Department for Child Protection, $606,093,000

Membership:

Mr Gee substituted for Ms Wortley.

Minister:

Hon. R. Sanderson, Minister for Child Protection.

Departmental Advisers:

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

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

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

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

The CHAIR: Welcome back to Estimates Committee B. We continue today with our final session from 5.45 to 7.15 this evening. The portfolio for examination this afternoon is the Department for Child Protection; the minister appearing is the Minister for Child Protection. The estimate of payments are in relation to the Department for Child Protection, they being in the order of $606,093,000. I declare the proposed payments open for examination and refer members to the Agency Statements, Volume 1. Minister, would you like to make an opening statement in regard to your portfolio and introduce your advisers?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Yes, I would. I would like to start by introducing Cathy Taylor to my left, my Chief Executive. Behind her is Fiona Ward, the Deputy Chief Executive; Jennifer Browne, the Chief Financial Officer; and Michael Burton at the back, the Chief Human Resources Officer.

This year has been a particularly challenging year for many in the community due to COVID-19, and my portfolio of child protection has been no exception. My department and our partners in the community, such as our carers, service providers and volunteers, have been exemplary in adapting their approach to the challenges faced during this year's public health emergency, and for that I greatly thank them for their work.

My Department for Child Protection, all the staff and all our partners in the community work hard every day to care and protect our children and young people in what can often be challenging but also enormously rewarding roles. Over the last 12 months there have been a number of highlights in the work of my department, which is focused on the care and protection of children and young people.

This year we have had a very full policy agenda and have released a number of policies and set strong foundations for moving forward. Some of these policies include: the DCP manual of practice, released for all DCP staff in December 2019; the DCP Aboriginal procurement policy, which was released in January 2020; Safe and Well: Supporting Families, Protecting Children, the Marshall Liberal government's child protection strategy, released in November 2019; and, in January we released Every Effort for Every Child, South Australia's strategy for children and young people in care 2020-23.

Consultation was undertaken on the adoption from care policy and on the effectiveness of the Children and Young People (Safety) Act of 2017. We are also building on the 'Investing in their future' through a second phase that will make more priority services available to children and young people in care. We have also worked very hard on enhancing our partnerships with non-government organisations and carers. We have announced our statement of commitment to South Australian foster and kinship carers, which was launched on 25 June, undertaken a very successful foster carer recruitment campaign, which ran in May for four weeks, and I am proud to say that we have recruited 82 new primary foster carers above attrition during the 2019-20 financial year.

We have implemented significant steps through our contract reform processes in disability-specific residential care, placement and support packages, recommissioning family reunification services, all of which are child-centred, flexible and cost effective, and we are currently recommissioning supported independent living services.

Other key initiatives commenced this year include the contracting of Relationships Australia for family group conferences, which commenced in January this year. We announced an investment of $600,000 to roll out the sanctuary model of therapeutic care to DCP residential care homes; that was in June. We announced a two-year pilot for the contracting of three Aboriginal community-controlled organisations to deliver kinship care services, also in June. This included KWY in partnership with Lutheran Community Care, Aboriginal Family Support Services, and Incompro in partnership with UnitingCare Wesley, which are all now licensed and receiving referrals.

COVID-19 has prompted many people to pause and consider what is important in their lives and how they can make a difference. The Marshall Liberal government has a strong and clear plan to help combat the spread of coronavirus and committed more than $720,000 towards a once-off $200 payment for every child and young person in family-based care across South Australia. This was announced in March. This additional financial support assisted those households to buy essential cleaning and hygiene products to help prevent the spread of COVID-19 during the pandemic.

Additional advice and support information was also placed on the DCP carer website throughout the pandemic. Regular online forums for both NGOs also occurred. During this time, we continued to develop strong whole-of-government and across-government partnerships, especially in those necessary areas of response: health, human services and education. This year, we have more children in family-based care, being 86.3 per cent as at 30 June 2020, which has the costs associated with caring per child decrease for the third consecutive financial year. This is reported in the Auditor-General's Report of 2020, which shows the cost per child has decreased over three years from $76,470 to $69,100, to now $68,500 in the 2019-20 year.

Reflecting a greater community awareness that child protection is everyone's business, my department continues to work hard. There was an upward trend of electronic reports, known as eCARLs, with a 7.2 per cent increase over the year, whilst calls to the Child Abuse Report Line were down by 7.1 per cent, primarily due to COVID. This year, we have had great success in ensuring children and young people in care who have a disability have a current NDIS plan and are receiving the necessary support, with 837 approved plans as at 30 June, compared to 635 the previous year.

We are also committed to ensuring Aboriginal children in care are increasingly placed in family-based care, with priority given to kinship care. This is reflected in our results. As at 30 June 2020, 85.5 per cent of Aboriginal children and young people were in family-based care, an improvement on the 84.7 per cent in 2019. As at 30 June this year, 53.6 per cent of Aboriginal children and young people were in kinship care, which is an increase on 51.2 per cent the previous year.

Placement in accordance with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Placement Principle also continues to grow, from 62.7 per cent in 2019 to 63.7 per cent in 2020. The Marshall Liberal government places an important focus on this principle, and will ensure it is of paramount consideration as part of our legislative amendments.

My department is increasing its capacity to respond to the challenges of child protection through providing more frontline workers, lower vacancy rates and a clear understanding of policy and practice. I am pleased to report that our FTE variance to budget is down from 227.23 as at June 2019 to a very low 44.9 FTE on 30 June 2020. We have successfully introduced our broadening of qualifications policy, which has resulted in the appointment of 70 case managers under the professional officer stream, in addition to the recruitment of 249 social workers over the same period.

The vacancy rate for social workers and case managers has decreased, from 9.8 per cent in June 2019 to just 1.2 per cent in June 2020. We have also implemented staff training on the new practice approach and clear guidance through the manual of practice. Whilst I continue to be very proud of what has been achieved in the 2½ years, a great deal has been achieved in this particularly difficult year and there is, of course, a lot more to do in the future. As always, I will continue to work with carers, the non-government sector, my ministerial colleagues and my department to ensure we continue to achieve better outcomes for children and young people.

The CHAIR: Would you like to introduce your advisers for the benefit of the committee?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I actually did that at the beginning, thank you.

The CHAIR: Pardon me, I missed that; I was taking some advice. I am also advised that I do need to provide a brief opening statement, given we have a new minister and new advisers. I will compile that to the most relevant information.

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 February 2021. There will be a flexible approach given to the call for asking questions based on about three questions per member, alternating each side. I do request that members wait to be given the call through the process. Supplementary questions will be given as an exception rather than the rule. Questions must be based on a line of expenditure in the budget papers and must be identifiable and referenced.

All questions are to be directed to the minister, not to the minister's advisers. The minister may refer her questions to the advisers for a response if appropriate and needed. The member for Reynell is the lead speaker for the opposition. Would you like to make an opening statement?

Ms HILDYARD: No, thank you.

The CHAIR: Member for Reynell, you have the call.

