Estimates Vote

Department for Child Protection, $883,187,000

Administered Items for the Department for Child Protection $110,000

Minister:

Hon. K.A. Hildyard, Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence.

Departmental Advisers:

Ms J. Bray, Chief Executive, Department for Child Protection.

Mr D. Shephard-Bayly, Deputy Chief Executive, Department for Child Protection.

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

Ms G. Ramsay, Chief Operating Officer, Department for Child Protection.

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

Ms S. Wendt, Director, Social Worker Registration Scheme.

The CHAIR: Welcome to today's hearing for Estimates Committee B. I respectfully acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the traditional owners of this country throughout Australia, and their connection to land and community. We pay our respects to them and their cultures, and to Elders both past and present.

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

Changes to committee membership will be notified as they occur. Members should ensure 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 Answer to Questions mailbox no later than Friday 5 September 2025.

I propose to allow both the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition to make opening statements of about 10 minutes each, should they so wish. There will be a flexible approach to giving the call for asking questions. A member who is not on the committee may ask a question at the discretion of the Chair.

All questions are to be directed to the minister, not the minister's advisers. The minister may refer questions to advisers for a response. Questions must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget papers and must be identifiable or referenced. Members unable to complete their questions during the proceedings may submit them as questions on notice for inclusion in the assembly Notice Paper.

I remind members that the rules of debate in the house apply in the committee. Consistent with the rules of the house, photography by members from the chamber floor is not permitted while the committee is sitting. Ministers and members may not table documents before the committee; however, documents can be supplied to the Chair for distribution.

The incorporation of material in Hansard is permitted on the same basis as applies in the house; that is, that it is purely statistical and limited to one page in length. The committee's examinations will be broadcast in the same manner as sittings of the house, through the IPTV system within Parliament House and online via the parliament's website.

I declare the proposed payments open for examination. I call on the minister to make a statement, if she so wishes, and to introduce her advisers.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the committee members for being here. I will not make an opening statement; however, I will introduce the officials here with me: Jackie Bray, the Chief Executive; Darian Shephard-Bayly, the Deputy Chief Executive; Joanne Male, the Chief Financial Officer; and behind me, Sarah Wendt, the Director, Social Worker Registration Scheme; Gabby Ramsay, Chief Operating Officer; and Kris Swaffer, Director, Office of the Chief Executive.

The CHAIR: Mr Teague, do you have an opening statement or just questions?

Mr TEAGUE: I will just go to questions. For the purposes of the reference, I am at Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, Child Protection, Program 1, which commences on page 85 and I am over the page at page 86, where there is a program summary and table. I go first to the bottom of that table, the penultimate line, the net cost of providing services. I note there that the budget for 2024-25 had allocated $793 million for the Department for Child Protection. The 2024-25 estimated result shows an actual spend a bit in excess of $948 million, which is a budget blowout of $155 million.

First, on what was the additional $155 million spent, and can the minister explain to the committee what the budget management process looked like and whether she regards that as a failure to manage that budget? I flag that I will move on to an interest in the 2025-26 budget, having allocated $866 million for the Department for Child Protection, which is $82 million less than the 2024-25 actual spend, so it is not as though the budget is now providing for a new reality: the budget is providing for $82 million less for the coming year. The minister might deal, first, with the budget blowout and, secondly, how DCP might endeavour to reduce its spending by that $82 million for this year.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I thank the member for the question. I will first speak broadly to the situation with the child protection budget since we have been in government. It is very important to reflect and contrast the commitment we have as a government to children, young people and their families, to contrast that with the lack of investment by the former government.

Since coming to government we have invested $674 million into the child protection budget to support children, young people and their families. Prior to this budget, that investment had sat at $570 million. In this budget is an additional $94 million. I know that the member likes to characterise that investment, as he has done this morning, as a budget blowout.

We are absolutely committed to investing in helping to improve the lives of children, young people and their families. I know that I do not get to ask questions today of the member, so I will put something out there, not expecting an answer. We have invested $674 million since coming to government in the child protection and family support system and $94 million this year. Those investments have, very importantly, gone to a range of endeavours to support the children, young people and families who most need our support, and we are really proud of that investment.

Those investments go to things like—and I am sure I will get an opportunity to explain them at length—the establishment, for the first time ever, of the Aboriginal peak body for children and young people, Wakwakurna Kanyini. They go to carer payment increases, Child Abuse Report Line resources, our interagency child death review model, family group conferencing, the Finding Families program, the Additionally Approved Carer Program, kinship care assessments, programs and investments that support children and young people who are in care, reunification programs, and transitioning from care or post-18 years programs, just to name a few.

