 10, major reforms must be undertaken. Since coming into government I have met with hundreds of stakeholders and service providers and many carers, staff and children. I have listened to each of them and I am taking on board that information, looking at a multitude of ways we can improve our child protection system.

Rather than a reactive response, or indeed throwing more money at a broken system, I am supporting my department as they direct resources towards proven and evidenced-based programs across the entire system. With the assistance of the Early Intervention Research Directorate's work, I will continue to support my department as they foster innovation and align services accordingly.

Only yesterday, an expert in child protection from New York spent the day in Adelaide with my department and stakeholders. I will support the department to focus on its core business and to build an organisation for the future as it works to stem the flow of children entering the child protection system, producing better outcomes for both those in care and those exiting care.

Mr BOYER: Point of order.

The CHAIR: Yes, point of order.

Mr BOYER: Has the 10 minutes for a statement not expired?

The CHAIR: Indeed there is, and the minister has three minutes to go. Minister, continue.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Since forming government in March, the Marshall Liberal government has delivered on many of its child protection promises. First, an audit was conducted of near 500 children and young people living in residential commercial care. This identified that 47 per cent were suitable for home-based placements. As a result, the department is working with the non-government sector via awareness raising and recruitment campaigns to identify new people who are willing to become foster carers.

It has also been long known that for many fostering kinship carers, their relationship with the previous department had broken down. At some points in time, more carers were leaving the system then entering, despite the millions of dollars announced by Labor to recruit more foster carers. That is changing. This government recognises that carers have a positive and valuable contribution to make and should be treated with respect. The department is working to improve relationships with current carers and, as part of the recruitment and retention plan, is removing red tape and administrative obstacles for those caring for our children.

Significantly, funding was announced for a single advocacy agency to support fostering kinship carers. Connecting Foster and Kinship Carers SA is the peak body and provides independent support and advocacy for those engaged in caring for our children. Secondly, consistent with the value we place on our carers, the Marshall Liberal government has delivered on our election commitment to extend payments to carers looking after children and young people to age 21. Payments will commence from 1 January 2019.

Thirdly, we have also delivered on our commitment to broaden the scope of degree level qualifications for applicants wanting to work in child protection, to assist in filling the long held vacancies that have been there for several years. In addition to social work, those recruited will be able to hold other relevant qualifications, such as in the fields of health and human services. Reducing vacancies will reduce the pressure on staff and give better outcomes for children and young people.

Whilst in opposition, both the Premier and I signed the Family Matters Statement of Commitment which aims to eliminate the national over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people in out-of-home care by 2040. Within the department, the director of Aboriginal practice leads practice relating to Aboriginal children and young people.

I am pleased to report that for the month of July 2018, the average wait time for the Child Abuse Report Line was eight minutes and 55 seconds, a reduction on the 42 minutes and 22 seconds for the financial year of 2016-17. The callback system was finally activated in July 2018, despite being available since 2014, and is anticipated to further reduce waiting times.

Mr BOYER: Point of order: has the 10 minutes for the opening statement expired? It has been three minutes since you told me there was three minutes.

The CHAIR: Yes, member for Wright, I hear your point of order. Minister, I hope you are wrapping up as leniency will not be granted for too much longer.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I am excited to be the minister at this time and to lead the transition of child protection in South Australia, as described by the Early Intervention Research Directorate from 'Horror to Hope' and towards world's best practice.

The CHAIR: Member for Badcoe, do you have an opening statement or straight into questions?

Ms STINSON: I do not have an opening statement. I do note, though, that that is now the longest opening statement that we have had in estimates and—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

Ms STINSON: —it is clearly a sign that the minister is a bit nervous—

The CHAIR: Order!

Ms STINSON: —about answering questions.

The CHAIR: Order! I am sorry. I remind the member for Badcoe that estimates is not over so who knows what tomorrow will bring in terms of opening statements. If you do not have an opening statement, I suggest you go straight to questions because it is your estimates, and I am happy to be here all day and not take any questions from the member for Badcoe. I will go straight to the member for Florey if I need to, and she is ready. Member for Badcoe, you have the call.

Ms STINSON: I do thank the minister, however, for pointing out a number of Labor initiatives there, and it is great to see this government carrying those out. My first question is: why has the minister not updated the Department for Child Protection's statistics and reporting web page since July? It was updated monthly by the previous government. The budget paper reference is Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 87, Activity indicators. It is not that hard to find—just wasting a bit of time there.

The CHAIR: Member for Badcoe, we have been pretty good today, and I want to keep it that way. Minister.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Thank you. The information for the July figures has gone up on the website, and August will be due shortly.

Ms STINSON: When will the August figures go up?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Shortly.

Ms STINSON: They are usually up on the first of the following month, so they are a month late. When will they go up?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I have not received the August figures yet. They cannot go up until they have been approved by the CE and seen by myself.

Ms STINSON: There were a few months where the figures were not posted.

The CHAIR: Sorry, member for Badcoe—

Ms STINSON: Same budget paper reference.

The CHAIR: Member for Badcoe, I appreciate that this is your first time asking questions in estimates. The quicker we get into the habit of referencing where we are, the better the day will be. The members who have been with me all day know how I chair.

Ms STINSON: No worries. Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 87, Activity indicators. Several months, including March and April, were also not put on the website, as they were under the previous government. Will those be publicly disclosed or made available?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I am advised that the figures are going up the same as they have always gone up; that is, they take several weeks to close off at the end of a month, then they have to go through the CE's office and then through my office before they are uploaded.

Ms STINSON: Is the minister able to provide the monthly breakdown, since the election, for those sets of figures that are usually publicly disclosed?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: You already have March, April, May, June and July. They have all been up on the website, so you can see those for yourself.

Ms STINSON: No, you cannot, actually. You have only been publishing the current month. You have not been publishing the previous months—

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It is the same process.

Ms STINSON: —which is consistent with the previous government.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Exactly.

Ms STINSON: However, March and April were not posted. Will those be available, or can you produce them for the committee?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I am not aware that they were not up. I will get that checked and get back to you. I will take it on notice.

Ms STINSON: Will you be able to provide those on notice to the committee?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: If they have not already been put up on the website, I will endeavour to do that.

Ms STINSON: And if they have? Surely they are public information?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: As you mentioned yourself, this is the way that it was done by the previous government. This was how it was set up by the Labor government, and we are merely continuing a process that was formed by your party. That will continue, at this stage, unless I determine to change the policy.