Ms HILDYARD: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 92, and specifically at the top of that page to the Department for Child Protection's objective, which states in its first line, 'the department’s primary objective is to keep children and young people safe'. Minister, would you regard the number of children being taken into care as an indicator of DCP's performance?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It depends on how you interpret that, but obviously our legislative role is to keep children safe and that is done by people making referrals to the Child Abuse Report Line. We investigate those if they reach the threshold, and remove children where we believe it is in the best interests of their safety. It is then determined by a court whether a court order should go ahead for a removal. It is our role to keep them safe. The numbers would not determine the safety; we need to remove any child that is not safe.

Ms HILDYARD: Just to be clear, are you saying that the number of children being taken into care is an indicator of DCP's performance, or are you saying it is not?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I would say the number of children being taken into care is a reflection on our community. We know that the three main reasons that children are removed from their families are due to domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse, and mental health. Whilst our government has a whole-of-government approach and we are working on policies for perpetrators, for example in domestic violence, we are increasing our number of shelters available and homes for people fleeing domestic violence, and we are increasing our spending on mental health, there are more drug and alcohol facilities required, and there is more being done by this government. It is really a whole of community that is a reflection of how many children are being removed.

Ms HILDYARD: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, program 1, page 96, in relation to staff recruitment and training. It is also relevant to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 105. Can you explain the underspend of more than $10 million in the projected employee benefit and staff development expenses?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The employee benefits expense is favourable as a result of delays in recruitments, so there is $7.2 million. The staff development expenses are favourable, as in underspent, due to delays in the recruitment. There has been a reduction in expenditure on fleet vehicles as a consequence of the new—although that is not to do with the staffing. Basically, it is to do with delays in recruitment.

Also, regarding staff training, a lot of that went online during COVID, so it was a lot cheaper. You do not have the expense of hiring the Adelaide Oval function room, for example. All of the training went online, so it was actually cheaper and country people were more able to participate as well, in that area.

Ms HILDYARD: Given the huge increases in demand and the $10 million underspend in staffing, what specifically have you done to recruit appropriate staff?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I might refer that to my CE, Cathy Taylor.

Ms TAYLOR: Thank you for the question. Obviously, we recruit across a lot of different areas. I reference, firstly, residential care. During that time we went out a number of times. What we have now done, rather than going out two or three times a year, is to have rolling recruitment in residential care. We recognise, quite rightly, that for staff coming in at that level we need to ensure that we can continue to fill the shifts and be able to put them through the training and development needs that they have.

The great news is in terms of our social workers and caseworkers. We have continued to over-recruit. We have actually said, right across the board, 'We know that we will have natural turnover and attrition.' We talked to the four regions about projecting what that looked like across the year. The fantastic thing was that, in terms of vacancies for our social workers, they were down to a handful by the time we got to 30 June.

Some of the vacancies are in some of our corporate areas, and obviously, quite rightly during COVID, we focused particularly on continuing to deliver frontline services. That is really where we put a lot of our energy and effort. The good news is that the two big areas where we have really made the greatest impact in terms of recruitment are our residential care and frontline caseworkers. Some of that is about the broadening of qualifications, but I also think it (the increased effort) has really helped.

We have trialled fly-in fly-out models in the Far North and Far West regions. We have seen a number of different models that really assist. Obviously, as is reflected in the papers, we now have an increased investment in FTE, recognising the work that we have to do in the coming years.

Ms HILDYARD: Can you explain exactly what caused the delays?

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

Ms TAYLOR: In fact, there has never been any hold or delay or something like that. It is simply about COVID, as I said. Each year—the CFO would be able to give you the detail—we have seen that, because of an increase of FTE, it takes us time to recruit. We are very keen to work with the universities because we do the student placements. Usually, the students do not become available until this time of year, which is when we get very excited and welcome all the new students who will take up our casework positions.

So it really was the extraordinary mix, in the last 12 months, of turnover and the impact of COVID, but as I said, it is probably a one-off. We have never said to anyone, 'Don't recruit.' In fact, what we want to do is actually be in the process of ongoing recruitment and support. I am very hopeful that the new assessment centre that we have in place for residential care will mean that people know exactly what they are doing once they hit the floor.

Ms HILDYARD: Are DCP staff in head office being permitted to work from home during the pandemic or not?

Ms TAYLOR: Can you repeat the question? I am so sorry.

Ms HILDYARD: Are DCP staff in head office being permitted to work from home during the pandemic or are they not?

Ms TAYLOR: Obviously, our primary role as an essential service is to continue to deliver child protection services. That is particularly around investigations and assessments, family visits and all of that. In terms of head office, during the height of COVID, I think there was a significant proportion—I am just thinking about the four floors of Flinders Street—and I know we were giving regular figures about what proportion of staff worked from home.

We did a couple of different things. A bit similar to others, we split into a team A, team B environment. We did not want at any time all of our people in the one area, so we certainly had people working from home, but also for people, for example, who were in head office, they might have worked out at Netley. For us, the critical thing is, we still need head office staff to be available because, as you can imagine, from a financial perspective, we need to pay our carers. We absolutely need to pay our staff.

The great thing was we probably benefited in terms of rolling out laptops when it started. We were still probably seeing desktops that were being taken to people's cars. By the end of it, we have seen the rollout of more than 1,000 laptops across the organisation. So the great news is staff in frontline and in central can now work from home. That was one of our early challenges.

Ms HILDYARD: Is the Elizabeth office currently staffed at its full capacity?

Ms TAYLOR: I might actually defer to the DCE in relation to this question.

Ms WARD: I could not give you the exact numbers, but what I do know is that we have been actively recruiting across all of our offices regularly and continue to recruit. There is always natural attrition in any particular office, so there may be a few vacancies in any one of our offices at any given time. What I can say is that we have invested significantly in increasing the number of staff at Elizabeth office. Really pleasingly, we are about to take carriage of a new office, and we are going to double our efforts in that office, having a second, new location for staff to go into.

Ms HILDYARD: Exactly how many positions are currently vacant at the Elizabeth office?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Can I just clarify. I imagine, because we are questioning the budget, that it would be at 30 June 2020 that the question would be relevant for, because that is where the budget time is.

Ms HILDYARD: I am asking about now so I make comparisons back to budget.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: That is what we are questioning.

Ms HILDYARD: It is reasonable to ask about now because then you can make comparisons back to the end of the financial year.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I did that as a shadow, and I was never allowed. The figures that I only ever got were to May. I never got a full year.

Ms HILDYARD: Point of order, Mr Chair: I am not sure what this has to do with the really clear question.

The CHAIR: The comments from the floor are not necessary. If there is a point of order, that needs to be raised formally.

Ms HILDYARD: I did. I just said, 'Point of order, Mr Chair.'

The CHAIR: I could not hear between the two or three people talking over each other, so if we can make that clear, that would be fantastic. In terms of the question that has been put, if you could just repeat it for the benefit of the committee.

Ms HILDYARD: Exactly how many positions are currently vacant at the Elizabeth office?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will take that on notice and if that is an appropriate question I will get an answer.