There is a question that I know I cannot ask here, but I think it is an important question to put on the record. We are proud of those investments, and we will keep investing to support children, young people and their families. I know that the member has already characterised that as a blowout, so I would be very interested to know, at some point, what the opposition would intend to cut from these incredibly important services and supports for children and young people in our state?

Mr TEAGUE: I might just remind the committee of the question I put rhetorically, back in 2022. At that stage, the government had exempted the Department for Child Protection from what it described as generalised operating efficiencies applied at that time. Without cavilling at that endeavour, I put the rhetorical question: is more money in child protection a sign of success or is it a sign of failure? That has continued, and indeed I have described repeated estimated results against budget blowing out by $100 million or more in years subsequent as budget blowouts. I am interested to know—that is the reason I asked the question—what is the cause of that blowout in circumstances where the budget, in the line item that I have taken the minister to, reduces the budget by $82 million?

The question, as yet unanswered, is: what services and programs does the minister anticipate will be cut in order to meet that budget, or does the minister tell the committee that, once again, there is no realistic prospect that the budget will be met, in which case it is a relatively meaningless exercise to set it out? I draw particular attention to the second paragraph of the explanation of significant movements that is immediately below the table, which gives us a clue. It states that:

The increase in expenses between the 2024-25 Budget and 2024-25 Estimated Result is primarily due to increased costs associated with providing…services ($156 million).

I have described this as the budget blowout, and I repeat that. Again, for the committee's benefit, the government provided three answers to that question last year, and the minister might recall that she gave one of them. The Treasurer, in answer to questions in estimates, said that was due to the cost of providing services on a casual, temporary, short-term kind of basis, which was at additional cost. The Premier, at or about the same time, indicated that it was a virtue of employing more staff, and the minister gave, if I might say so, the kind of answer that the minister has just given in general terms.

So I would invite the minister again to indicate, with some precision if it is possible: what are those increased costs associated with providing care services, and how will they be cut, managed, trimmed or applied in order to meet the budget provision for the year ahead?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I think I have a few questions in there. First of all, in relation to what the member rightly spoke about, and that is the cruel efficiency measures that were made under the previous government, I will come back to that.

Mr TEAGUE: Point of order: that is misquoting me, as I think the committee understood. The operating efficiencies that I referred to were those applied by the incoming Malinauskas Labor government in almost all agencies except child protection. It is straightforward; it is not controversial. We know that child protection was exempted from those operating efficiencies applied in that first Malinauskas Labor budget. There is no problem with that. It led to my rhetorical question at the first estimates that followed: is more money for child protection a sign of success or failure? I just need to correct the minister in that regard.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Just to finish what I was saying, I heard a range of topics in the question that the member put. One of them was about efficiency measures and, as I said, the efficiency measures that were applied relate to the last government. Also, he asked me about success and signs of success, so I will come back to that. Also in that question he has spoken about the cost of providing services. In that broad-ranging question, I will answer each of those things.

What I will start with is the question about success. I do that because I want to try, again, to get the member to understand the complexity inherent in the lives of children, young people and their families, and what that means for the complexity of the responses and the investments that we as a government must provide. I know the member has heard me speak about this before. Sadly, one in three children in South Australia at some point in their lives are notified to the child protection and family support system.

Children, young people and their families who are the subject of those notifications are often grappling with the most complex and deeply interconnected issues: intergenerational trauma; poverty; mental ill health; experiences of domestic, family and sexual violence; substance misuse. Those issues are really, really complex and that adds such a degree of complexity and difficulty to the lives of the children and young people who are in those situations.

As a government that is thinking deeply and acting in a very multifaceted way to tackle that challenge for our state, we have many measures of success. As I said, we have invested $674 million into the child protection and family support system. In terms of the question about success, we are beginning to see promising results.

We know that children and young people continue to face those circumstances and that therefore we have a whole lot more work to do; we know that. We absolutely know that, but we are focused on reforming the system to improve the lives of children and young people. There is more to do, but we are seeing results. One of the results that I would point to, we have—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I think you asked about results and success. I am not sure if the member had another question?

Mr TEAGUE: No, I am listening.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Sorry, I thought the other member had a question.

Mr WHETSTONE: You blew the budget. That is the outcome.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Okay. Again, I will just keep talking. I am not sure what you would cut from the measures to improve the lives of children and young people, but I will continue to speak in relation to the question from the member for Heysen, the shadow spokesperson, about those signs of success.

One of those signs of success relates to the slowing of growth of children coming into care and I have, very pleasingly, the growth rate as at 31 May 2025 and that sits at minus 0.6 per cent. That comes from a high during the last government of 9 per cent growth of children and young people coming into care. We now sit at minus 0.6 per cent. Similarly, we are seeing a slowing of the growth rate for children in residential care in particular. In 2021, the growth rate for children in residential care, I am advised, sat at 46.2 per cent. That now sits, I am advised, at minus 0.5 per cent. So in terms of those signs of success, they are two that I would point to.

