Department for Child Protection, $568,780,000

Membership:

Mr Odenwalder substituted for Dr Close.

Mr Brown substituted for Ms Cook.

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 G. Ramsay, Chief Human Resource Officer, Department for Child Protection.

Mr T. Rich, Parliament and Cabinet Coordinator, Department for Child Protection.

The CHAIR: Good afternoon. The estimates committee is a relatively informal 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 to 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 is accurate?

Ms STINSON: Yes.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Yes.

The CHAIR: Thank you. Changes to 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 Clerk Assistant via the answers to questions mailbox no later than Friday 5 September 2019.

I propose to allow 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 to ask questions based on about three questions per member, alternating each side. Supplementary questions will be the exception rather than the rule.

A member not on 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 statistical and limited to one page in length.

All questions are to be directed to the minister, not the minister's advisers. 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, that is, 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 now proceed to open the following lines of examination: the Department for Child Protection. The minister appearing is the Minister for Child Protection. I declare the proposed payments open for examination and refer members to Agency Statements, Volume 1. Minister, could you please introduce your advisers opening statement, if required.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Yes, thank you. I would like to introduce, firstly, to my left, Cathy Taylor, the Chief Executive. To my right is Fiona Ward, the Deputy Chief Executive, and Jennifer Browne, the Chief Financial Officer. Behind me we have Gabriella Ramsay, the Chief Human Resource Officer. Next to her is Tom Rich, Parliament and Cabinet Coordinator.

I would like to start by extending my thanks to my department, the Department for Child Protection, and all of its hardworking staff, dedicated to keeping children safe in South Australia. I would also like to thank our invaluable partners in the community who are also working incredibly hard to care for and protect our children and young people: our carers, service providers and volunteers.

Over the last 12 months, there have been a number of highlights in the work of my department and their improved responsiveness to children and young people who require our protection to keep them safe from abuse and neglect. I am very proud to report that for the first time the Department for Child Protection has come in with a balanced budget. A greater proportion of children in out-of-home care are now finally in family-based placements.

Despite the increased volume of calls made to the call centre between 1 July and 31 May this year, 9 per cent more calls were answered when compared with the previous year. The average child abuse report line wait time has reduced to 11 minutes and 2 seconds, down from 15 minutes and 46 seconds at 30 June last year.

In July 2018, the eCARL call-back system was switched on for the first time. At 31 May 2019, 97.5 per cent of those who used the system received a call back within just two hours. My department has also improved the eCARL system, whereby an email remainder is sent after two days, and again after seven days, when a notification is drafted but not finalised and submitted. Seventy per cent of eCARLs submitted are now processed within 24 hours.

The Department for Child Protection's workforce has grown from 1,999.13 FTEs as at 30 June last year to 2,106.94 FTEs as at 31 May 2019. There has been a reduction in vacancies and an increase in the staff retention rates across the department. As the member for Narrunga will appreciate, the Kadina office has now been expanded, and DCP teams have transitioned into its new location. Deployment of mobile technology is underway, providing those employed in direct service delivery with a flexible way of working and with access from the field to information needed to make timely and informed decisions.

The average vacancy rate of social worker and case manager roles has decreased from 13.1 per cent in March 2018 to 9.4 per cent in May 2019, an improvement in the rate of vacancies of 28 per cent. We have continued to reduce the number of screened-in notifications that are closed with no action, and increase the number referred to other agencies for response. We are conducting more investigations, and I am delighted to advise that the sector is now being consulted on the in-care strategy, previously known as out-of-home-care strategy.

We have decommissioned the Queenstown 12-bed residential care facility and established a specialised residential care service for Aboriginal young people that is culturally appropriate and led by an Aboriginal organisation, reinforcing our commitment to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child placement principle. In recent weeks, I joined the chief executive to launch the DCP Aboriginal action plan.

Our election commitments that have been met include our carer payments to age 21, as reported in today's paper. We have also broadened the accepted qualifications, resulting in 32 professional officers being engaged so far. With the wonderful help of our foster care agency partners, my goal of a net 50 increase in foster carers was achieved last financial year, and I expect will continue to be achieved since the launch of the department's foster care website: www.fostercare.sa.gov.au, 'Take the quiz'.

The number and proportion of children in family-based care continues to improve, bringing us closer to the national average. While I am proud of what has been achieved in the 16 months since I became the minister, there are still many improvements to be made. I will continue to work with carers, the non-government sector, my ministerial colleagues and my department to ensure the best outcomes for children and young people who have contact with the child protection system.

Ms STINSON: Thank you very much, minister, and thank you to your officials for making themselves available today. To cite a reference: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 83, highlights. Were there any errors detected in the child protection related budget papers that were tabled to the house on budget day, or have any changes been made?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: What line specifically are you talking about?

Ms STINSON: I am talking about the entire child protection related section of the budget. To assist you, I have not detected any, but in my previous arts hearing there were a number of errors.

The CHAIR: Member for Badcoe, you do not need—

Ms STINSON: I am just trying to assist.

The CHAIR: I am the one who assists; that is my role. Your role is to ask questions.

Ms STINSON: It is not a trick question.

The CHAIR: No, no, and the minister will answer.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Thank you for that clarification, but there are none that we are aware of.

Ms STINSON: Thank you very much, I appreciate that. Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 83, highlights: how many foster carers entered the system in 2018-19?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: For the year 2018-19, to 31 May there were 134 new foster carers.

Ms STINSON: How many exited in that same period?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: There were 104.

Ms STINSON: Is that a rate above attrition of 30?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will pass that to the Chief Executive Officer, Cathy Taylor.

Ms TAYLOR: The numbers provided by the minister in terms of our foster carers are actually foster carers who have had a primary placement with them. So when we refer to the 134 entering and the 104 exiting, those are foster carers who have had a child placed with them as at 31 May.

What I thought you would be really interested to know is that, while we do not have all the details yet of registered primary carers in terms of entries and exits—because that figure will come when the data is fully cleansed, at the end of August—we know that the net gain from registered primary carers from the previous year, which was 2017-18, was 1,246, and that has grown to a total of 1,296 registered primary carers and households, regardless of a child being placed with them. That is a net gain of 50 at this time.

Ms STINSON: That is the list of registered carers as opposed to carers who are available to have a child in their home, is it not?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Cathy.

Ms TAYLOR: Again, I thank the member for the question. I am not sure what you mean by available or unavailable. We do not use that as a term. We have carers who are registered and are in a position to have a child placed with them, and then we have carers with whom a child has already been placed.