Ms STINSON: Is the minister committed to the government's stated aim for open and accountable government?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: What budget paper reference is that?

Ms STINSON: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 87, Activity indicators. Exactly the same one. Is the minister committed—

The CHAIR: Sorry, member for Badcoe. Could you tell me where it says 'accountable government' on page 87, please?

Ms STINSON: These statistics are—

The CHAIR: No. You can ask a question in relation to statistics.

Ms STINSON: I am happy to take the failure to answer as an indication of the position—

The CHAIR: And I am sure you can rephrase your question to meet the requirements of the standing orders.

Ms STINSON: I think I will just move on, to be honest.

The CHAIR: That is up to you.

Ms STINSON: There are lots of questions I want to ask the minister, and clearly they are taking a long time to answer. Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 87, Activity indicators. What are your projections for the numbers of children in care this year and in the coming three years?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: You can see the figures in the budget papers. The estimate, the projection, for 2018-19 is already listed. The increase from the previous year, 2016-17 to 2017-18, was around 5.5 per cent. However, as you would know, from the Nyland recommendations and from the clear policy of the Liberal government, our goal is to reduce the number of children coming into care through a focus on prevention and early intervention. We are aiming to slow the number of children coming in. We expect that that will take a little while to do, but indicators are that we will be slowing the number of children coming in each year and we are working on different policies to slow that down.

That requires across-government intervention right from mental health, domestic violence, through to education. There are a lot of different departments that are involved in that. We are relying on research also from the Early Intervention Research Directorate to direct the best way to reduce the number of children coming into care.

Ms STINSON: I refer you to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 87, Activity indicators. I understand, from the numbers, that you are predicting a rise of just 33 children in this financial year. How confident can you be of achieving that figure and how did you arrive at that figure?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: This is a figure that is actually provided by the Department of Treasury and Finance as far as funding our department. That will be reassessed as part of the Mid-Year Budget Review. I would expect that figure to be higher, even if we halve the intake from the previous year. However, I am advised that that is not a figure that our department gets to set. It is to do with budgeting and money coming in, not actual numbers.

Ms STINSON: What are your figures?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Just as an indicator—I will see if I have my figures here—the number of children coming into care has been increasing year on year. Last year, it was around I believe 5.5 per cent. I do not have my percentages here.

Ms STINSON: Sorry, was the rise of 5.5 per cent the rise on the previous year? What was the 5.5?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I can give you the actual figures from 2011-12 onwards. In 2011-12, there were 2,548 children in care. That rose to 2,678, then 2,631, then in the 2014-15 year it was 2,838. It rose exponentially in the 2016-17 year to 3,520 and it has continued to rise. There was an increase of 6.6 per cent last year in the number of children coming into care.

Certainly, a goal, obviously, is to reduce the numbers coming into care. It would be unrealistic to say that we could have none coming into care immediately; however, my goal would be to halve that if possible. That might take more than a year. That could take a couple of years to halve. I believe the New South Wales government, through changes in policy initiatives, did halve the number of children coming into care within two years. We are looking at the programs and policies that the New South Wales government entered into with an aim of really slowing that down.

Ms STINSON: Just to be clear, obviously you are saying the figures that I pointed to earlier with a rise of just 33 children are not to be relied on?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: That is the advice given by the Department of Treasury and Finance. However, I suspect that that will be updated.

Ms STINSON: It does not really reflect what you think it is going to be?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It has been a standard practice by every government for many years that that figure would be readjusted in the Mid-Year Budget Review, which will be in December, I assume.

Ms STINSON: Just to be clear about what you have just said about your goals, you referred to a halving—a halving of what? Are you saying that you are going to halve—

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The rate coming in. If the rate was 6.6 per cent coming in then half of that would be a 3.3 per cent increase. That could take two years. I do not know that I could achieve that in one year, but everything possible is being done to reduce the number of children coming into care through early intervention and prevention strategies.

Ms STINSON: Do you have a number that you are looking at rather than a percentage?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: No, I do not.

Ms STINSON: I just want to get this really clear: it is 6.6 and you want to halve it. Can you be just a little bit clearer?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I am halving the rate of the increase in numbers coming in. There was an increase from 2016-17 to 2017-18 of 6.6 per cent. Within two years my goal would be to halve that rate so that it would be a 3.3 per cent increase.

Ms STINSON: Do you have a target beyond the two years?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: We will continue to try to reduce that but, as we have seen from the 16 years under Labor, that number was actually increasing. We have a lot of work to do to change systems and change policies and have evidence-based programs, and we are working very hard, the whole department, in order to reduce those figures.

Ms STINSON: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 87, Activity indicators. On what basis do you think that is achievable? For example, has any modelling been done or are there any projections? Obviously, there are projections in the budget but we are saying that we are not relying on those Treasury projections, so what projections have you or the department done to be able to say that you expect to achieve 3.3 per cent?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I just remind the member that the Nyland royal commission, which was released only two years ago, stated that it would take at least five years to turn the figures around and to make a real difference in child protection. However, where we are getting our ideas and estimated changes are from world's best practice around the world. As I mentioned, only yesterday we met with an expert from New York who has access—they actually have costed and proven evidence-based programs that have made significant inroads into reducing the number of children going into care throughout the world, in other countries.

We also know that New South Wales halved the number of children coming into care within two years through changes in policy and different programs. We are working across government. Of course, all of the prevention and early intervention programs are not funded nor delivered through my department. We have a cabinet committee that meets fortnightly that has the Department for Education, the minister, the Minister for Health, the Minister for Human Services, myself and several others, who are working on a plan across government to deliver early intervention and prevention strategies to reduce the number of children coming into care.

Ms STINSON: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 87, Activity indicators. So far none of the things that you have just mentioned are in the budget, though. Has any modelling or have any projections been done to arrive at a figure of a 3.3 per cent growth?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: There are case studies, of course, as I mentioned, throughout other countries in the world and even just in New South Wales. We have the Early Intervention Research Directorate that is working toward that reduction, and there is further work being done. Obviously, we have only been in government for six months and there is a lot to sort out. As Margaret Nyland mentioned, it will take at least five years to get significant changes in the department.