I would also point to the extraordinary success we are having through other measures that we are investing in. Obviously, those measures speak to our investment in programs like Finding Families, family group conferencing, and reunification. In this budget, there is more money for Finding Families, for our Additionally Approved Carers Program and for more staff at the Child Abuse Report Line and other results show we are just beginning to see that success. What I always want to add to what we say about that success is that of course we have more to do—of course we do—but those are promising signs.

The other promising signs relate to the success rate of our family group conferencing and of our reunification programs and I can certainly provide all of the detail about those to the member and I am sure I will get the opportunity to do that during the course of this hearing.

But again, in terms of his question about success, when we are seeing that difference being made in the lives of children and young people, when we are seeing our investment of $13.4 million into family group conferencing beginning to show results between 85 to 90 per cent at particular points in time, that to me is promising. We have so much more to do. We will continue our process of reform, but I am pleased that our investments are beginning to show those signs of success, noting again we have more to do.

The other part of the member's question was in relation to the cost of providing, I think, services, I presume particularly for children who are in care. I think that was where the member was going, if I am correct, and I want to speak about that. As I said, we have reduced the growth of children coming into care, which is a really important indicator.

We have also reduced the growth rate for the number of children coming into residential care in particular, but those two figures always have to be contemplated in relation to the complexity that I spoke about that a number of children, young people and their families are facing because different services need to be provided depending on what a particular child is experiencing. Different types of complex supports need to be around a particular child, so those costs do vary from child to child in terms of what we need to provide for a particular child.

Some have extraordinarily complex needs. With others, as I said, there is always complexity, but those costs do vary and they will vary literally from day to day, week to week because different children with different needs come into contact with the system. The other point I would make about that is that we are determined to progress reform that improves the therapeutic supports for all children living in residential care, whatever their circumstances.

As I have said, there are different complexities and different types of supports that children need, but our government is embarking on a groundbreaking initiative to reimagine how residential care services can be even more responsive to the needs of children and young people who most need our support. So we intend to draw on decades of practice expertise right across the sector. We want collaborative effort to stringently focus on getting the right balance of supports and services for young people and for families and communities now and into the future.

We know that the best outcome for a child, or the most desirable outcome for a child, is that they can safely stay at home with their family. Sadly, that is not always possible. When they cannot safely stay with their family, we want to try to explore opportunities across extended families and communities to have family-based care; however, there are circumstances where children and young people must live in residential care. We are embarking on work to make sure that the best possible therapeutic supports are in place for children and young people in residential care. We want to reimagine residential care. We want to make sure that, together with key stakeholders, we really look very deeply at how we can improve the supports in residential care also.

In amongst those many stakeholders who need to be part of that work, very importantly will be the voices of those who are part of the advisory groups that I have established and, in particular, the ministerial youth advisory council made up of children and young people in care, whom I want to have a voice about what the best model of residential care can look like.

There is much more to say about that particular part of the member's question, but to sum-up, we will not apologise for investing in helping to improve the lives of children, young people and their families. That is a crucial thing for us to do. I am pleased with the results that we are beginning to see, but I absolutely know that reform is really hard, and we still have a way to go. But we are absolutely committed to staying the course and reforming the system to make sure we do improve the lives of children and young people, and that means that we do have to invest. As I said, I am not going to apologise for that. It is really important that we direct funds towards improving the lives of children and young people.

I am disappointed that the opposition describes this in the way that they do. Again, I would be interested at some point to know what particular programs they would cut, given there seems to be—and I would be very pleased to hear otherwise—a lack of support for the particular initiatives that we are investing in.

Mr TEAGUE: I start to have some more sympathy for the Treasurer, if not for this committee. I really do wonder whether the minister realises why we are here. The exercise is not one of time-filling with generalised statements. We are here analysing the budget or doing the best we can to do so according to budget lines. The minister has presided over, yet again, a $155 million budget blowout, with the result that the government has found it necessary to apply for the year ahead an $82 million cut in the budget.

Are South Australians watching this left to think that the Department for Child Protection's budget is just a completely meaningless exercise and that the amount of money that is spent in child protection is a sort of endless amount that will continue to exceed budget in an unspecified way? What I am really asking the minister to do, in the context of estimates, is to elicit, if not a command of the budget, some indication of where those costs go. I have directed the minister to the budget's own explanation, which talks in general terms about increased costs associated with providing care services.

The minister, in that long and more or less generalised answer, has spoken about—using words with which we are familiar from the minister—complexity, interconnected, and then are beginning to show promising results. Is there any possibility that the minister can enlighten the committee, by reference to an unidentified case—for example, a complex one—where costs so increased unexpectedly that the minister determined it was meritorious to blow the budget in that proportional way in order to achieve the promising result that the minister has spoken about in generalised terms?