Ms STINSON: So there are some carers who have a child with them, who have been recruited in the last year—

Ms TAYLOR: Yes.

Ms STINSON: —and have a child with them, and there are some carers who are registered but, for whatever reason, do not have a child with them?

Ms TAYLOR: That is correct.

The CHAIR: Sorry, Ms Taylor, it is quite specific that all questions are to be asked and answered via the minister, and the dialogue has to be through me as the Chair. Thank you, member for Badcoe.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: So what is the question?

Ms STINSON: The CE did answer the question. I can move on, if you would like.

The CHAIR: Are you happy to repeat the question, member for Badcoe?

Ms STINSON: I have an answer to the question already. I am happy to move on, thank you.

The CHAIR: Indeed.

Ms STINSON: Minister, on what basis do you say that you have attracted 50 additional carers over attrition who are actually available to care for children? What are the figures you cite to make that statement?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: For the additional carers, the total went from 1,246 to 1,296. They are households with registered primary carers as at 30 June. My commitment was to have a net increase of 50, which we have. Whether they received the child as at 31 May or whether they have a child in their care in June or in July was irrelevant to the goal of having 50 extra foster carers, which we have achieved.

Ms STINSON: Your commitment, actually, from estimates last year was that you would have 50 extra carers above attrition and that that would result in 50 children coming out of residential or commercial care. Has that happened? Are there a subsequent 50 fewer children in residential and commercial care who have been placed with carers?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: There is actually more than 50 extra children who have gone into foster care. I will just find the figure.

Ms STINSON: I am talking about above attrition rather than raw numbers because, obviously, we know children come in and out of those forms of care.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: There were actually 89 more children in foster care over the past 11 months. There were 1,434 children in foster care as at 30 June 2018. As at 31 May, bearing in mind we have one more month to go, we have 1,523, being a total increase of 89 children who are not in any other form of care; they are in foster care.

Ms STINSON: Of those 50 additional foster carers that you claim, how many of them have children placed with them?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I do not have that data here. Of course, we have multiple foster care agencies and the information changes daily.

Ms STINSON: So you do not know how many of the 50 extra that are registered this year, above attrition, actually have children that they are caring for?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I do not have that information. We can make inquiries and bring that back to the house.

Ms STINSON: Again, why do you assert that you have achieved this target of 50 additional foster carers who have taken children from residential and commercial care if you do not know how many of them actually have children in their care?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: We have already answered that, but I think that simple maths will tell you that 1,296 minus 1,246 equals 50. There are 50 additional registered primary carers as at 31 May, so in 11 months. It could even increase—hopefully it will—as of 30 June.

Ms STINSON: I hope it does. To be clear, what I am getting at is the distinction between the number of foster carers who are registered and the number of foster carers who have a child in their care. I understand that you have said you do not have that data, but if there is anything else that you can say to enlighten me on that distinction I would be grateful.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: What I will say is that, from my questioning of the Report on Government Services for many years, the Labor government had more than double the national average of children who were not in family-based care, so a lot of work has been put into—

Ms STINSON: That is not the question.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: —getting foster carers to improve our number of children that are in family-based care. As at 30 June 2017, there were 83.1 per cent of children in family-based care. We have managed to increase that to 85.6 per cent as at 31 May 2019. I feel I have answered your questions. We have agreed to take anything else on notice, and I have nothing more to say on this topic.

Ms STINSON: I do not recall you taking anything on notice, actually. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 83. I understand that the minister wishes to reduce the number of children in commercial care, as do we all. Acknowledging that for some children commercial care is in fact the best option, does the minister have any idea of what a reasonable number of children in this form of care is?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: If you can give me the definition of what you consider to be reasonable? What would reasonable be?

Ms STINSON: Whatever you define reasonable as. I am happy to hear what your definition of it is.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The national average of children in family-based care is 93 per cent, so as a state and as a department that is what we are aiming for. We are aiming to have equivalent to the national average of 93 per cent of children who are in out-of-home-care to be in family-based care, which would leave 7 per cent in non-family-based care.

Ms STINSON: What does that translate to in terms of the numbers of children in commercial care right now? The most recent figure that is publicly available was 101 or 102. I know that you stated a different number as the current number on radio yesterday. You might need to help me on that; I think it was 93 or might it have been 96.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It was 93 on Monday.

Ms STINSON: In light of your earlier answer, what do you think is a reasonable number of children to have in commercial care?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: We are really working on out-of-home-care that is non-family-based as a whole, so residential care and commercial care. It is very easy to move things around. I know that under the Labor government, they moved a hundred very quickly from commercial care into residential care. They had terrible issues with placement breakdowns because they rushed to just get the figure down in commercial care. It has been a problem that we have now had to deal with, coming into government.

Under the Labor government, hurrying to move a child out of commercial care without stabilising their behaviours, settling them in, doing all the medical checks, seeing how they are, getting them settled, and then putting them into a placement that is working really well just because there is a space there led to many poor outcomes for the children who were already stabilised in a home. So, we are not rushing to just simply move children out of commercial care into residential care; we are looking at them as a whole and saying that all of them should be in family-based care wherever possible.

As you acknowledged, some of them are more suited to residential-based care or commercial care because they have multiple complex behaviours that mean that they probably are not suited to a family situation. As you acknowledged, there are some children for whom commercial care or residential care, where you have one-on-one care, is going to be the best outcome. Jenny Browne has been developing care packages now that are specific to the child's needs. In particular, we know that 30 per cent of children in care are eligible for the NDIS, so they do have behaviours or disabilities that make it harder to place them in a family home.

Ms STINSON: You would be aware, of course, that there was previously a stated target of 10 children in commercial care. Do you not have a target anymore?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I think as a total we definitely do want to reduce it. It is very difficult to make an exact target because we are talking about children. As I said—

Ms STINSON: That is fine; if you do not have a target, you do not have a target.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: —many mistakes can be made if you rush to meet a target. We are putting the best interests of the children ahead of targets. We absolutely are aiming to reach the national average of 93 per cent of children in family-based care and we are doing everything possible to attain that goal, but we will not be pushed into meeting a target at the cost of negative outcomes for children.

Ms STINSON: I know there was an audit of children in out-of-home care conducted last year, which we spoke about at last estimates. Did that audit determine how many children in commercial care, as opposed to residential care, do not need to be in that form of care?

Mr ELLIS: Was that audit in here?