Ms HILDYARD: How does understaffing impact children in care?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Thank you for the question. For four years, I was the shadow minister and there were several hundred vacancies for that entire time. There was strike action proposed and a great deal of issues around a lack of staffing and the pressure that that put on the frontline staff.

So on coming in to government, one of the first things we did was to announce our broadening of qualifications policy which, as I have already stated in my opening statement, has accounted for 70 PO positions and we have now reduced significantly our frontline vacancies, from memory, to 44.9 vacancies. We are doing an amazing job. We have also reduced that to a 1.2 per cent vacancy rate for social workers, which I would expect is the lowest it has been in a decade. I think we are doing an amazing amount of work.

The department is working very hard to recruit. For the first time, we are doing continual recruitment for residential care staff. We have glowing reports from the universities, particularly Flinders University, about our programs for new graduates so that there is mentoring. There are very good programs and placement opportunities, as well as employment opportunities, so I think my department has been doing an absolutely amazing job on recruiting. Yes, we would like to get to full employment but we are doing an amazing job on that at the moment. I will see if the CE wants to add anything.

Ms TAYLOR: I can help on both the previous question and also this one. In terms of the impact in terms of vacancies on children in care, I thought it would be helpful if I gave some more figures, because I said a handful of vacancies were for social workers and case managers. As at 30 June, it was in fact eight, so what we ensure is that every child in care has a social worker or case manager allocated to them.

Obviously, what we want to ensure is that no-one has an unreasonable case load. In some cases, you may see a supervisor who is allocated a child and a young person in care, so every child and young person in care has an allocated case manager or social worker. In relation to the question about vacancies in Elizabeth, I am delighted to say that vacancies in relation to the northern region, because I think this is relevant to the previous question—

Ms HILDYARD: Point of order, Chair: has this question not been taken on notice?

The CHAIR: They are allowed to add to the question if there is further pertinent information. It is absolutely within the standing orders.

Ms TAYLOR: There are only 7.3 vacancies in the whole of the northern region, so I can say, of that, a proportion would be at Elizabeth.

The CHAIR: If information can be provided now, why wait until a later date? Member for Narungga.

Mr ELLIS: I have a question that originates from Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 95 about education. Minister, I wonder if you might outline the initiatives that have been announced or implemented that are designed to improve education outcomes for children in care and also whether you can update the committee on the progress of the Catholic school scholarships.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I thank the member for Narungga for the question and his interest in improving education outcomes for children and young people. Ensuring children and young people in care can actively participate and achieve in their education and have access to quality learning from birth through all ages and stages is an important priority for the Marshall Liberal government.

To ensure children in care receive appropriate support services, they receive prioritised preschool and school enrolments for government schools. Children in care are eligible for 12 hours of government preschool from the age of three, then 15 hours per week from the age of four. Children in care from birth to age six can also receive free book reading packs every three months from the Little Big Book Club as part of the Read to Me Project which supports children in care to improve their reading and language skills.

To improve education outcomes for children and young people in care, this year my department has worked closely with the Department for Education. Both agencies have committed to a new joint plan of action for the next 12 months. The key actions of this joint plan include:

developing a joint approach to support children and young people in care transitioning to new preschools or schools that takes into consideration their trauma and cultural needs;

ensuring foster and kinship carers are better informed about preschool and school supports via the DCP carer website;

tracking and monitoring learning progress for each student; and

extending data sharing arrangements between the two departments to identify priority areas for action and inform future practice.

The Department for Education has established a children in care service to provide expert support to improve education outcomes for children in care. My department has nominated and inducted education champions across its services, who will work closely with the children in care service.

As part of my commitment to improving education outcomes, I have taken a strong interest in school attendance records, monitoring suspensions and exclusions, SACE completions, employment and extracurricular activities and ensuring all children in care have a One Plan. I have been visiting schools across the state and meeting with school principals to discuss how our government can assist schools to achieve better outcomes for our children and young people. I also regularly meet with the education minister to advocate for these outcomes and the delivery of services.

The Department for Education has a goal for all children in care to have a One Plan, which is a personalised learning plan that is continuously reviewed and updated. My department will be supporting the rollout of One Plans for children and young people in care. I am pleased to inform the committee that, as at 3 July, 62 per cent of children and young people in care who were attending a government school had a One Plan. More recently, in September, this had increased to 74 per cent. We are working toward eventually seeing all our children in care with a One Plan.

It is also important to acknowledge the extensive work that the Department for Education is doing to support and respond to the complex behaviour and trauma of all children and young people, including those in care, understanding how this impacts on their ability to participate in test conditions. Our focus remains on addressing trauma and creating learning environments that are trauma informed, so I welcome the Department for Education's provision of $5.4 million over four years from 2018 for professional development in trauma-informed practice through the Trauma Aware Schools Initiative.

This initiative funds whole-of-school and professional development opportunities for preschools and schools. It supports learning environments that are inclusive and responsive to the needs of students experiencing trauma and builds a capacity to understand and support the differentiated learning needs of all children. This program is offered through the SMART Foundation, and strategies are delivered through the Australian Childhood Foundation Berry Street Education Model and Connected Self whole-school approach.

I am also pleased to inform the committee that the average participation rate for NAPLAN testing for children in care across all year levels and categories has increased from 66.5 per cent in 2018 to 69.1 per cent in 2019. There were also more children in care completing the South Australian Certificate of Education than ever before, with the completion rate for children in care being 26.6 per cent in 2018 and 39.5 per cent in 2019.

I acknowledge the member's interest in the Catholic scholarships. In June this year, I launched a partnership with Catholic Education, which is providing up to 100 scholarships to primary and secondary school-aged children and young people in care across South Australian Catholic schools. This has the potential to be expanded across other non-government schools.

The Catholic scholarship program provides full tuition and covers the costs related to uniforms, textbooks, excursions and extracurricular activities, continuing each year until the child or young person completes their schooling. As at 30 June, we had six children who had been offered the scholarship. At the moment, as of 20 November, I am very pleased to say that about 90 of the scholarships have now been taken up.

In later years, we extended our carer payments to age 21 for eligible kinship and foster carers in order to provide support for further education. We also have our Over 18 Education Initiative, which provides support through to the age of 25. There is also extra funding and support available through the commonwealth through Transition to Independent Living. There are grants through the Dame Roma Mitchell fund to age 29, as well as dedicated traineeships through the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment.

We also support post-care services through CREATE and Relationships Australia. A further sign of our government's commitment to education was our recent announcement of a $1 million investment to support world-leading research through new child protection scholarships and in turn better support our most vulnerable children and young people.

Ms HILDYARD: Do agency staff undertake night shifts in residential care? Yes or no: do they undertake night shifts in residential care?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Yes. Agency staff would undertake a variety of shifts, days, nights and weekends.

Ms HILDYARD: What proportion of expenses related to employment and/or to suppliers and services can be attributed to agency staff?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: What budget paper and reference, so I can find it?

Ms HILDYARD: Page 96, same budget paper.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Page 96—so employee benefits?