It is a culture that has been well documented since 2003, with the Robyn Layton report that it had a toxic culture. Sixteen years of Labor failed to turn that culture around or change it or make any inroads. In fact, things just got worse. We are very ambitious and hopeful of changing as soon as possible, but in terms of six months, I think you will agree we need more time.

Ms STINSON: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 87. Considering that we have just found out that that rise—that projection of just 33 extra children in the system—is only for accounting purposes, how confident can you be that this budget is actually accurate?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Far more confident than any of the budgets under Labor that I have seen. I used to believe that a mathemagician had written the figures from the previous government because none of the figures reflected at all the outcomes—ever—previously. So I am far more confident in the figures in this budget than I have been in the four years that I was investigating budgets under a Labor government.

Ms STINSON: So you cannot really have any degree of confidence, can you, if you are relying on figures that you have actually said do not represent the truth of the situation and the figures your own department is working off? I kind of wonder why you have a budget.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will let the chief executive, Cathy Taylor, enlighten you.

Ms TAYLOR: We have done quite a lot of work, obviously, not just in concert with the Department of Treasury and Finance but also with the Early Intervention Research Directorate. Quite rightly, as the minister flagged, we have been able to see a growth of children and young people coming into care. What we really needed to understand was: what were the drivers behind why children and young people were coming into care? What were the reasons they were coming to attention?

There is some really what I would describe as a world-leading work being undertaken by Professor Fiona Arney and Professor Leah Bromfield. We have opened up our files to them so that they can look at what in fact is driving the reports that are coming to CARL and, more importantly, are we responding to the issues that will actually stem the flow of children and young people coming to the attention of the department?

I do not think this was a surprise to people but I think, as Professor Fiona Arney said to us, she was surprised by the extent to which domestic and family violence features as one of the most pervasive and significant issues in matters coming to the attention of the department. As the minister said, this is not an area that we share by ourselves. We have had the benefit of accessing not just world-class epidemiologists such as Professor John Lynch and Dr Rhiannon Pilkington, we have also been able to work with the Australian Centre for Child Protection, which has really been walking alongside us as we open our files, thinking about: how do we actually address this?

The big issues for us are obviously the prevalence around domestic and family violence, what is happening in terms of mental health matters but also, critically, drug and alcohol. We are far more confident that we now better understand what is driving the reports to child protection, why those reports then are screened in and, critically, how do we address those and reduce the numbers who are not only coming into care but are spending longer in care?

Ms STINSON: That is great, and I look forward to seeing those initiatives put into the budget and carried out. Obviously, they are just ideas at the moment. My question, though, through the minister is: we have now found out that you are saying that these Treasury figures are not to be relied on, that a rise of just 33 children is not accurate, and yet the budget is based on that. Why?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will give you the financial officer.

Ms BROWNE: It comes down to the timing of when we have the discussions with Treasury. We have the discussions around numbers very early on in the year, and obviously there can be a difference, in the later part of a financial year, of young people coming into care. That is why we often do an adjustment in the midyear budget submission, if those assumptions no longer stack up.

Ms STINSON: But you know they do not stack up; you just told us that 33 is not correct.

Ms BROWNE: Young people coming into care changes month by month; there is not a smooth pattern of young people coming into care. The conversations we would have had with Treasury at the time of setting these budgets would have commenced around February, March, and obviously there was a greater intake of young people coming in in the latter part of the year. We will catch that up in the midyear budget submission.

Ms STINSON: My question remains how accurate this budget is if you are basing it on figures that you have just admitted are not accurate. Anyway, we can move on.

The CHAIR: The member for Finniss has been waiting patiently. Maybe we will just jump to you.

Mr BASHAM: Thank you, Chair. My question relates to Budget Paper 5, Budget Measures Statement, page 25. I have a question on FTEs. Can you please explain the restructure of the financial wellbeing service delivery?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: As part of this budget, the department reviewed its own delivery of services and programs, ensuring that they align to the core business of keeping children safe from harm and neglect. Our priority has been to ensure that every child has a caseworker, that every child has a case plan, and that every child has a voice. The decision to restructure the way financial counselling services are delivered in our sector has been made to streamline our core business in the provision of statutory child protection services.

The department recognises and remains committed to the recommendations within the Nyland report. However, DCP is of the view that these services are best delivered by partnering with organisations that specialise in the provision of financial counselling and related support services. The South Australian Council of Social Service (SACOSS) also recognise that this role is better suited to the non-government sector. Indeed, they asserted that the NGO sector does financial counselling better than the department does anyway, and is already doing it.

Relationships Australia have received increased funding to provide post-care services, including counselling, case management, mentoring support and referrals. This measure is supported by an additional $1 million investment per annum to the NGO. With this efficiency, we are able to invest more in front-line staff at places like Elizabeth where we know there is an increasing demand for child protection services. This budget measure effects 59 FTEs, with no forced redundancies, and will not be realised until June 2019.

The department has been transparent in its communication of this budget measure, providing personalised support, including the department statement from the chief executive, a letter to the PSA, working with the PSA and staff, inviting interest to establish a financial wellbeing services consultation group, conducting a meeting and videoconference for staff, letters to current clients using the services, and an offer of targeted voluntary separation packages or transition to other employment opportunities. The department will continue to support clients for the next nine months to access financial services during this transitionary period.

Ms STINSON: Following on from what the minister was just saying in her Dorothy Dixer question—is that what we are going with, question?

The CHAIR: Member for Badcoe, we do not have Dorothy Dixers in this chamber.

Ms STINSON: No, they are questions, are they not?

The CHAIR: Every member is entitled to ask a question as they see fit through the budget line items.

Ms STINSON: That is right. Well, it was actually a very good question, and I want to ask some questions about it myself. I refer to Budget Paper 5, page 25, Operating efficiencies, regarding the financial counselling service. Why is it being outsourced?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Pardon?

Ms STINSON: Why is the service being outsourced?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I refer the member to the answer that I just read fully into Hansard.

Ms STINSON: Excellent. Fair enough. What budget savings do you anticipate from the outsourcing of the service?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: We estimate that for a full year that would be $3.9 million per annum, due to streamlining and better servicing the needs of young people.

Ms STINSON: By 'streamlining', do you mean outsourcing?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I can give you some other initiatives to support the young people. There has been an increase in funding to Relationships Australia South Australia to provide post-care services, including counselling, case management, mentoring, support and referral. There is support to access the National Disability Insurance Agency benefits and in turn ensure a plan and supported transition is in place for all care leavers who have disabilities.