Ms STINSON: You can make a point of order if you want, mate. I have already stated a budget line.

The CHAIR: Member for Badcoe, no-one here is called 'mate'.

Ms STINSON: Well, he is talking to me across the chamber.

The CHAIR: That is fine. Do not listen to interjections; it is disorderly.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It does not really have a budget line that I can see; however, I am advised that the information is available on our website.

The CHAIR: The member for Colton has been waiting very patiently.

Mr COWDREY: Thank you, Chair, I appreciate it. My question is also related to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 81, key agency outputs. What has the child protection department done to improve the planning for stability for children in out-of-home care?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Thank you very much for the question. One of our most significant achievements over the past year relates to children in care having case plans. Case planning is a crucial process in child-centred work. It is a place where a child's needs are recorded centrally along with decisions about contact with family, maintaining connection to culture, plans for reunification and more. The best case plans are designed openly and transparently, involving consultation with the key people involved in the child or young person's life. This can include carers, birth and extended families, educators, therapists and, most importantly, the child or young person.

The Australian Productivity Commission sought data on this in the years 2011 to 2017 under the former government, but this was never provided. The Child Protection Systems Royal Commission also sought this data during its hearings, where it was reported to Commissioner Nyland that reporting on this measure would require six days of data extraction, and the request was not pursued.

As at 30 June 2017, the number of children and young people with case plans was only 28.9 per cent. Curiously, the data was not released at that time, yet it was available. Last year, I supported the decision to release the data to the Australian Productivity Commission for the first time. The 2019 RoGS reported that 53.4 per cent of children and young people had a case plan in South Australia as at 30 June 2018. This result was well below the national average of 83.8 per cent.

At my urging to make this a priority, I am pleased to report that, as at 30 June 2019, 88.9 per cent of children and young people in care have a completed case plan. Importantly, case planning is now embedded within its performance reporting structures and will remain a focus of my department.

Ms STINSON: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 85. It is projected that 193 additional children will come into care this financial year, that is, children under the age of 18. Do you agree that that is an accurate projection?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will hand over to the chief financial officer.

Ms BROWNE: From the budget modelling perspective, we work very closely with the Department of Treasury and Finance. The number of young people coming into care is not an easy number to predict, both in volume and care type. Care type will depend on the needs of the young people at the time coming into care. The increase that is in the budget papers as an opening budget number is a 5 per cent increase. We will work with Treasury and Finance over the year and revise that number as necessary, based on the needs and the profile of the young people coming into care.

Ms STINSON: Through the minister, is that a conservative estimate to look at a 5 per cent increase considering, minister, you said yourself that it has been an average of 8 per cent over previous years?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will give that to Jenny as well to explain how that has worked over the years. You will see it has been quite inaccurate for a very long time.

Ms BROWNE: The practice of having a conservative estimate in the initial opening budget is a consistent practice that has always been the case for this portfolio. The numbers are revised as necessary because the numbers can be quite different from year to year. There have been some years where there has been no increase and then there are other years where there has been a 9 per cent increase, so a 5 per cent starting point is a reasonable position. We will continue to monitor that number and work with Treasury and Finance on revisions as necessary, as we have done in previous years.

Ms STINSON: Through the minister, you described it as an opening budget, so do you expect that that number is likely to change and be reviewed in the Mid-Year Budget Review?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The chief executive would like to say something.

Ms TAYLOR: As our chief financial officer said, this is the first year where we have had the prediction of 5 per cent. Every year prior to that for this portfolio it has been estimated at 3 per cent. I think we talked about this this time last year. There are a number of factors that will impact placement growth. Obviously, that is not just about the numbers of children and young people coming into care, it is also about the rate of reunification from care and the age of population in care.

We are also hoping that things such as family group conferencing, which has been announced as a budget initiative to commence in January of next year, will also impact on the rates. As a result, as the chief financial officer said, we work really closely with our colleagues in Treasury and Finance to provide best estimates of what the rate of growth should look like.

In addition to that, we are also working on some critical outcomes that were outlined by Justice Nyland in her seminal report. Probably the most important one of those is the establishment of the Early Intervention Research Directorate, which is now housed in the Department of Human Services, and their predictions about what is needed.

What I am delighted to say is that we are very hopeful that the new service established in the north will actually direct more than 40 families per annum away from the out-of-home care, so I absolutely can understand the question about: does it look like a fair and accurate record? Yes, based on our experience, this is a very good starting point. We believe it reflects our best advice from a practice, policy, research and outcome for children and young people. As I said, we will continue to revisit that, but I think it is a very good starting point.

Ms STINSON: Same budget reference: minister, are you aiming for a lower projection at all? If so, what is that target figure?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I am happy with the 5 per cent growth that has been included in this year's budget. As I have stated on the record, my goal is to reduce the number of children coming into care and, as I have also said many times, on coming into government we have actually made improvements to the system. We have answered more calls more quickly, we have had more investigations, we have had less 'closed no action' cases, so we are actually clearing a backlog of children who were being left in danger due to a lack of resourcing.

In the beginning, you are going to have potentially more children coming in than you had before because you have a backlog that you are clearing. We also have the time delay of making sure that our programs and our money is invested wisely. Through the Early Intervention Research Directorate, they found that a lot of the programs that had previously been funded were not getting the outcomes that they wanted and they were not evidence based. It is only now that the early intervention, the family support services, are starting in the north.

We have also announced a program that will start in the west, and in this year's budget there has been $1.6 million allocated to family group conferencing. It is those initiatives that can stem the flow coming in. Of course, the numbers will also be expanded because we have children now over 18 who will be staying in care until 21, so the figures may increase, in fact, overall. However, it is the early intervention and prevention that will affect numbers coming in.

Ms STINSON: How confident are you that your budget will be met, considering that you cannot be sure of the numbers of children coming in or whether the estimate of 193 additional children is accurate?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Do you mean the budget for the number of children or the whole budget, the half a billion?

Ms STINSON: Are you confident that you will meet your overall budget this year?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The financial figure for the total budget of my department?

Ms STINSON: Yes.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Well, we met it for the first time last year. It is the first time that any of the people working with me have ever seen that happen. I do not believe it ever happened under Labor, so I am quite confident in the financial capabilities of our chief financial officer and the team, and I would be very hopeful that we would meet our budget. Of course, any overruns were due to an increase in children, and you are not going to just not fund a placement for a child.