Ms HILDYARD: Yes.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Are you asking about just residential care staff as a percentage?

Ms HILDYARD: Exactly what proportion of expenses related to employment can be attributed to agency staff?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I might refer this. Do you mean non-government organisation agency staff when you say—

Ms HILDYARD: Yes, private companies.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: You do not mean our agency staff?

Ms HILDYARD: Private companies.

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

Ms HILDYARD: I move to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 97. Can you explain the sharp rise in the number of notifications requiring further action by DCP?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I am just finding the line reference.

Ms HILDYARD: It is the first item under 'Activity indicators'.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I might get Cathy Taylor to answer this question.

Ms TAYLOR: Thank you very much for the question. What we have seen in South Australia has certainly been an increase in the number of notifications received from the community. We have particularly seen an increase in those that have come in from our mandatory reporters. As you would be aware, with the change to the legislation in 2018, the threshold changed. So obviously, when we look at the question of risk, the community quite rightly as well as the mandatory reporters need to alert us to those matters where they have a concern.

We have had the Australian Centre for Child Protection have a good look at that to see: are we having matters referred to us that you might necessarily regard as the worried well? In fact, from the deep dive that the Australian Centre for Child Protection has undertaken, that is not the case. What it reflects is a number of different things. It reflects, obviously, what is happening in community, as the minister has already said and the impact of what is happening in families across this space.

Particularly in 2019-20, it was a most unusual year. We did not see any pattern across the year. We saw a pattern up to February, and then with COVID it then took on a very unusual pattern of notifications and contacts that we had. We saw a slight decrease in March; we saw a further decrease in April. We normally see that, but we actually saw it heightened. We attribute part of that to the school holidays but also to that extra week that we had before the school holidays. But then we saw a significant pick-up in the months of May and June.

So I think it is fair to say that our notifications are when members of the community have concerns, and they are alerting us to it. I think there is no question about it: as the new legislation that commenced in 2018 has asked members of the South Australian community to refer matters they have concerns about, it is certainly clear that we are actually seeing more come in.

Ms HILDYARD: Exactly how many of the 40,000 very worrying notifications were screened into the system?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: For this year? For the 2019-20 year?

Ms HILDYARD: In relation to the 40,000.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Screened-in notifications for the 2019-20 year were 39,508. Of those, there were 6,879 investigations.

Ms HILDYARD: Exactly how many of those screened in were then determined to be closed—no further action?

Ms TAYLOR: We have a range of different responses under the new legislation. Certainly, under the new legislation what it actually asks us to do is to determine what is the most appropriate response. As the minister quite rightly said, there were some nearly 6,900 investigations. We had about another 15,000 that were dealt with by other means. In terms of the remaining ones, up until February—as I said to you—we had been tracking at about 38 per cent that were not proceeding or 'closed, no action', using the old titles.

With the shift across the remaining four months what we actually needed to do, as we have said, is to ensure that our staff were focused on frontline and undertaking all of that. We sat at about—if I have done my sums correctly—I think 17,000. When we did a deep dive, we discovered that that was not a fair and accurate reflection of no action being taken, it was simply that it had not resulted in an investigation or referral to other agencies. What we have now done, in figures going forward you will see a much better reflection of the further investigations that we have done rather than this blanket 'closed, no action'.

Ms HILDYARD: Exactly how many of the 'closed, no further action' matters were in relation to children and families who had had more than one notification made about them?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I do not believe that that is something we can search for on the C3MS program. I remember, when in opposition, asking for that myself many times, and being told that it was not available. We have made enhancements to the C3MS in order to, for example, get the drug testing reports, but we still have the same program that we were left with from the previous government.

Ms HILDYARD: Just to be clear: there is no mechanism for the department to ascertain how many of those 17,000 'closed, no further action' reports about abuse and/or neglect were made in relation to children and families who had had more than one notification made about them?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The deputy CE will answer this question.

Ms WARD: What we do know is that a number of children are subject to multiple notifications but what we have also seen since 2016 and 2017 through to this year is a reduction on the double-ups, so the multiple notifications per child are reducing on average. So, we can determine how many children have had how many notifications generally, yes—is the answer to your question.

Ms HILDYARD: So you can determine that?

Ms WARD: We have to design and run a report to be able to do that but, yes, we can do that. I was just adding to the minister's answer.

Ms HILDYARD: Can that number be provided?

Ms WARD: What I can say is that there were 75,000 notifications, I think, to the call centre and just under 40,000 of those were screened-in notifications, and they related to just over 33,000 children being notified. Some would have higher rates of notifications and others would have lower rates but, on average, it was just over one notification per child.

Ms HILDYARD: Sorry, can I just clarify: I understand that you said in relation to the 17,000 'closed, no further action' matters there is a mechanism to determine how many of those related to children and families who have had more than one notification in relation to them. Is it possible for that question to be taken on notice so I can get that figure, please?

Ms WARD: What we do is a child count as opposed to a notification count, so what we can do is provide information about individual children and the number of notifications they have. That is our capacity and, as the minister said, it does not quite extend to what I think you are asking, but there is something pretty close to the middle there.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, given the deeply worrying increasing number of children and young people in care, do you intend to establish a defined target and associated indicators for reducing the number of children and young people in care?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: First, I would like to say that the percentage increase year on year has been around the same per cent for about five years, so it is not extraordinarily large at the moment—

Ms HILDYARD: I find it worrying. I personally find it very worrying.

The CHAIR: Member for Reynell, questions have been asked in silence, answers will be given in silence. There is no need to interrupt the minister.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It is not significantly higher this year than it has been in previous years. They have been around the same. If you averaged the last five years, there was one year where there was about a 13 per cent increase under Labor. If you took the average for five years, it has been around an 8 to 9 per cent increase of children. Yes, it is concerning. However, I will not apologise for removing a child from an unsafe environment where they are in danger. That is our role and we do it on the basis of the facts of a case, which are presented to a court, the court makes an order and we remove a child and we keep them safe under our guardianship.

As a whole of government we are working on early intervention. As you know, we have put money into intensive family support services, family group conferencing and family-led decision making. We are doing a lot more to support families to prevent removal. We also recently announced a social impact bond for reunification services, as well as another early intervention program that will be starting next year, so we are doing a lot to strengthen families and to work more with reunifying children. It is our role to remove children from unsafe environments.

Ms HILDYARD: I was going to ask you a question about prevention/early intervention resources, but I will move on, given your statement. Do you think that an increase in the number of children going into care is an indicator of not enough being done?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Not necessarily. It depends. When coming into government the numbers you would expect to go up because we actually answered more calls, did more investigations and we had more staff. In order to be able to do that, we had more resourcing, so one thing that can happen is that you remove more children because you are taking them out of harm's way.

However, we have also now experienced COVID, where new things are at play, so potentially higher domestic violence, more alcohol use. Drugs are prevalent in our society and in the whole of the country. These are issues that not only Australia is dealing with but the whole world. It is not an indication of how we are doing, it is an indication of society. We have to remove a child that is in danger. That is our role.