There is support to access resources such as the commonwealth-funded Transition to Independent Living Allowance (TILA), which is internally provided brokerage funding, and the Dame Roma Mitchell Trust Fund, a trust established with funds from the South Australian government and SACOSS. There is also support to access services provided through CREATE Foundation, including the Sortli 'sort your life out' app. There are the Go Your Own Way kits and Exploring Partnerships with CREATE, who also provide financial help for young people. We also have a Uniting Country pilot program that will be instituted soon for care leavers in the Iron Triangle, I believe.

Ms STINSON: A number of those are quite familiar to me because they were part of the Nyland response package. My question, which is on the same budget line, is: how many FTEs are being cut due to the removal of the financial counselling service?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I did refer to that in my previous answer, and I believe that number was 59 FTEs with no forced redundancies. This will not be realised until 30 June 2019. The department, as I also listed, has been very transparent in this. There have been offers of targeted voluntary separation packages and transition to other employment opportunities. I also note that the department, under Labor for at least the last four years when I was the shadow minister, was holding over 200 FTE vacancies. Some of those are front line, which would not be suitable; however, many of those are administrative roles that might suit the same staff if they want to stay in the same department.

Ms STINSON: What is the budget allocation to outsource the service? What would you be paying an NGO to run it?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Again, this was in my answer, if you were listening. The measure is supported by an additional $1 million investment per annum to the NGOs, as well as funding to CREATE for the Sortli app that has recently been released. There are other things which I have also already listed.

Ms STINSON: And that will come in within the $1 million, or is the $1 million simply the amount that is going to the NGO explicitly to run the financial counselling service?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It is a new $1 million to further fund the providers who are already working in this space, such as Relationships Australia, CREATE and Uniting Country.

Ms STINSON: So there will not be a separate tender that goes out for the financial counselling service?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I am advised that the tender will be going out over the next nine months, before the transition occurs.

Ms STINSON: How many FTEs are expected to make up that $1 million, or the tender package, if you like?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I might get the deputy to explain this, as she has a lot of knowledge in this area.

Ms WARD: Thank you. One of the things I just wanted to talk about was this is not necessarily a like for like in service delivery. What we are really trying to do with this change is focus on the core business of the department, which is case management and casework in relation to child protection matters. But, more importantly, where we see duplication or inefficient delivery of services or ways in which we can make pathways clearer for children, carers, etc., we are looking to do that. The minister made reference, for example, to the Sortli app. That is a new initiative that we just recently—

An honourable member interjecting:

Ms WARD: Yes, that is right. One of the things that the appropriate

and program does really efficiently is use technology to give people access to information really quickly. So it is kids actually accessing information themselves, whether they are under 18 or young adults over 18. That is doing the job of that information exchange without having someone in between—it is direct information. Moving forward to looking at the tender process, that is picking up a component of face-to-face service delivery, but there are a lot of other ways you can ensure services are provided, which is not through the exact same way the service is transacted now.

Ms STINSON: Thank you very much. Same budget paper reference: by my calculation $1 million probably would be about 10 FTEs, plus some overheads. How does that compare with the 59 positions that are being axed from the financial counselling service?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I think the deputy just answered that. Quite clearly, it is not like for like but is further enhancing the services already being provided. As we know, years ago everybody used to go into a bank to do a transaction; now they do them online and on computers, and that is the preference of many young people. The Sortli app has recently been released. We are also funding Relationships Australia further to provide extra services to young people, which they are already successfully doing. I met a girl recently—they will help young people have a SEEK profile and apply for jobs. That is the kind of thing we need our young people, who are transitioning into independent living, to learn.

Ms WARD: If I could just add to that, minister. Also, implementing the policy, which is extending to children the ability to stay in family-based care and also expanding the post-guardianship support services, means that there is a different transition trajectory for children now. Children have an opportunity to stay in families longer and have another opportunity to develop those skills in a family setting, but also children who are not in family settings have the opportunity to pick up those services and skills and supports through post-guardianship services as well.

Ms STINSON: I have one final question on that. A number of the initiatives you have spoken about, minister, including the Sortli app, were initiated under the previous Labor government. Are any of them actually replacing the financial counselling service, or are you simply just moving the money around, because they were already funded?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Well, the CE was there before and after.

Ms TAYLOR: Thank you very much for the question. You are right in that a number of these initiatives had been envisaged by Margaret Nyland. There is a fantastic section in the recommendations, which is 'Transition to adulthood'—there are some 12 or 13 recommendations. It is certainly not a case of moving money around but rather bringing to fruition the real intent.

One that I thought was worth flagging was that, I often think people lose sight of what the recommendations asked us to do. To use the initiative that was a specific recommendation under Nyland, it was to say, 'Test, pilot and trial a service with post-care leavers that actually enables them to shape that outside of government'.

So, really, you are absolutely right: we are bringing to fruition the intent that was expected through Nyland around those 12 to 13 recommendations. In particular, one of the pieces of research that CREATE have led nationally is that young people best respond to peer-led work. This is the benefit of harnessing not just Sortli but the CREATE Your Future initiative that we have been discussing with them for some time.

You are absolutely right: Nyland is an important part of how we deliver on this initiative. I am very committed to seeing this through and, as my deputy flagged, in providing those additional supports for 18 to 21 year olds we hope that children and young people in care find themselves on a similar trajectory to all children and young people, where they might move out of home, then come back for a period of time, and are supported through the learning, the education and the housing pathways.

Ms STINSON: Thank you. Just for the record, Labor supports those initiatives, and that is why we put them in the budget to the tune of $600 million last time around. Budget Paper 5, page 25, Residential care facilities. The minister spoke about this in her opening statement. The budget papers talk about the fact that this new accommodation is no longer needed, this $3.9 million new facility, because of expected growth in family-based placements. What are the projections for that growth?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Just the last part of that question? I know you are talking about the residential care.

Ms STINSON: Yes, sure. In the budget papers it talks about the fact that the new accommodation is not needed because of an expected growth in family-based placements. I take that to mean that there will be foster or kinship positions available and, therefore, children will not need to go into residential care. Can you inform me: what are the projections for such growth in foster and kinship and other forms of care?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will just clarify. The reason it is not going ahead is not only for that reason. As I mentioned, the Guardian for Children and Young People, as early as 2005, had indicated that the larger residential facilities gave very poor outcomes for children. We know that they have the highest numbers of missing persons reports, the highest incidents of bullying and what have you. As I mentioned in my opening speech, on coming into government and seeing that the former government—and I must say that it was in 2015, so in three years they failed to deliver on their own promise.