Ms STINSON: To be fair, though, you did not actually meet the budget for last year; you met it once, you revised it in the Mid-Year Budget Review. I am asking if, on these numbers that are in your budget at the moment, you are confident that you will meet your budget?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will defer that one to our chief financial officer. She can explain.

Ms BROWNE: So, again, as we spoke of earlier, the ability to predict the number of children coming into care and the individual care needs is not an easy number to predict. It changes from year to year. So, depending on the care needs of the young people coming into care, it could influence the financial outcome. The budget that we have at the moment is a reasonable starting position based on historical spend patterns but, again, the unpredictability of kids coming into care is the main driver of any change in performance.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will get Cathy Taylor to add to that. She has something more to say.

Ms TAYLOR: Thank you for that. The other thing that I would add—and I think we have outlined this each year as we have come before the house and the committee—is that we now have a much better understanding of what is driving our costs. We understand what is contributing and, quite rightly, as the chief financial officer said, it is driven not just by the numbers but also the care types.

What we have also tried to spend quite a bit of time doing is not just focusing on dollars but on understanding how we respond to the clinical needs of children and young people because we always have to balance that, and quite rightly. As the minister continues to talk to us about, we must put the safety and wellbeing of children as the paramount consideration for us. Yes, we think the budget is a good, fair and equitable budget and we are certainly committed to delivering on same, and we will always focus on the clinical outcomes for children and young people.

As I said, I think the work over the last couple of years was really to understand it. If I just for a moment focus on the work we have done in partnership with the sector, moving from block funding, where we might have only seen utilisation rates in our residential care services of 70 per cent, to more of a fee for service, what we are actually getting is better outcomes and, more importantly, more children are getting better responses and better services. I think it comes back to: how do we provide a fair, just and equitable response to all children and young people in out-of-home care in South Australia?

Ms STINSON: Budget Paper 5, page 19, talks about the additional resources or blowout of $26.9 million. Could you provide a breakdown as to what that is being spent on? Is it all for residential care or are there other forms of care that that money is being spent on?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Is that the top line, the operating expenses, the 18,478?

Ms STINSON: Yes. There is $18.5 million this year, $5.9 million next year and $2.6 million in 2021-22. I am asking if that will all be spent on residential care or is there something else that that money is going to?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Do you want to ask another question while we look for that answer or are you happy to wait? Cathy Taylor will start the answer while we get some more figures.

Ms STINSON: I am happy for you to take it on notice if you do not know the answer.

Ms TAYLOR: I am certainly happy to kick it off. Can I just confirm the question?

Ms STINSON: You have a figure in there of $26.9 million, which is called additional resources, and there is an explanatory note that says that this includes residential care and is due to the blowout in the number of children coming into care. My question is: is that $26.9 million all to be spent on residential care or does it cover other forms of care or other expenses in the department?

Ms TAYLOR: Thank you for repeating the question. I am delighted to advise that it is in fact to respond to more than just residential care. It provides for growth in both family-based care and also a smaller level of growth in non-family-based care. In particular, it also picks up issues such as the full year effect of the election commitment for extending foster care payments to 21. So I think it is the growth of family-based care. I understand the number is 160 and the growth in non-family-based care is 33, so significantly it is about the growth in family-based care, reflecting our commitment to that form of care and wanting to meet the national average of 93 per cent.

Ms STINSON: Is there a split, a dollar figure, for how much of that $26.9 million is going to family-based care and how much is going to non-family-based care? I am happy for you to take that on notice.

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

Ms STINSON: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 81 has the section on reconciliations to agency, and I know the minister spoke about early intervention and prevention earlier. Why has the area of early intervention and prevention for child protection been moved to the Department of Human Services?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: That was part of a whole-of-government change, machinery of government. From all the briefings that I attended from the Early Intervention Research Directorate as a result of the Nyland royal commission, what they did was research all of the early intervention and prevention programs that were across state government to look at those that were being effective and those that had outcomes. They found that, in fact, alarmingly, the government would have been better off spending nothing and leaving children where they were than spending hundreds of millions of dollars and getting very poor outcomes for children.

So it was determined that all of those programs should be brought together into a specialised unit as part of the human services department. Originally, the former government put that in Premier and Cabinet and then, under the new government, we put that into Human Services as of 1 July this year. There were programs that were in Education, some that were in Health, some that were in the Department for Child Protection. They have all been amalgamated so that we can have a united and across government approach to early intervention and prevention.

Ms STINSON: How is that consistent with the government's promise to have one minister who is responsible for child protection?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Child protection is further on. There is early intervention and prevention and then there is the statutory protection of children, which is after a court order has been made, after the investigation. We are responsible for taking the calls, making the investigations, presenting a case to the courts. The courts determine what type of order the child should be on.

It is very consistent with the Premier's approach that we should have a whole-of-government approach to everything. Every two weeks, we have a Social Affairs Cabinet Committee meeting attended by the Department of Human Services minister, me, the health and wellbeing minister, and anybody from the social services area. We meet to discuss cross government policies that will help the whole of our community. Rather than the silo approach that governments have been known for, the new approach under the Marshall Liberal government is that we must work together for the best outcomes of everyone, and this was determined.

I certainly have a lot of say regarding all of the programs that go through the Department of Human Services relating to children or early intervention. We discuss that as a group. We are a cabinet-run government, so we make decisions in the best interests of the entire state.

Ms STINSON: Do you see early intervention and prevention as a key part of child protection and, indeed, a lever of child protection?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I might defer to the chief executive who is the chair of the committee that looks into all of the early intervention and prevention.

Ms TAYLOR: I thank the member for the question. It is absolutely the case that early intervention will have a number of critical levers to influence both the incidence of abuse and neglect and also the need for out-of-home care. It is one of the reasons that we work so closely together. If I liken it to the health system—and I think this is one that is probably well understood by a lot of people—at the same time that we are looking at receiving calls and undertaking investigations, it is very similar to the way in which people access the health system, often through an accident and emergency department.

The role that public health plays, and in our case early intervention plays, is actually about what actions, supports, processes can play out that will actually reduce the demand for statutory intervention, for having to remove a child from their family. In the same way that we know that we want to reduce the incidence of heart disease and we pay attention to blood pressure and all of that, it is the same way in which we want to actually work with those who are more likely to come to our attention. This is the critical role that early intervention plays.