Ms HILDYARD: Given your answer, why did you state when you were opposition spokesperson that an increase in the number of children going into care is an indicator of not enough being done?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Because you had vacancies of over 200 on your frontline. You had the Nyland royal commission, the Layton royal commission and endless reports stating that the department back then, under the former government, was in chaos and that there was a rotten culture. There was understaffing. We have moved swiftly to fill vacancies, to broaden the qualifications, to change the culture, to train staff better, to nurture, to work as a whole of government, to put in help for mental health, drug and alcohol services, and domestic violence. We are working on this from every angle, and I will not apologise for removing children from danger.

Mr MURRAY: My question is based on the detail in Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 95, in particular the dot point which references the increased number of foster carers. I would ask the minister whether she could provide some detail regarding the increase in the number of foster carers and family-based care. My recollection is that we inherited roughly double the proportion of rotational-based care in our system compared with other states. So I would be interested in a contrast with what you inherited and, in particular, the achievement of an increase in family-based and foster carer numbers.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I thank the member for Davenport for his question. You are correct, the number of non-family-based care was double the national average, and certainly we are working very hard to improve that figure. Where a child is no longer able to remain safely at home, in the first instance extensive scoping of family members is undertaken to find suitable carers. Where kinship carers are not located, we know that for the great majority of children, family-based care is preferred. Research shows that stability and permanency in a family-based setting gives better outcomes. Through Every Effort for Every Child, South Australia's strategy for children and young people in care 2020-2023, DCP continues to review and improve carer recruitment and support services, based on carers' diverse needs and circumstances.

A key priority area of the strategy is to grow family-based care options for children and young people. My department is committed to expanding family-based care through contract reform, signing a statement of commitment with carers recognising and acknowledging the important role they play, setting up a carer retention and recruitment task force, supporting carers to obtain certificate IV, and funding a peak advocacy body connecting foster and kinship carers.

We have engaged in a statewide media campaign, including a Sunday Mail foster carer lift-out and statewide social media campaigns along with our non-government agencies. We have also committed more than $720,000 to a once-off $200 per child COVID payment to carers, and made statewide efforts to recruit and retain family-based carers, including developing a more streamlined approach to foster carer recruitment, assessment and training, as well as improving respite options for current carers.

The Marshall Liberal government is committed to growing family-based care in line with national benchmarks. The percentage of children in family-based care in South Australia as a proportion of all care has increased from 85.8 per cent in June 2019 to 86.3 per cent at June 2020. The government has partnered with existing and prospective carers and providers to develop and implement strategies aimed at improving carer retention and increasing carer recruitment. I am proud to say that we had growth in every foster care agency for the last quarter in the 2019 year and achieved a net increase of 82 foster carers in the 2019-20 financial year.

As part of our efforts to expand family-based care placement options, DCP has contracted three Aboriginal community-controlled organisations to deliver a new two-year pilot service to support new kinship carers of Aboriginal children and young people. These include Aboriginal Family Support Services, KWY in partnership with Lutheran Community Care, and Incompro in partnership with UnitingCare Wesley Bowden. This pilot program recognises that Aboriginal organisations are best placed to support Aboriginal children and young people in care and is a significant step towards further embedding the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle.

DCP will continue to support existing kinship carers and new carers of non-Aboriginal children and young people. The statement of commitment is a joint acknowledgement of the important role that foster and kinship carers play in looking after children under guardianship. This statement was a combined effort between my Department for Child Protection; our carers advocacy service, Connecting Foster and Kinship Carers SA; and our peak industry body, Child and Family Focus SA.

It outlines the foundation principles that contribute to a strong partnership approach between family-based carers, government and the sector to ensure that children under guardianship receive high-quality care. The statement highlights five key principles that guide our work with carers. Those five principles are that carers expect to be informed, supported, consulted, valued and respected in their roles. It is a reminder of our respectful and mutual roles and contributions.

Our carer retention and recruitment task force is focused on delivery of practical initiatives. Initiatives delivered in the 2019-20 financial year include the DCP carer website page developed to improve information-sharing with carers; a shared training calendar established to support carers' attendance at pre-approval training; carers' agreements implemented between services and carers to identify the carers' support and training needs and the actions required in response; and the publication of an online carer exit survey.

The task force's priorities include a continued focus on improving information-sharing, sector strategies to grow family-based care and to retain carers, improved education outcomes for children in care, and care engagement. I encourage those who may have thought about becoming a foster carer to take the next step to find out more at fostercare.sa.gov.au or 1300 2 FOSTER.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, do you think the Infant Therapeutic Reunification Service was a deserving winner of the Australia and New Zealand Mental Health Service Award?

The CHAIR: Do you have a budget reference, member for Reynell?

Ms HILDYARD: I am still going on what I was going on before.

The CHAIR: If you could repeat it for the benefit of the committee, please?

Ms HILDYARD: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 97. Do you think it was a deserving winner?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It is not part of my budget and it is not my responsibility.

Ms HILDYARD: When will the result of the tendering out of the Infant Therapeutic Reunification Service be announced?

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

Ms TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Actually, our reunification services—the vast majority are delivered by non-government services; in fact, we have a pre-tender briefing this Friday. The majority of our reunification services are delivered by NGOs who have been delivering it for more than 10 years—

Ms HILDYARD: Point of order, Mr Chair: I am asking specifically about this service, not about other reunification services.

The CHAIR: Could you repeat the question for the benefit of the committee?

Ms HILDYARD: I might just move on, if that is okay. Minister, have Mullighan recommendations 20, 23 and 24 been implemented to ensure all incidents of sexual abuse are monitored, whether they be peer to peer or external person abuse?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Could I have the budget reference, please?

Ms HILDYARD: It is on the same page that I mentioned.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Where is it listed? Could I please have the page reference?

Ms HILDYARD: Okay, I will go back to page 92, in relation to the very first sentence, 'the department's primary objective is to keep children and young people safe.' Have recommendations 20, 23 and 24 been implemented?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Would you like to read out the recommendations?

Ms HILDYARD: I am asking the questions, I think, Mr Chair.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The Mullighan report is not included in the budget. The Mullighan report was during the term of the former Labor government in around 2005 or 2006—

Ms HILDYARD: Point of order, Mr Chair: I am asking a question in relation to the very first sentence in the Agency Statement, which states that the primary objective of the department 'is to keep children and young people safe'. This is a question that goes to the heart of that very important objective.

The CHAIR: I believe the minister was responding to the question and it was directly relevant, the information that she was providing.

Ms HILDYARD: She asked me where it was that I was referring to in the budget.

The CHAIR: If you could please allow the minister to provide a response.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Just for the record, the Mullighan report was around 2004 or 2005. There was a Labor government until 2018, so there were 13 or 14 years—

Ms HILDYARD: Point of order, Mr Chair.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: —for the former government to address this point.

The CHAIR: There is no point of order. The information being—

Ms HILDYARD: I am asking a specific question about whether those recommendations have been implemented.