Four houses in a row of three bedrooms, in my calculations and to the Guardian for Children and Young People, was no different than building a 12-bedroom facility. It was just in a different configuration. So we are looking at different ways to provide facilities, if there is the need. It is not saying that there is definitely no need and we will never build anything new but four houses in a row could be seen as 12 beds. Yes, we are actually reducing our numbers of children in residential care. In fact, I can give you some figures because they are quite exciting.

Whilst in the budget there is a very conservative estimate or target of a 1 per cent increase in family-based care, we are certainly more ambitious than that and we are working very hard with all of the foster care agencies to increase the numbers of families that are available. As mentioned, one of the first things that we undertook was an audit of all children in residential and commercial care which identified 45 per cent of the near on 500—so that is several hundred children—who, had we families available and ready, would be able to be placed immediately. That would reduce the numbers in commercial care and residential care. Certainly, that is what we are aiming for. We have been quite conservative with the estimate. However, we are hoping to under promise and over deliver, as our leader would say.

Ms STINSON: Just on that, following on from your answer, I know that you said the budget is only forecasting a 1 per cent increase in those family-based placements. What is your real target then?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: That is the target and we will certainly be aiming higher than that.

Ms STINSON: How much higher are you thinking?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I think it would be unwise to state a figure. The budget has a 1 per cent increase. My goal is to beat that, outdo it, and if we have already beaten it then I imagine the Mid-Year Budget Review would be the time to make any changes.

Mr ELLIS: I would like to take this committee to the Budget Measures Statement on page 24 of Budget Paper 5 and ask the minister: why is the department spending $6.4 million on office accommodation? I know that the Kadina office in Narungga is bursting at the seams and I would be interested as to whether there is any inclusion of that in that money.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I thank the member for his fantastic question and I note his interest in the Kadina office in his electorate. In the 2016-17 state budget, the Labor government had a budget line for a Families SA northern office. This announcement was made before the Nyland royal commission findings were delivered and sought to merge three offices being Gawler, Elizabeth and Salisbury into one at the disused Smithfield Plains High School site.

This concept was not supported and the member for Light was successful in petitioning that Gawler was not included in the merger. After the budget, Gawler was removed and the City of Playford suggested an alternative site at a new building yet to be developed in the Elizabeth CBD. Known as the northern super hub, the proposal was cost prohibitive. While the department was to be a tenant in the building at Elizabeth, the proposed fit-out alone was an estimated $15 million.

The proposed annual rent was approximately $2.8 million per annum, $2 million higher than the combined rent of the current Elizabeth and Salisbury DCP offices. Significantly, such expenditure would provide accommodation relief only to Elizabeth without any regard to accommodation pressures at any other offices. Consequently DCP, in conjunction with DPTI, undertook property market investigations to review and source alternative accommodation across areas experiencing capacity tensions.

I visited all the offices involved and heard directly from the staff regarding their concerns about their cramped spaces and their need for change. So in the 2018-19 budget we seek to address accommodation pressures by providing $6.4 million to meet the needs of six different offices, including: Kadina, which we are looking at moving and expanding; Elizabeth, where a second office will be opened; Gawler, where we are looking at either expanding in situ or moving to a new site, depending on market availability; St Marys, where we are expanding and incorporating the Marion site office; and Netley, which will also be expanding.

This has been a responsible budget decision that delivers better outcomes for our front-line workers. Staff at six sites will have a better working environment than the previous plan for two. Consultation has taken place with affected staff, who are supportive of this decision.

Ms STINSON: I refer to Budget Paper 5, page 24, and child protection additional resources. That reference states that 12 roles are being axed in this financial year in association with that budget measure. Are those current positions? If so, what roles are they? It is associated with the residential care facility.

Ms BROWNE: The reduction in 12 relates to the shift between non-family based placement and family-based placement. It is a shift in where the dollars sit.

Ms STINSON: Just to clarify, were those 12 positions residential care workers that would have worked in the $3.9 million facility that is now not being built?

Ms BROWNE: Not directly related to that, but related to residential facilities.

Ms STINSON: What sort of roles were they?

The CHAIR: Minister, I remind you that all questions should be through me and all answers through you. I remind your advisers to adhere to that practice as well, and not engage with members of the committee.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I am advised that figure relates to growth. I believe that for the first time we actually have a full staff number for residential care; that has been the first time in many, many years. In fact, last year's budget had 118,000 hours of backfill because the former Labor government failed to employ the right amount of staff in residential care. We have achieved that in our first six months of government.

Ms STINSON: To clarify, those 12 staff who are being removed on that budget line, who are they?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: They were staff who did not exist; that was projected growth.

Ms STINSON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 90. Carrying on with that residential care theme, how many residential care facilities are there with how many beds?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I cannot see a budget line on page 90 that refers to residential care.

Ms STINSON: I am happy to come back to that question then. My other question is: how many residential care facilities currently have single-handed shifts?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will take that one on notice; I do not think we would have those figures here.

Ms STINSON: In that case could you also take on notice how many facilities currently have some or all shifts filled as single-handed shifts or double-handed shifts? I understand there are some facilities that already have double-handed shifts.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will take advice as to whether that is possible; I think it would be quite difficult. I remind the member that whilst this was a Nyland royal commission recommendation I do not believe the former Labor government accepted it, and part of it was accepted only in phase 3, which is yet to start—in 2022, I believe.

Ms STINSON: I am happy to be corrected. I believe it was in-principle support but it has not actually been carried out.

The CHAIR: Member for Badcoe.

Ms STINSON: I am trying to be helpful.

The CHAIR: Indeed you are.

Ms STINSON: I am trying to help her out.

The CHAIR: You are an extremely helpful member of the house, but the member for Hammond, who has been here for a long time, understands how estimates works—not quite as long as the member for Florey, and I will be giving her the call at the conclusion of the minister's answer.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: This refers to recommendation 150 of the Nyland Royal Commission. Part C was to abandon single-handed shifts. The former Labor government said:

Part C of this recommendation is not supported at this time. A number of safeguarding initiatives and employee screening and vetting processes have been implemented during the period of the Royal Commission that increase the safety of children in residential care. The Department for Child Protection will continue to evaluate and implement other initiatives that may further contribute to the safety of children.