I think the other thing is it has been really important for us to partner with both the Australian Centre for Child Protection and the University of Adelaide and the work led by Professor John Lynch and Dr Rhiannon Pilkington. Initially, at the time of the Nyland report, the view was that something like one in four children were coming to the attention of the Department for Child Protection. We now believe something like one in three children are being notified to the department. I guess the really important question that we need to focus upon is, in the short term, we cannot leave children unsafe, but if we invest in those early intervention programs, the right programs, it is absolutely one of the most powerful levers to actually ensure that families are not coming to the attention of the Department for Child Protection.

Ms STINSON: Minister, do you take the view that it is a whole-of-government responsibility and all ministers are responsible for child protection, or do you take the view that the buck stops with you, and you are the minister who looks after all aspects and all responsibility for child protection?

Mr COWDREY: Is there a budget reference to that question?

Ms STINSON: There certainly is. It is Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 81, reconciliation to agency, which goes to the question of early intervention and prevention being moved from one agency to the other.

Mr Brown interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order, Member for Playford!

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I think there is a dual answer to that. I am the Minister for Child Protection. I absolutely take responsibility for the department and all of the decisions that are made. However, we are part of our clearly cabinet-run government. The Premier, Steven Marshall, has made that very clear. There are to be no silos. We work across government. We work collaboratively. We share information where it is in the best interests of the child to get good outcomes.

Whilst I have a very keen interest in prevention and early intervention, as I do regarding the three major reasons that children are removed, which are domestic violence, mental health and drug and alcohol abuse, they are not my responsibilities, but they are incredibly important to fixing the entire system. They require a whole-of-government approach. So it is both.

Ms STINSON: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 10: can you provide a breakdown of the 115 FTE roles to be axed in 2019-20? I am aware there have been public statements that that includes the 59 financial counsellors and 31 redundancies from the April round, but I wondered if you could fill us in on what the remaining positions are?

Mr ELLIS: What page?

Ms STINSON: I did give a budget paper reference.

The CHAIR: No, it is for my benefit.

Ms STINSON: It is Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 80, which is the workforce summary.

The CHAIR: I do not believe you said that the first time, member for Badcoe.

Ms STINSON: I did, sir, but I am happy to pay special attention to it.

The CHAIR: I do not believe you did. That is fine. I was just asking for my own benefit.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Overall, there are 115.5 Department for Child Protection FTEs affected in the 2019-budget. This FTE reduction will be managed through natural attrition and targeted voluntary separation packages. This includes a cessation of the 59 FTEs for financial wellbeing counsellors that was announced through the previous budget. In the 2018-19 year, an additional 27 TVSPs were accepted by financial counsellors, and 34 non-front-line staff also accepted TVSPs, being a total of 61.

As part of the delivery of the Nyland recommendations, DCP was given a number of time-limited FTE positions. Of these, a small number of project roles did not continue past 30 June 2019. Our child protection investigations and guardianship case management capacity will not be impacted by these changes.

Following the 2018-19 budget, DCP announced the discontinuation of the financial wellbeing program as at 30 June 2019, and that DCP clients in need of financial counselling would be referred to the Department of Human Services statewide financial counselling program or programs offered by NGOs. The new approach is expected to be more effective and efficient, and the 59 relevant staff have either received TVSPs, being 27, transitioned to other roles within the Department for Child Protection, being 30, or transferred to other departments, being two.

It is worth noting that, since the creation of DCP as a standalone department in 2016, more than 400 FTEs have been recruited. The initial departmental focus was on governance as required to establish and position a new department. However, the focus in 2018-19 was on efficiency and direct child-focused service delivery. The mechanisms to meet the efficiency measures are entirely consistent with the core function of my department.

The approach I have just outlined in no way impacts on the direct service delivery of services, ensuring my department continues to provide statutory child protection services. The focus of my department is and will remain on the safety of at-risk children and young people and the care and protection of those who need to enter the out-of-home-care system.

Ms STINSON: Of the roles that were appointed in response to the Nyland royal commission, which expired on 30 June this year, how many were converted from—

The CHAIR: Member for Badcoe, can you refer me to a budget line item?

Ms STINSON: The same one, sir.

The CHAIR: Which is?

Ms STINSON: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 80, workforce summary. It is also a question following on from the minister's answer. I will start again. Of the positions that finished on 30 June 2019, which were initially hired in response to the Nyland royal commission, how many of those roles have been converted from contract to permanent ongoing roles, how many were given short-term contract extensions and how many were not reappointed? Basically, what happened to those Nyland positions that finished on 30 June? Again, I am happy for you to take it on notice.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Jenny, our financial officer, has the breakdown available.

Ms BROWNE: There were 39 positions made permanent ongoing.

Ms STINSON: I also asked how many were given short-term contract extensions. I understand a number were given 12-month contracts.

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

Ms STINSON: If you are taking it on notice—-it is not a new question—I would just like to clarify that the other aspect of the original question was how many were not reappointed. I am happy for you to take that on notice as well, thank you.

Mr ELLIS: My question relates to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 83, under highlights, the second dot point from the bottom. How is the department better supporting children in care with disabilities?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I thank the member for his question. My department is leading the national work for children in care with disabilities, and is represented by the deputy chief executive officer, who chairs the national working group focusing on the interface between child protection and disability. In July 2018 my department strengthened its capacity to best respond to the needs of children and young people in care when we recruited a specialist team to staff a DCP disability program, increasing it from the then two disability-specific positions to 11.3 FTEs.

Since the commencement of the disability program, staff across the department have been able to readily access expert advice and assistance from the disability specialists, and that is regarding how to access the National Disability Insurance Scheme for those children and young people with a disability in care, how to ensure that existing NDIS plans are current, appropriate and meet the specific needs of the child, and how to identify and engage with registered NDIS service providers.

The program is also able to provide advice on the roles and responsibilities of both the department and the NDIS to ensure that together the two agencies work in a way that effectively meets the needs of the child or young person. There were a total of 635 children and young people in care with an improved NDIS plan as at 30 June 2019.

A further group are currently undergoing the NDIS planning process. The ability of my department to effectively navigate and engage with the NDIS system provides direct results for those children on a plan who benefit from being able to access funded supports and services. Crucially, many children and young people in care with disabilities are in family-based care and, while my department retains responsibility for the oversight of the NDIS plans, we work in partnership with the carers, acknowledging that often they are best placed to provide information about the child's specific needs.