The CHAIR: The information being provided is directly relevant to the question that was asked. Minister, continue.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will check and take on notice whether the former Labor government, in their 14 years, adhered to those recommendations and whether we have since that time.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, again in relation to the objective, why did you continuously state in September this year that it was an old policy that meant you were not notified—

The CHAIR: Member for Reynell, the minister's comments outside of this are not directly relevant to budget expenditure.

Ms HILDYARD: Sorry, I am referring to the objective for the agency of keeping children and young people safe. I have not even finished asking my question and you are ruling it out of order.

The CHAIR: I am ruling the question out of order based on the fact that a statement the minister has made, making a question based on that statement, has no relevance to a budget line within this budget.

Ms HILDYARD: Okay, I will move on; thank you. Minister, are you notified when children in care become pregnant?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will pass that to the CE because there is—

Ms HILDYARD: Sorry, this is a question about whether the minister is notified.

The CHAIR: The minister is able to direct questions to her staff if she so wishes. Minister.

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

Ms TAYLOR: I can confirm that the minister is notified of significant incidents. In relation to a young person who is pregnant who is under the guardianship of the chief executive, as you would appreciate, young people over the age of 16 or 17 may very well find themselves in a consensual relationship, and that would not necessarily be a matter that I would raise with the minister. So I think it is fair to say I absolutely advise the minister of all significant incidents that come to my attention.

Ms HILDYARD: Would a child under 16 being pregnant be notified by you to the minister?

The CHAIR: Questions should be directed to the minister. If you could rephrase your question.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, are you notified when a child under 16 is pregnant?

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

Ms TAYLOR: As I have just said, I will absolutely notify the minister of significant incidents that apply to all children and young people. I was illuminating that obviously some young people are over the age of 16.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, is the pregnancy of a child under 16 deemed a significant incident of which you would be notified?

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

Ms TAYLOR: What I can say is that we try to define significant incidents not by individual incidents but broad areas. If I just take you to the definitions that we currently provide, you will appreciate that they are broad and that we try to capture things such as an adverse event or a serious injury to a child or young person. We also try to pick up any area that we think means that we need to pay particular attention. We have provided definitions and we continue to refine those definitions.

I think what is really important is, if we get too fixed on a single definition, we will miss something. What we are trying to really say to staff—and we are doing work again next week with staff—is just to say, 'Actually we all have to pay attention to significant incidents.' I want to make sure that if a child or young person is missing lots of days at school that we are paying attention to that, or if a child or young person is not taking care of their health that we are alert to that.

Rather than fixating on whether a child or young person being pregnant is a significant incident, we have to pay attention to their age and obviously whether they are in a consensual relationship. I think it is very important. Fixed definitions are not going to assist child protection. What we have to do is absolutely pay attention. You are right to ask us about what matters we raise with the minister. We refer significant incidents to the minister. We talk about them. I meet with the minister on a weekly basis and we try to flag a whole variety and raft of issues because there really are a lot that can come within that broad definition.

Ms HILDYARD: Given what you have just said, over the course of the past financial year and the period since the closing of the financial year, has the pregnancy of any child under 16 been notified to you, minister?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will not be discussing individual cases but, as my CE said, we meet weekly. I am advised of significant cases and I will not be discussing individual cases.

Mr McBRIDE: My question refers to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 93, Program 1: Care and Protection. Can the minister please update the committee on the status of permanency pathways for children and young people in care?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I thank the member for MacKillop for his question and his interest in this area. Our government is committed to ensuring children and young people in care are provided with a range of permanency options that best support their stability and proved outcomes. The transfer of guardianship to approved carers has been available for some time now and can be in the best interests of many children in care. The decision to apply for a long-term guardianship order, previously known as other person guardianship (OPG), is made in consultation with the carer and the child or young person. The decision to make the order is a decision of the courts.

Where a court makes an order for a long-term guardianship specified person, this results in a change in the legal relationship between the child or young person and their carer to the age of 18. This change can lead to a greater sense of security and stability for both the carer and the child or young person and, in turn, to improved outcomes. My department continues to grow long-term guardianship as an important care option and during the 2019-20 financial year, 58 children have had their guardianship transferred and a further 40 families, with 54 children, are at various stages of this process.

Last September, I announced that I was proactively consulting on the practice of adoption from care as one of a range of permanency options in South Australia for children and young people in care. To assist with the legislative foundations for our adoption from care policy, the amendment bill introduced to parliament on 11 November, the Children and Young People (Safety) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2020 included adoption provisions, which, if passed, will provide greater clarity and transparency for the operations of the government's policy.

From the outset, I have made it clear that adoption for Aboriginal children is not being considered. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle will continue to provide the framework for permanency planning for Aboriginal children and young people in care.

In 2019, targeted stakeholder consultation was undertaken. This included permanency consultation workshops that were hosted with key stakeholders to help shape South Australia's adoption from care policy. The core messages we heard throughout the consultations were that each child is different and that the decision to support adoption should be made according to the child's individual circumstances, taking into account their best interests, wellbeing and wishes. This is consistent with our child-centred approach to permanency planning generally.

Based on the information gathered from stakeholder consultation, a policy has been drafted that includes the following key elements:

that adoption will be actively considered for children in care as part of a permanency planning process;

that there must be an established relationship with the carer; and

that financial payments will continue to be available so that no financial disadvantage exists; however it will be means tested, with adoptive parents expected to meet requirements for all or parts of Family Tax Benefit A.

Carers who do not meet the requirements for Family Tax Benefit A or who choose not to accept ongoing financial support payments will be paid a once-off transition payment of $3,000 and an annual payment of $1,500.

I have also gained agreement from my ministerial colleagues to ensure that children adopted from care will continue to receive education and health services, including the therapeutic supports they require. This is critical to addressing the impacts of the neglect and abuse that these children have experienced.

Ms HILDYARD: Do Kanggarendi staff and the family scoping team staff working together each as one team accord with DCP's practice principles in relation to operating in a culturally safe and appropriate way?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I thank the member for her question. I would like to acknowledge the wonderful work that the Kanggarendi team do. On 21 October 2019, the department wrote to the PSA to commence consultations regarding the proposed realignment of Aboriginal programs. A dedicated consultative group has been established for staff and management representatives to share information, discuss feedback on proposals and provide an opportunity for staff to contribute their suggestions and initiatives.

At this stage, no loss of FTEs is anticipated and the department remains committed to increasing its Aboriginal staff representations. I might pass over to the CE because this is part of a greater plan for the whole department where they are out in the field helping in individual offices.

Ms TAYLOR: Thank you, minister. As the minister said, we are currently undertaking consultation in relation to Kanggarendi and the family scoping team. This response to feedback that we have received from the Aboriginal community and also the Commissioner for Aboriginal Children is about the importance of having Aboriginal staff in our offices and up-front.

In addition to looking at those two teams, we are also going to put more Aboriginal staff into our offices, so that we can actually have Aboriginal people dealing with Aboriginal families as they come into contact with our offices. We think that in fact this will have a really positive outcome in terms of cultural supports and cultural responsiveness for Aboriginal families and communities in South Australia.