This includes the implementation of a number of other recommendations from 'The Life They Deserve', including:

introducing a probationary period for new child and youth support workers

reforming the care concern management system

establishing better tracking systems regarding employee behaviour

creating complaints mechanisms that ensure children's concerns are heard

delivering education programs for children about their rights.

So Labor did not actually support the single-handed shifts being abandoned.

Ms STINSON: Thank you for that. But I understand that you yourself did, though. So how is that going?

Mr PEDERICK: Is that out of the budget?

Ms STINSON: It is. I can give you the budget paper reference if you like.

The CHAIR: Everyone just—we have been going along very nicely. Member for Badcoe, I said previously once the minister had concluded, I would be going to the member for Florey and I am going to the member for Florey.

Ms BEDFORD: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 83. Can you please advise the figures for support payments to foster, kinship and other carers?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: In the budget papers, because it is a part year in 2018-19, $105,000 has been allocated for payments. In 2019-20, it is $1.392 million and then that increases as more children come into that age category. My understanding is that the calculation was based on the payment to a 17-year-old foster care young person, and that that would continue at that rate. It was $8.8 million over four years that has been allocated to this initiative.

Ms BEDFORD: Again, Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, Program 1: Care and Protection, page 85. How much did the government pay NGOs for foster carer recruitment training and support? How do you evaluate the outcome of that training and would you allocate additional funds if more carers applied?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: There are several parts to that.

Ms BEDFORD: I know, it is sneaky, is it not?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Thank you. I might just confirm that. To the last part, I believe rather than having a set quota that they are paid to, because of the need for more foster carers, all of the agencies have been told, 'If you take on extras, you will be paid per placement of a child,' so that there is nothing to stop them from recruiting good families and increasing their numbers. Then with the other part, is it a percentage? I do not know. I will see if somebody knows. I believe there is block funding to each agency, which is to include their training and their case work for each of the families they look after. I am not sure if they allocate a different percentage. Different agencies negotiate their own contracts.

Ms BEDFORD: And the training and the outcomes of the training are evaluated?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Something that I have actually been looking at as a policy and that I have been getting feedback on and working on—but it is early days yet—is whether we could standardise the training. I am very keen for it to be standardised, modulised and evaluated, whether it be an RTO that is set up between the agencies, where they work together and they have standard training in different modules, or whether it is training that could be delivered through TAFE so that it is accessible throughout South Australia, or whether it be through the Department for Education's RTO, which also does some training with our residential care workers.

A concern that has been raised with me is that many foster carers would not like to sit some sort of exam and have certificates. We do need to look at being able to train people in a manner specific to their learning style so that we do not lose really good carers because we have made it too clinical in the studies. At the moment, different agencies work in different ways, and I agree that that is something that I am interested in looking at.

Ms BEDFORD: Again, Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 85. Is there any flexibility in the system to allow for DCP social workers to sign off on alternative, perhaps more costly, forms of respite, such as in-home support and school holiday and weekend camps, for foster families who are currently unable to access respite due to a lack of available carers?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I believe this is looked at on a case-by-case basis. There would be a case manager in each DCP office who would be looking after each individual child. Certainly, if that was needed, that funding would be made available, if required.

Ms BEDFORD: Thank you.

Ms STINSON: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 90, Operating activities, employees. I understand that the minister, prior to the election, supported recommendation No. 150c. Is that still the case and is the minister implementing double-handed shifts?

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

Ms STINSON: Has the minister given assurances to this sector that she was committed to implementing double-handed shifts in government?

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

Ms STINSON: You cannot remember?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Could you provide something in writing that states that? I will check and get back to you.

Ms STINSON: I honestly did not think I would need to. I thought you would remember.

The CHAIR: Member—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order, member for Hammond! Member for Badcoe, the minister gave the answer that she would take it on notice. That is a very legitimate answer. You can continue down this line of questioning, if you like, or we can proceed to the next one.

Ms STINSON: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 83, Workforce summary. The minister made comments prior to the election about there being 200 or more unfilled positions in the department. Can she tell us what the overall staffing shortfall was upon coming into government and what it is now?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: As at June 2018, the paid FTE for the Department for Child Protection was 1,999.1, excluding overtime. This was against an approved budgeted FTE cap of 2,242.4. This represents an increase of 195.3 (or 10 per cent) on the previous year. The difference between the cap of 2,242.4 from the actual 1,999.1 was 243 FTEs under as at 30 June. I do not have the figure for the end of March, when we took government; however, we are certainly working on that. In this year's budget, there is an increase of 93.5 extra workers above the 2,242. Not only do we plan to fill the 243 that were under but we are also adding 93.5 extra staff—that is a growth of 30.3 FTE, in line with the implementation of the recommendations of the report, 'The life they deserve'—and 63.2 FTEs for growth associated with children in care.

Ms STINSON: With regard to the 243 that were under at 30 June: can you provide what the figure is now?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The August figure is 2,096.5. So you would minus that from the 2,242.4.

Ms STINSON: It is always dangerous doing maths on the run. Does the minister know what the shortfall is now?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I can calculate that for you. The figure is 145.9, which means that we have already employed almost 100 people in the last couple of months. We are really aggressively campaigning and advertising. The broadening of the qualifications has certainly helped fill positions. We are working as hard as possible to take the pressure off the staff for better outcomes for our children.

Ms STINSON: How many of those positions that have been filled have been filled by people without the qualifications that might have previously been required?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: My recollection was that there was something like 50 front-line positions that were available back in March.

Ms STINSON: I realise those positions were advertised, but do you have a figure or can you provide on notice a figure of how many of those were actually filled?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: We will take that on notice.

Ms STINSON: Thank you. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 87, Performance indicators. The minister has already mentioned that she carried out an audit in terms of children in care facilities. Is that report public?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It has not been made public but we are happy to share the summary.

Mr PEDERICK: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 85, Highlights 2017-18, dot point 3. How does the Department for Child Protection implement its service model in relation to the over-representation of Aboriginal children and young people in care? Thank you, minister.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I thank the member for his question and his interest in this area. Thirty-three per cent of children on care and protection orders and 33 per cent of all South Australia children in out-of-home care are Aboriginal—an over-representation, given Aboriginal children represent 4 per cent of the total population. The Department for Child Protection was the first state government department to take the Family Matters pledge, committing to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people grow up safe and cared for in family, community and culture.