Through the NDIS, the costs of specialised disability support needs for children and young people in care in South Australia are appropriately being met by the National Disability Insurance Agency. Without such effective engagement and advocacy by my department, the needs of children and young people in care with a disability would not have been effectively addressed. The Children and Young People (Safety) Act does not allow for a statutory child protection response solely on the basis of a disability or lack of disability supports; however, when a child protection notification is received and an assessment shows no risk of harm, but of need for access or increased access to disability supports, my department is also able to escalate those cases with the NDIS.

In particular, last financial year there were 11 children and young people who, without the support of my department and the assistance of the relationship between my department and the NDIA, could have potentially entered the out-of-home care system. Their families, without further disability supports, would not have been able to appropriately care for them.

In addition to accessing supports and services, staff from the disability program have been involved in improving and the commissioning of out-of-home care services, and are able to effectively respond to the needs of children and young people in care with a disability. This has resulted in being able to support increased stability for children in care with a disability through specialist, multidisciplinary assessment and intervention.

Ms STINSON: I can give you a budget paper reference or it is a supplementary to the one that was just asked: Budget Paper 4—

The CHAIR: Supplementary questions are at my discretion—

Ms STINSON: Fair enough. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 83, the sixth bullet point about the NDIS. How many children have been identified as potentially eligible for an NDIS plan but do not have a plan yet?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: As mentioned in my previous answer, there are 635 children currently with a plan. Any other children who have been identified as needing a plan are currently undergoing the planning process.

With children coming into care, obviously there are more children who come into care, so that will be assessed in a timely manner. Also, needs change as children hit different ages or things can trigger different needs. That is also why we do a yearly assessment on the financial needs of children because the needs that they have in one year can change. As they grow older it could become less or it could become more complex.

Ms STINSON: Is the department aware of any children who are potentially eligible for an NDIS plan who do not currently have an NDIS plan?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: As I said, some are in the planning process so, yes, there would be some who do not.

Ms STINSON: How many are in the planning process is what I am asking, or how many are yet to enter the planning process?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: We do not have the numbers because that changes daily. I will pass that over to our deputy CE.

Ms WARD: I am constantly seeing children coming in and out of care daily. So there will be children that will—

Ms STINSON: Sorry, I am just struggling to hear you. It is probably because the mic only just went on.

Ms WARD: Sorry. The number changes daily in terms of the planning process because there are children who are reunified. So they might be on our books one day but they are not on another day. I could not give you an accurate number because it changes daily, but we could give you a rough number at a point in time on notice, but I could not give you that today.

Ms STINSON: Yes, that is fine. I am happy for it to be taken on notice and, if we want to pick 30 June 2019, that would be good.

Ms WARD: Yes, absolutely, but what I would just say—

The CHAIR: All answers through the minister—

Ms STINSON: Sorry, through the minister.

The CHAIR: —and questions through the minister.

Ms WARD: Sorry. If I could respond.

The CHAIR: Yes.

Ms WARD: What I would say, though, is that we do, as the minister has mentioned, have disability specialists work in all of our regions who are constantly working with case managers to identify children who might benefit or be eligible from a disability planning process and a disability plan.

Ms STINSON: Just to formalise that through you, minister, could you take on notice the number of children who are potentially eligible for an NDIS plan but do not have one as of 30 June 2019?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Yes, we will take that on notice.

Ms STINSON: Can the department say how many carers are able to negotiate the NDIS plans directly with the NDIS?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will pass that over to our chief executive officer.

Ms TAYLOR: Thank you very much for the question. That is actually quite a good question in that it really depends upon the nature of the guardianship. Where there are carers who are now the long-term guardian, obviously they, quite properly, would be able to negotiate with the NDIS. Where I am the guardian, obviously we will be working hand in glove with our carers and the foster care agencies, if they are supported by such an agency, with the NDIS. One of the benefits of our involvement alongside of carers is that we now have an escalation process that has been developed that enables us to deal with matters in a much more timely way than has been the case previously.

Ms STINSON: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 80, workforce summary: was the efficiency measure last year of axing two FTEs achieved and, if so, what were those two positions?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Cathy Taylor will answer the question.

Ms TAYLOR: Thank you very much for the question. They were two executive positions that were ended during that period.

Ms STINSON: Could you tell me what part of the department they were in?

Ms TAYLOR: Certainly. They were the director of legislation and reform, which was a time-limited executive position, and the director of statewide services.

Ms STINSON: What is the current overall staffing shortfall in DCP? How many vacancies are there?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The chief executive will answer that question.

Ms TAYLOR: Obviously, in terms of going forward, the one that I particularly want to focus on in terms of vacancies at this point in time is: what is happening for our social workers and our case management positions? The last time that we ran data we had approximately 45 vacancies. Now, they were not all substantive vacancies. Of those, approximately 25 were substantive vacancies.

I am happy to break that down further because, like you, I want to know what is happening. Of those 25 substantive vacancies, 16 were approximately located in the country. Probably for anyone who comes from the country you will understand that this has been an ongoing challenge for the Department for Child Protection, which is one of the reasons why we were really supportive of expanding qualifications. Of those 16, interestingly, quite a number were for our Port Augusta office.

Once you take out the 25 that are substantive vacancies, the other 20 were timing vacancies. It may be that someone had gone on maternity leave and we were not paying for them at that time. We keep a very close eye on what is happening in our vacancies, particularly for our social workers and case managers, because that is really who we are: we are first and foremost a service delivery agency.

We also then spend time looking at what is happening in terms of our operational staff across residential care and our administrative staff, because they all play a critical role. The last data that we would have seen saw us constantly revisiting what are substantive vacancies and what are time-limited or timing vacancies. As I said, the ones that are really our largest contributors would be what it takes to recruit social workers and case managers to country areas in South Australia.

Ms STINSON: Thank you. I realise you might need to take this on notice, but is it possible to get a breakdown of the role titles for the vacant positions? I understand that would be a point-in-time matter, so I am happy to nominate 30 June 2019, if that data could be provided.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: We will take that on notice and get back to you.

Ms STINSON: Just to assist, hopefully, what I am after is an idea of the types of roles and the seniority of those roles that are vacant. I do not know how you put together your figures, but if that could be reflected, that is the kind of information I am after.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: We can do it by classification.

Ms STINSON: Thank you very much. Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 82, investments: is the minister still looking at constructing a new secure therapeutic care facility?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Just to correct the member, the budget line there states 'residential care facilities'; the term 'secure' is not listed at all. This budget line actually refers to Davoren Park. On coming into government, there are four titles that the Department for Child Protection owns. The intent of the previous government was to build four properties in a row of three bedrooms, basically equating to a 12-bed facility.