It recognises that we already have Aboriginal family practitioners in a number of our offices, and this allows us to actually do this now across the entirety of the state. But obviously, at this point, we have not finalised this process.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, given the focused family scoping team was established via a direct recommendation of the Nyland royal commission, can you guarantee that this change will not reduce specialist services for Indigenous children in care?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I might pass that to my CE, as she has already started talking about the family scoping units.

Ms HILDYARD: So can you guarantee that?

Ms TAYLOR: What I can guarantee is that we will continue to respond to Aboriginal families and communities in the most culturally responsive way. We definitely know, and we have seen the increases the minister has flagged, of the number of Aboriginal children who are now placed with family, and particularly with kin. It is so important. The good scoping of family, not just in terms of placement but in terms of support, is critical. So yes, I can guarantee that we will continue to be culturally responsive to Aboriginal families and communities.

Ms HILDYARD: Are Aboriginal women always provided with interpreters, where necessary, when discussion about the removal of children at birth is taking place?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Fiona Ward will take that question.

Ms WARD: Thank you for the question. I think it is a really important question, to ensure that Aboriginal people have access to information that they can understand. We absolutely have a manual of practice and provide guidance to staff. Obviously, for people whose English is not their first language—in fact, for many Aboriginal people it might be their third or fourth language—it is important that they are offered to bring someone with them who might have English as a language and can interpret it, but we also use interpreter services wherever we possibly can in the time frames.

Ms HILDYARD: What provisions in the budget have been made for the request from Grandparents for Grandchildren SA for $600,000 per annum funding, to enable them to pay staff who run their outstanding organisation?

Mr ELLIS: Asking what is in the budget; you are meant to be referring to a budget line.

The CHAIR: Yes, member for Reynell.

Ms HILDYARD: I do not understand why that is an odd question, because it is in the expenses. They are total expenses; it is not listed whether Grandparents for Grandchildren is in there. I am sorry, I am not quite sure why I am being criticised by the member for Narungga for a totally legitimate question. Can we continue, please?

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Members, I know—

Members interjecting:

Ms HILDYARD: It is a really important question; can we answer it, please.

The CHAIR: Please. We are getting to 7 o'clock. I know it has been a long day for absolutely everybody. The member for Reynell has asked a question and the minister will respond.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: This is one of the responsibilities of the minister for the Department of Human Services.

Ms HILDYARD: How many places does the Guardian for Children and Young People need to visit to fulfil their role as children's visitor?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Could you please refer to a budget line?

Ms HILDYARD: Yes, I can. I refer to the total expenses line, as I did for the last question, page 96, Budget Paper 4, Volume 1.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It is the Minister for Education who funds the guardian. He is the responsible minister.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, are there any resources provided for the guardian, in their role as children's visitor, to visit children in care—so visiting children in care, which is your responsibility?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It is not in our budget line. It is the responsibility of the Department for Education, so the Minister for Education. It is his budget line.

Ms HILDYARD: What funding is provided to the Guardian for Children and Young People to conduct annual reviews?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: That is in the education minister's budget. You would need to refer to him for that question.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, are you aware of what funding is provided to the Guardian for Children and Young People to visit children in care?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It is not in my budget; it is not part of my responsibility. I meet with the Minister for Education and I meet with the guardian as well, but it is not part of my budget.

Ms HILDYARD: Going back to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 97, why was there a 6.1 per cent decrease in investigations commencing within seven days?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will refer to Cathy Taylor.

Ms TAYLOR: Thank you for the question. As the member raised earlier, we have obviously undertaken more investigations this year than ever before. Over the last three years, we have seen a significant increase in the number of investigations. Of those, we have both 24-hour responses and 10-day responses. It also reflects we are paying priority attention to the 24-hour responses and, likewise, responding to the 10-day responses. It is certainly the case that we are doing more investigations, and that we continue to pay attention to both the timely commencement and the timely completion of investigations.

Ms HILDYARD: Is this 6.1 per cent decrease in investigations commencing within seven days linked to the reduction of 14,583 CARL calls answered in 2019-20, compared with the previous year?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: No, it is not.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, do you think it is acceptable that this volume of calls has gone unanswered?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Just referring to your previous answer, if you are talking about the investigations—you were saying 6 per cent—the actual figure in the 2018-19 year was 80.9 per cent. There was a target of 83 but the actual was 76.9. So it is actually just a 4 per cent drop, just to correct the record. Could you repeat the current question?

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, do you think it is acceptable that this volume of calls in the vicinity of 12,000 to 14,000 has gone unanswered? Do you think that is acceptable?

The CHAIR: While the minister is in discussion, Member for Reynell, if you could please refer to budget lines or refer to a budget line and read a reference.

Ms HILDYARD: I did. I already have.

The CHAIR: We have 10 minutes left; we can always try.

Ms HILDYARD: I already did at the beginning of this section.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I will refer to Cathy Taylor.

Ms HILDYARD: Point of order: I am asking whether you think it is acceptable.

The CHAIR: The member is able to refer questions when she deems appropriate.

Ms HILDYARD: Yes; I was just surprised.

Ms TAYLOR: Calls are not answered for a variety of reasons. A number of these are the result of measures implemented in the last few years, so we now have the suggestion that you can use the electronic notification system for non-urgent matters, and that message is obviously provided at the beginning of the call. One thing we know is that people recognise that if it is no longer an urgent matter they might actually decide to submit electronically.

In addition to that, we also have a message that explains the sort of information a caller needs to have ready. This might be that it is not just enough to say, 'I saw a little girl wandering down the road.' We might say to them, 'Can you identify for us any information.' It might be about an address, it might be about the nature of the abuse and neglect, and details relating to the caller.

The other ones also depend upon the number of calls that we are receiving, the complexity, but we also offer the option of a call-back service, and I think it is really important that people make that election if they do not necessarily want to hang on to talk to someone. We have seen a significant take-up in the call-backs. What I would say is, rather than seeing them as abandoned, I would see them as not answered. People are making decisions: 'If it is not urgent, I am going to refer it to an eCARL. It might be that I need to get further information.' We do follow up because we want to make sure that we are able to get to it.

Particularly during the COVID period, we also had the issue where we needed to, as I said earlier, split our teams into A and B so that we actually had them split across two different venues. That certainly put us in a position where we needed to think about how do we best respond?

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, what is the proportion referred to eCARL, as your CE just spoke about?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: For the calls received, in the 2019-20 year there were 65,334 calls received, and electronic reports (eCARLs) were 37,496, so totalling 102,830 contacts.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, do you agree that people waiting longer than ever to get through is symptomatic of a system at breaking point?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Just to be clear, the average waiting time for the 2019-20 year for all call centre lines was five minutes and six seconds, which is a considerable improvement on when the previous government was in.