Family Matters aims to eliminate the over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people in out-of-home care by 2040. Operationally, within my department, an Aboriginal recruitment and retention strategy is being developed to increase the department's Aboriginal workforce. Currently, DCP employs 115 people who identify as Aboriginal. This is an increase from 98 employees in November last year. As at 30 June 2018, 54 per cent of the Aboriginal workforce were employed as professional officers and allied health professionals. This represents 8.5 per cent of the workforce.

As at June 2017, DCP had the highest percentage of Aboriginal staff of any South Australian government department. The retention of Aboriginal employees is improving, with separation rates reducing from 17.7 per cent in 2015-16, to 9.5 per cent in 2017-18. In addition, the position of director, Aboriginal practice, has been established to lead practice relating to Aboriginal children and young people. Staff are being trained in culturally safe and responsive practice. The Aboriginal cultural identity toolkit tool is used in case planning for Aboriginal planning to better support children to maintain their connection to family, country, community and culture.

The Aboriginal impact statement accompanies a development of any significant policy and practice change to strengthen culturally responsive policies, practices, initiatives, contracts and agency reforms. The Multi-Agency Assessment Unit and the child and family assessment and referral networks provide families with the support needed to divert from out-of-home care and the Aboriginal families scoping unit to scope appropriate kinship options, ensuring collaborative decision-making, considering maintenance of family and cultural connections.

In addition, my department is increasing opportunities for Aboriginal families and organisations to lead decision-making about Aboriginal children. In the APY lands there are six lands-based positions and each of them is currently filled, which is the first time in four years. There are two additional lands-based workers located in the Far West who work to support Aboriginal families and communities. My department is working to strengthen partnerships with local APY stakeholders, including the APY Executive, NPY Women's Council and Nganampa Health. My department is supporting a state government effort with the Australian government to establish a multiagency facility in Umuwa.

Ms STINSON: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 84, continuous monitoring of screening. Can the minister inform the committee how many care concern allegations are currently against DCP staff or contracted paid carers?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: As of today there are 77 open serious care concerns and five of those relate to DCP staff.

Ms STINSON: This may be evident but how many care concern allegations are currently against foster and kinship carers? I am not sure if it is the remainder of that 77 or whether it is a different makeup.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It is 28 for kinship carers and 26 for foster carers.

Ms STINSON: How many staff currently have their Working With Children Check suspended? By 'staff' I mean DCP employed staff as well as contracted paid staff?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: We will need to take that one on notice.

Ms STINSON: Same budget paper reference: how many DCP staff or contracted staff have had their Working With Children Check revoked in the last financial year?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I think we will need to take that one on notice as well.

Ms STINSON: In that case can I also find out how many had their Working With Children Check revoked so far in this current financial year?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Yes.

Ms STINSON: Thank you. This may be one to be taken on notice as well: how many carers, as opposed to paid staff, have had their Working With Children Check revoked, for both this current financial year and the previous financial year?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I am not sure if our office actually maintains those figures because it would be each foster care agency that has those. If it is available we will bring it back, but I am not certain that it is.

Ms STINSON: How many workers are not working or are suspended due to a lack of a clearance?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I have some information that I can give you. As at 13 September, 98.8 per cent of DCP employees had accepted Working With Children screening clearances issued through the Department of Human Services screening unit. The remaining 1.2 per cent, which was 33 employees, had no clearance and/or their previous clearance had expired. This is a result of suspension during a disciplinary process, approved leave due to compensatable or non-compensatable injury, and/or other approved leave—for example, maternity leave—secondment to another agency for duties which do not require Working With Children clearances, and DHS screening unit processing time lines. To limit the number of employees with no valid clearance in place, the department monitors and advises staff of requirements to submit clearances.

Further, from 1 July continuous monitoring commenced so that employees are continuously monitored by the DHS screening unit. A collaborative project of continuous monitoring, phase 2, between DHS and DCP is in development. This project aims to ensure any changes to screening clearance status of the carer or a household member or someone of interest to DCP will be electronically monitored.

Automated processes are in place to mange the ongoing validity of screening assessments of individuals in the child protection system and therefore increase the safety and stability of out-of-home care placements.

Ms STINSON: And of those 33 employees who had no clearance, how many of them were at the workplace?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will have to take that on notice, because, as I listed, there were multiple reasons why they might not be there, including secondment to other areas and maternity leave. So, yes, I will take it on notice, if it is able to be broken down.

Ms STINSON: Thank you.

Mr BOYER: Minister, I refer you to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 88. Has the minister sought the indemnification of cabinet for the legal action she is bringing against the shadow minister?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I do not believe that that is a budget line. What budget line?

The CHAIR: I am looking at the budget line 88. Regarding the line and the question, as you said, if one were to assume it would be correct, then it would not be out of this budget line, anyway. It would be out of Treasury's, which of course was on Friday. You missed that opportunity. Are there any other questions? The member for Stinson—the member for Badcoe.

Ms STINSON: I am happy to be the member for Stinson!

The CHAIR: Not yet!

Mr PEDERICK: You have to die before you get that, so you are lucky.

Ms STINSON: I will try not to have that happen.

The CHAIR: Or win a VC. The member for Badcoe.

Ms STINSON: Thank you. Budget Paper 5, page 23, Budget initiatives. How much additional investment in early intervention and prevention is contained in this budget?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I am advised that the early intervention and prevention money is part of the Early Intervention Research Directorate, which currently sits with the Premier and Cabinet's budget.

Ms STINSON: No worries—sorry, that is not very formal; I mean thank you, minister. Just to confirm: there is no early intervention and prevention money that is in your budget?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: There would be some existing programs that have been ongoing, but last year it was actually the Labor government's initiative that the Early Intervention Research Directorate did an across-government study of all state government-funded early intervention and prevention programs, which included health, education, human services, child protection—all of the different areas—and assessed their validity, their cultural competency and whether they were evidence-based and getting the right outcomes. They are funded from different budget lines, but any extra funding at the moment I imagine might be through Treasury and Finance, but it is administered, at this point, through Premier and Cabinet.