We know that, for many years, the Guardian for Children and Young People and all of the research showed that that is not a suitable type of housing for young people, so I indicated that that was not appropriate and I was not happy for that to proceed. We are now looking at just building one home; in fact, it is being designed currently and we are hoping to design an amazing type of facility for children that will be therapeutic and to the best standards of architecture. I might get Cathy Taylor to expand, because it is quite exciting what we are doing with that.

Ms TAYLOR: One of the things that we have taken the opportunity to do in the design of Davoren Park is obviously work with what is going to meet children's needs as well as staff needs. We have actually recently engaged an architect who has expertise, having worked previously with a number of different agencies, that will actually ensure this is the most appropriate environment.

One of our challenges when children are housed in residential care is: how do we provide both a home-like environment and a safe environment? Recently, we undertook consultations with young people. As you can imagine, they all loved the design of it. Probably the only thing on their wish list that we had not accommodated for was access to bathrooms for all of them, but we are going to revisit how we make that work in a way that both meets their needs but also is a fair, just and reasonable expenditure of government funds.

The other thing that we are taking into account in the design is not just the physical design of the house but also the surroundings. What would it be that actually keeps young people engaged after hours and on weekends and how do we really start to reflect a much more home-like environment? We think this is exciting; it is some of the first design-led thinking we have done around new builds that do not have the old feel of the large units.

Ms STINSON: In last year's budget that project was due for completion in June 2019. The current budget papers say it is now June 2020. What is the reason for the blowout in the delivery date?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Because of the change of design and purpose this is a completely different idea that we are working on: the one home as opposed to what would have been a 12-bed facility.

Mr McBRIDE: My question involves Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 81, program net cost of services summary. My question is: on 18 June you advised the house that the pool of money had been doubled for exceptional needs funding already and that we would have to wait for the budget to be handed down that afternoon for any further news. What came out of the budget?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Thank you for your question. As at 31 May 2019, my department had over 3,300 children placed in family-based care. My department has responsibility to ensure the fair and accountable expenditure of public moneys generally but, where Exceptional Resource Funding is concerned, my department is determined to be particularly fair and just to all.

Exceptional circumstances arise where carers may require an additional financial support to meet the particular care needs of an individual child or young person. When this occurs, and in the absence of alternative avenues of support, my department will always consider whether additional funding support can be delivered via the Exceptional Resource Funding procedures.

Let me clarify: since the Liberal government was elected there have been no cuts to Exceptional Resource Funding in my department. This has not been the subject of any savings measures. Since forming government, the Exceptional Resource Funding has more than doubled. In this budget alone there is a further increase of $600,000 for the coming financial year, bringing it to a total of $2.6 million for this year, as opposed to the $1 million that it was under the previous government.

All decisions made to allocate Exceptional Resource Funding take into account and balance the following: (1) the needs of the individual children and carers, (2) the needs of all children and carers, and (3) the need for the public to have confidence that government spending is transparent and equitable. Late last year the policy was reviewed. This week, the new guidelines were released to all department staff.

The new approach maintains the current funding limit of $20,000 per request, will not exclude any particular type of expenditure and will focus decision-making on the individual circumstances of the child or the young person. I am advised that the vast majority of requests for exceptional funds received from carers are well under the $20,000 limit and will continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis. As the Minister for Child Protection, I am committed to maintaining strong relationships with those who open their hearts and homes to our most vulnerable children and young people.

Ms STINSON: Supplementary.

The CHAIR: No. Perhaps a new question.

Ms STINSON: Sure. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 83, Program 1: Care and Protection. Following on from what you were just saying, how many requests are currently pending for exceptional circumstances funding?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Cathy Taylor will take that question.

Ms TAYLOR: Thank you very much for the question. As you would appreciate, with the policy and the delegations, a lot of those decisions are actually being made as close to the child and the business as possible, so I could not provide you with an answer without getting my staff to spend a lot of time reporting up on a daily basis about which ones they are considering or not considering. So at this point in time I would not be able to provide you with that answer.

Ms STINSON: Would you be able to take it on notice? I am happy to nominate a date; I realise that the number fluctuates.

The CHAIR: I think you mean would the minister be able to.

Ms STINSON: I mean through the minister.

The CHAIR: Ms Taylor, please.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will direct that to Cathy Taylor again.

Ms TAYLOR: What we are talking about is a manual count and a very intensive exercise asking our staff to direct their energies away from investigating and responding to children and young people to answer a question about how many requests they have either received, are receiving, or are processing. I would certainly recommend against our directing our staff to answering that question.

Ms STINSON: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 85: what is the current number of children in state care? I realise that the May DCP statistics have been released and I have those. Is there a more current number of the total number of children in state care?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will ask Fiona Ward to answer that question.

Ms WARD: The May data online is data that we are confident about as a point-in-time data. I do not have the end of June point-in-time data at this point in time. As you know, the data is cleansed and refreshed, particularly before August at the end of the financial year, so the most accurate information we will have will not probably be until about September. That is not to say we do not have a point-in-time data; it is just that it continues to be improved upon.

Ms STINSON: Through the minister, the budget papers have an estimate of 3,862. Can that number be relied upon or not? That was a 30 June figure.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: For this year?

Ms STINSON: For this year.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: That is an average figure for the entire year rather than a point-in-time figure.

Ms STINSON: Thank you very much. Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 83: what is your target for long-term guardianship placements this year and over the coming three years?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: We will get some information; however, I do not have a specific target; I am just focusing on the best interests of the child and what is the best outcome for that child. For children in family-based care, in many situations, long-term guardianship is something that they aspire to, and we have had many people who are very keen to enter that process. But it is not for everyone so I have not set a target, so to speak, but I will pass over to Cathy Taylor to expand on my answer.

Ms TAYLOR: I thank the member for the question. The decision to apply for a long-term guardianship order is obviously made in consultation with the carer, and also the child or young person, but it is actually, ultimately a decision for the courts. As the minister said, for us the really big issue is: what is in the best interests of children? What I can confirm is that there were 18 orders granted in 2016-17, there were 45 orders granted in 2017-18, and there were 46 orders granted involving 46 children in 2018-19.

There are also a number that are already going through the processes in terms of preparing for court because we do believe that achieving permanency and stability for children and young people is important. But rather than setting a goal, we are looking at the national averages in terms of how we are comparing and contrasting. At the moment, we are at the lower end in terms of those for whom we are pursuing long-term guardianship applications. So, rather than setting a target of an individual number, what I would like to see us do is continue to work toward the national average, noting, however, that it will depend upon individual circumstances.