The CHAIR: Member for Reynell, I will give you the call but also remind you that we have 10 minutes remaining in the session, so if you are going to read the omnibus questions it does take some time, as we have previously noted.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, in relation to the volume of calls that have gone unanswered, in your opinion, do you think the level of calls going unanswered is acceptable?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I think it is in keeping with previous years. Of course, the aim is to reduce that, and we are doing everything that we can. We have other referral services and we are expanding, as I have already mentioned, our early intervention and prevention services so that we can address families when they are notified early on. We have our family group conferencing. This is not a new thing. This has been the case for a very long time, and it has not increased by any extreme measure. We are working on many ways to reduce that.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, can you guarantee that this unacceptable level of unanswered care concern calls will be remedied?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I can guarantee we are working very hard to make improvements at every level—again, as I said, strengthening our community, our families, working on early intervention. We have just announced social impact bonds for more intensive family support services and reunifications. This is a whole of community issue. It is drug and alcohol related, mental health and domestic violence. They are the main reasons children are removed. They are the main reasons that people ring our Child Abuse Report Line. So as a whole of community, whole of government, whole of nation, we all need to be working on this.

Ms HILDYARD: What is the process exactly for foster carers being provided with information about care concerns being made against them?

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

Ms TAYLOR: I thank the member for the question. It was a Nyland recommendation that we review our care concern policy. We have undertaken that in the last couple of years and a new process is now in place. We have care concerns that are obviously differently graded. They might be a serious care concern, they might be a moderate care concern or a minor care concern.

One thing we have taken the time to do is working with Connecting Foster and Kinship Care and our agencies about the importance of actually talking to carers about care concerns. Certainly, some of the feedback that they provided to us when I first arrived was that they did not always know about minor care concerns or moderate care concerns. We have really flagged that it is very important for our staff to be able to work through that.

Obviously, serious care concerns require us to investigate those, and we will obviously talk to the carer as appropriate, obviously not wanting to jeopardise if, for example, it is a criminal matter or one that is involving the police. But it is certainly the case that we, as part of the work we do with carers, are working with them and taking a full care team approach to discuss care concerns with them.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, can you guarantee that the process just outlined is followed on every occasion?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I am obviously not the person at the frontline. I will pass that to my CE.

Ms TAYLOR: I would never be so bold as to confirm that that is followed on every occasion. What I can say is that our carers, our agencies that support them, our staff, do an almighty job each and every day. I know that we are continuing, as we flagged earlier, to roll out the manual of practice. Certainly, the manual of practice talks about those critical practice principles and part of that is obviously about having those critical conversations.

So what I can say is we are embedding that and we are supporting our people to have those conversations. I am sure that from time to time a carer may raise a concern that they did not feel a matter was raised with them. It is obviously available to a carer to have an internal review if it is needed but I can absolutely say to you that we are a learning organisation. We recognise that we have come a long way but we still have a good way to go.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 105. Do you think that it is appropriate that the Treasurer seek $4.5 million in efficiencies given the high number of children in care and the increased demand for services?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The Department for Child Protection has been given a $4.5 million efficiency measure in line with whole-of-government; we are part of a whole team. This is to be achieved in the 2020-21 year which will apply on an ongoing basis. This will be achieved through four measures, including an overall reduction of 22 FTEs, equivalent to $2.2. million in efficiencies, primarily in corporate support roles. Bear in mind that we have also had an increase in FTEs in our frontline roles. I believe it was 74 FTEs.

The areas of focus were non-client facing, including research, human resources and administration roles. The work of reviewing roles and responsibilities, identifying activities no longer required and duplicate activities that are being performed across key functional areas is ongoing. This FTE reduction will be managed through natural attrition and TVSPs. A reduction of $1.5 million in childcare payments for children in family based care is as a result of childcare payments being paid by the commonwealth government rather than reimbursed by the department. This is a new arrangement with the commonwealth.

As of 1 July 2020, there were new legislative changes to two acts—A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act and A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act—where the maximum period for an Additional Child Care Subsidy (child wellbeing) determination increased from 13 weeks up to 12 months for classes of children prescribed in the Minister's Rule which include children in foster care arrangements.

There was a reduction of $0.5 million in staff learning and development and there was also a reduction of $0.3 million as a result of changes to the engagement of drug and alcohol clinicians. Four clinicians were previously employed through a memorandum of administration. As to an arrangement with DASSA, this agreement was discontinued on 30 June 2020 with the same services being provided through a combination of in-house service delivery and access to DASSA services through their usual business channels. There is one continuing central worker who will be providing that as well as a manual of practice that has now been developed and is available in every office.

Ms HILDYARD: I have the omnibus questions as follows:

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

What is the actual FTE count at 30 June 2020 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. For each department and agency reporting to the minister:

How much is budgeted to be spent on goods and services for 2020-21, and for each of the years of the forward estimates period?

The top ten providers of goods and services by value to each agency reporting to the minister for 2019-20; and

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

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

3. Between 1 July 2019 and 30 June 2020, 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?

4. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors above $10,000 between 1 July 2019 and 30 June 2020 for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, listing:

the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier;

cost;

work undertaken;

reason for engaging the contractor; and

method of appointment?

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

How many FTEs were employed to provide communication and promotion activities in 2019-20 and what was their employment expense?

How many FTEs are budgeted to provide communication and promotion activities in 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 and what is their estimated employment expense?

The total cost of government-paid advertising, including campaigns, across all mediums in 2019-20 and budgeted cost for 2020-21.

6. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, please provide a full itemised breakdown of attraction and retention allowances as well as non-salary benefits paid to public servants and contracts between 1 July 2019 and 30 June 2020.

7. What is the title and total employment cost of each individual staff member in the minister's office as at 30 June 2020, including all departmental employees seconded to ministerial offices?

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

(a) How much was spent on targeted voluntary separation packages in 2019-20?

(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?

9. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many executive terminations have occurred since 1 July 2019 and what is the value of executive termination payments made?

10. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what new executive appointments have been made since 1 July 2019, and what is the annual salary, and total employment cost for each position?

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

12. In the 2019-20 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 2020-21?

13. In the 2019-20 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 2020-21? How much was sought and how much was approved?

14. For each grant program or fund the minister is responsible for please provide the following information for 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 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.

15. For the period of 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020, provide a breakdown of all grants paid by the department/agency that report to the minister, including when the payment was made to the recipient, and when the grant agreement was signed by both parties.

16. For each year of the forward estimates, please provide the name and budgeted expenditure across the 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 financial years for each individual investing expenditure project administered by or on behalf of all departments and agencies reporting to the minister.

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

18. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what is the total cost of machinery of government changes since 1 July 2019 and please provide a breakdown of those costs?

19. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what new sections of your department or agency have been established since 1 July 2019 and what is their purpose?

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

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

What measures are you implementing to meet your savings target?

What is the estimated FTE impact of these measures?

The CHAIR: It is now 7.15pm and that is the time that has been allocated. That has now expired, therefore there are no further questions. I declare the examination of the portfolio agency Department for Child Protection completed and the estimates of payments for the Department for Child Protection closed.

At 19:15 the committee adjourned to Thursday 26 November 2020 at 9:00.