Ms STINSON: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 84, Investing expenditure. Where in the budget is the construction of a new secure therapeutic care facility, and does this government intend to construct one?

The CHAIR: Member for Badcoe, you have referenced a question on a budget line, and then asked where in the budget is something so—

Ms STINSON: It is a reference of a whole page, which talks about investing expenditure.

The CHAIR: So page 84, was it?

Ms STINSON: Page 84, which covers investing expenditure.

Ms STINSON: I asked the question because I understand it was a Nyland royal commission recommendation which was supported by the minister in her position—

The CHAIR: I think that is a very broad question, and I will leave it to the—

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I am happy to answer it.

The CHAIR: If the minister is happy to answer it, she certainly may.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Yes, I am. Recommendation 152 of the Nyland royal commission states:

Develop a secure therapeutic care model, supported by legislation, to permit children to be detained in a secure therapeutic care facility but with an order of the Supreme Court required before a child is so detained. The model should include regular evaluation of outcomes for children.

The previous Labor government accepted this recommendation in principle and allocated it to phase 3 of the reform process, which is around 2022—to say how much importance they placed on it. In their budget line they allocated in the 2019-20 year $50,000 and in the 2020-21 year $150,000 for this initiative. So you can see how not very seriously this was taken by Labor.

There is only a small number of children currently in or coming into care who may benefit from a highly targeted form of therapeutic care. Developing a secure version of this care would require significant consultation and detailed planning across numerous government agencies. The key feature of secure therapeutic care, as opposed to other forms of therapeutic care, is the restriction of a child's liberty. It involves tailored, intensive therapeutic care in a confined environment for children deemed to be at risk of substantial and significant harm to themselves or others.

As outlined in 'A fresh start', a secure therapeutic model was previously recommended in 'Our best investment: a state plan to protect and advance the interests of children' report and in the Children in State Care Commission of Inquiry. However, consultation with the wider child protection sector at the time, including former guardians for children and young people, found that the model was not supported due to the controversial feature of the child's liberty being restricted.

The government recognises the need to build its capacity to provide therapeutic responses within a cohesive system of care for at-risk children. This is being driven through the reform of the out-of-home care system more broadly. Within this context, the government is committed to working with the key stakeholders and recognised experts, including SA Health and the Guardian for Children and Young People, to explore a suite of options for intensive therapeutic care models that will best support outcomes for children in care, including secure therapeutic care.

Ms STINSON: Thank you, minister. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 87, Performance indicators. Can the minister detail what advice she has had in relation to the cases raised by the Ombudsman's report this week and how she can be comfortable that the two children who are now in the care of so-called 'Peter' are safe?

Mr ELLIS: That was a question about the Ombudsman's report.

The CHAIR: The question is fine.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The Ombudsman's report, as far as I am aware, relates to the ICT programs. This is an operational matter, so I will pass to the chief executive.

Ms TAYLOR: I thank the member for the question. Obviously, we do not comment on individual cases, but given that it is in the public domain I want to flag that we are absolutely committed, not just to reporting to the Ombudsman on the two times that he has asked us to do but we have asked for regular reports so that we can continue to understand what is happening for this family.

What this case reflects for us is the much bigger reform agenda that we are undertaking, not just within the Department for Child Protection but right across the child protection system. It is certainly the case that we need to work with our partners, particularly with health, police, education and human services, to ensure that children and young people who may be at risk of harm are protected and that we are responding appropriately at all times. I think it is one of the reasons why, as the member has previously flagged, we need to ensure that we have prevention and early intervention programs being provided to families who require our support.

The CHAIR: The member for Torrens, we have two minutes.

Ms WORTLEY: I will read the omnibus questions.

1. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors with a total estimated cost above $10,000, engaged between 17 March 2018 and 30 June 2018 by all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, listing the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier, the estimated total cost of the work, the work undertaken and the method of appointment?

2. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of the forecast expenditure on consultants and contractors with a total estimated cost above $10,000 for the 2018-19 financial year to be engaged by all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, listing the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier, cost, work undertaken and method of appointment?

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

(a) How many FTEs were employed to provide communication and promotion activities in 2017-18 and what was their employment expense?

(b) How many FTEs are budgeted to provide communication and promotion activities in 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22, and what is their estimated employment expense?

(c) The total cost of government-paid advertising, including campaigns, across all mediums in 2017-18 and budgeted cost for 2018-19.

4. For each grant program or fund the minister is responsible for please provide the following information for the 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 financial years:

(a) The name of the program or fund;

(b) The purpose of the program or fund;

(c) Balance of the grant program or fund;

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

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

(f) Carryovers into or from the program or fund;

(g) Details, including the value and beneficiary, of any commitments already made to be funded from the program or fund; and

(h) Whether the grant was subject to a grant agreement as required by Treasurer's Instructions 15.

5. For the period of 17 March 2018 and 30 June 2018, 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.

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

(a) The total number of FTEs in that department or agency;

(b) The number of FTEs by division and/or business unit within the department or agency; and

(c) The number of FTEs by classification in each division and/or business unit within the department or agency.

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

(a) How much is allocated to be spent on targeted voluntary separation packages in 2018-19?

(b) How many of the TVSPs are estimated to be funded?

(c) What is the budget for TVSPs for financial years included in the forward estimates (by year), and how are these packages to be funded?

8. For each department or agency reporting to the minister in 2018-19 please provide the number of public servants broken down into headcount and FTE's that are (1) tenured and (2) on contract and, for each category, provide a breakdown of the number of (1) executives and (2) non-executives.

9. Between 30 June 2017 and 17 March 2018, will the minister list the job title and total employment cost of SA executive positions—(1) which has been abolished and (2) which has been created?

10. Between 17 March 2018 and 30 June 2018, will the minister list the job title and total employment cost of SA executive positions—(1) which has been abolished and (2) which has been created?

11. 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.

12. For each year of the forward estimates, please provide the name and budgeted expenditure across the 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 financial years for each individual investing expenditure project administered by or on behalf of all departments and agencies reporting to the minister.

13. For each department or agency reporting to the minister how many surplus employees are there at 30 June 2018 and for each surplus employee, what is the title or classification of employee and the total cost of the employee?

The CHAIR: There being no further questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the portfolio Department for Child Protection and the estimate of payments for the Department for Child Protection completed.

At 16:01 the committee adjourned to Thursday 27 September 2018 at 09:00.