The other thing that I should mention is new provisions were made in the legislation that commenced on 22 October last year. I think it is really important that we emphasise that the courts are continuing to grant guardianship orders to other persons, and we continue to support that because we know that for a lot of children and young people they see their carers as mum and dad, and they see that as their forever home.

Ms STINSON: Thank you. Through the minister, do you expect the number to increase this year and over the next three years?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: We would like it to increase; however, as I said, it is up to the individual circumstance. I believe that it is in the best interests of most children to have a forever family. That is what they are looking for, and that is why I am always constantly saying, 'Ring 1300TOFOSTER.' We are looking for families for these children. It is very sad having any child in residential care who could be with a family. Not all of them are suitable to go to a family, but for those who are, which we know from the initial audit, around 47 per cent of the children in residential care were only there because of a lack of placements in family-based care.

Ms STINSON: I realise you might have to take this on notice but can you tell me how many applications are pending for long-term guardianship?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Yes, we can actually. As at 30 June 2019, there were three children or two households that were at court, and 37 children representing 18 households that were preparing for court, and a further 15 household assessments totalling 18 children who were being assessed.

Ms STINSON: Thank you very much. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 83, activity indicators. Have you addressed the backlog of outstanding investigations? How far through the task are you and when do you expect to have that completed or under control?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Sorry, was that page 83?

Ms STINSON: Yes, Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 83, activity indicators. There is an activity indicator there for investigations.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I can see highlights, targets, program description, expenses—unless I am on the wrong page.

Ms STINSON: I am sorry about that, it is page 84, under performance indicators.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The third point, children in out-of-home care?

Ms STINSON: There are several there to do with investigations. My question is about the backlog of outstanding investigations, how far through that task you are and when you expect to have it completed or under control.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I am not sure what you mean by backlog of outstanding investigations because they are at a point in time. As you can see on here, 80.5 per cent of investigations have been commenced within seven days. Are you asking for the balance of that?

Ms STINSON: I am actually just trying to find the transcript from yesterday. Maybe the minister has a better recollection than me. You were on FIVEaa yesterday and you were talking about how you were working through the backlog of investigations and that you were making some progress on that.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: That is not really a budget line, however—

Ms STINSON: I am just giving you the context of why I asked the question, and that budget line refers to investigations.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It is not really in the budget anywhere that I could find, but what I was referring to was that, for example, in the case of Chloe Valentine there were many notifications, not many investigations. I do not know if there were any actually, from memory. There were notifications that continually were closed with no action, and on the file was written 'due to a lack of resources'. Under the Labor government that occurred in the Hillier instance, in the Chloe Valentine case, in the baby Ebony death, in the Jarrad Delroy Roberts death. That was a consistent theme of the former government.

What I was saying yesterday was that we are answering more calls, more often, doing more investigations and reducing the numbers of 'closed, no actions'. We are finding the Chloe Valentines that were in the system under Labor and we are investigating them and hopefully either putting the supports in or removing a child rather than leaving them there. So it will not affect a budget line that I could point to.

Ms STINSON: I certainly have more questions but I understand my colleague wants to ask a few, so thank you very much.

Mr BROWN: The omnibus questions are:

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

What is the actual FTE count at 30 June 2019 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?

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

2. Between 1 July 2018 and 30 June 2019, 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 either (1) been abolished and (2) which has been created.

3. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors above $10,000 between 1 July 2018 and 30 June 2019 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?

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

How many FTEs were employed to provide communication and promotion activities in 2018-19 and what was their employment expense?

How many FTEs are budgeted to provide communication and promotion activities in 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 and what is their estimated employment expense?

The total cost of government-paid advertising, including campaigns, across all mediums in 2018-19 and budgeted cost for 2019-20.

5. 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 contracts between 1 July 2018 and 30 June 2019.

6. What is the title and total employment cost of each individual staff member in the minister's office as at 30 June 2019, including all departmental employees seconded to ministerial offices?

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

(a) How much was spent on targeted voluntary separation packages in 2018-19?

(b) What department funded these TVSPs? (except for DTF Estimates)

(c) What number of TVSPs were funded?

(d) 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?

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

8. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many executive terminations have occurred since 1 July 2018 and what is the value of executive termination payments made?

9. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what new executive appointments have been made since 1 July 2018, and what is the annual salary, and total employment cost for each position?

10. 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?

11. In the 2018-19 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 2019-20?

12. In the 2018-19 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 2019-20? How was much sought and how much was approved?

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

(a) 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; and

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

14. For the period of 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019, 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.

15. For each year of the forward estimates, please provide the name and budgeted expenditure across the 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 financial years for each individual investing expenditure project administered by or on behalf of all departments and agencies reporting to the minister.

16. 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.

17. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what is the total cost of machinery of government changes since 1 July 2018 and please provide a breakdown of those costs?

18. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what new sections of your department or agency have been established since 1 July 2018 and what is their purpose?

19. 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?

What is the estimated FTE impact of these measures?

The CHAIR: Member for Badcoe, do you have a final question?

Ms STINSON: I do have a final question. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIR: Time allows.

Ms STINSON: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 83, out-of-home care: when will the out-of-home care strategy be released, and what is holding it up?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will hand over to the chief executive.

Ms TAYLOR: I am delighted to say that we have actually already commenced consultation only last Friday. For example, we went and consulted with CAFFSA, our peak sector partner, around the strategy. We have also renamed it, based on some really good advice about the use of the language of 'out-of-home care'. While it means something to us, most children and young people said to us, 'We're in a home,' so we are calling it the In Home strategy.

In addition to the consultation that happened with CAFFSA last Friday, we have a plan to actually consult with a number of agencies again that we have already consulted with previously. I would like to think that we would be in a position to provide the final version of the strategy in the coming weeks and months but, really importantly, this has been an ongoing process. A number of parties have seen it.

We have tried to refine a couple of areas, but I think people will say it rings true for the areas of focus—the focus on family-based care, the focus on 'How do we grow that?' and 'How do we prioritise that for our children and young people?' and 'How do we ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are responded to?' I think I am getting the nod from the Chair to say time is up.

The CHAIR: Yes, we are well and truly over time.

Ms STINSON: Thank you very much; I appreciate it.

The CHAIR: There being no further questions, I declare the examination of 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 Friday 26 July 2019 at 09:00.