Otherwise, we are wasting our time here, just hearing from the minister and filling time. Is there any explanation from the minister to this estimates committee about where the money has gone, by reference to one case, for example? You have all of your advisers here.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Again, briefly, we invest in a range of programs. This is what the member has asked: where are we investing the money? I will let you know: into family group conferencing, into post-care services, into the Next Steps pilot service—

Mr TEAGUE: What is the blowout in each case?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: —into the Stability Post Care individual packages for those young people who leave residential care.

Mr TEAGUE: Any dollars attached?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: We provide money for advocacy and support to CREATE Foundation, to Grandcarers SA. I can go through figures, money to the Stronger Start program that helps at-risk first-time parents at the earliest opportunity.

Mr TEAGUE: What exceeded budget?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: We provide money for additional kinship care assessments, to family reunification services, to the National Redress Scheme, to the Interagency Child Death Review model and, as I spoke about in my last answer, to provide supports for those children in care.

Mr TEAGUE: What was budgeted and what blew out?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: We provide funding to support children in residential care. Of course, what the member should understand is that when we are talking about that cost a number of non-government organisation partners and community organisation partners also run residential care. I presume that is something also that the member supports, but I have just spoken about, and I know the member has spoken about—

Mr TEAGUE: They have to meet their budgets, you see.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: As I said, children have differing, complex needs which require different types of support provided both directly by the Department for Child Protection and, as has been the case for decades, also by our community organisation partners. As I have also said to the member, that area, in terms of reimagining residential care, is something that we will continue to look at because, in amongst that complexity, we want children and young people to have the best possible support.

We also want to make sure that we are relooking at residential care and, alongside making sure that we are investing in all the programs I just spoke about—the member asked for programs and I have just given him information about those programs—to keep children and young people together safely with family where that is possible.

Mr TEAGUE: Did that cause the blowout?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: We also have to—

Mr TEAGUE: What caused the blowout?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: —provide funding for those children in residential care. I just want to give an example of why that question about complexity matters. I know that—

Mr TEAGUE: That was the answer but not the question. That is alright. Put a dollar figure on it.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: —the member has scoffed at that idea of children and young people having complex needs, but if you think about—

Mr TEAGUE: Chair, that is not right. I have not scoffed at all.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: —if you think about—

Mr TEAGUE: What I have done is I have referred to—excuse me.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Can I keep answering the question? Is there a point of order?

Mr TEAGUE: Chair.

The CHAIR: One at a time, please.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I am still answering the question.

Mr TEAGUE: Chair, if I may, point of order if necessary. Again, a mischaracterisation. What I have done, in all sincerity, is referred to a word the minister has used in an answer, 'complexity', and invited the minister to explain how complexity—and I have no difficulty with the use of that word—sounds in terms of a cause to budget blowout. Far from scoffing this is a serious matter, Chair—

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Absolutely. Happy to answer it.

Mr TEAGUE: —and we are here to seek some explanation by reference to the budget for a minister who ought to have command of that. Using her own words, I have invited the minister to explain how that complexity sounds in terms of the budget. So—

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I will answer the question again.

Mr TEAGUE: I do not appreciate the minister's characterisation.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Sure. No problem. I will answer the question, but again I have to speak about complexity. I know you have—

Mr TEAGUE: Please. I invited you to.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: You did say something that was—you said that I repeat that word.

Mr TEAGUE: You do.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: —and I do. I do—

Mr TEAGUE: You do, and I am perfectly happy; just—

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: —because this goes—

Mr TEAGUE: —explain it by reference to the budget.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: —to the core of exactly what I am talking about in terms of that provision of care services. So if you think about a child—and I cannot give you particular names, of course—

Mr TEAGUE: No, unidentified.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: —but particular children in our care—

Mr TEAGUE: Just one.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: —have such complex needs, children who are living with significant disability, very, very high-end medical needs, they may require care 24 hours a day by a team of people—

Mr TEAGUE: So that is why you had $793 million to care for them last year.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: —by a team of people. So when I talk about complexity I am talking about a range of circumstances, because as I said every child or young person who is in contact with the child protection and family support system deals with complex issues. They absolutely do.

Mr TEAGUE: That is why we have a budget for it.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: By the very nature of being in contact with the system they are dealing with really difficult and often heartbreaking issues, and there will be—

Mr TEAGUE: What is the cause of the blowout?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: —different levels of complexity. For some children that complexity means they may need around-the-clock, 24-hour-a-day care by a team of people. I was asked for example—

Mr TEAGUE: Do not set up vulnerable children as somehow your bulwark for unaccountability. You have a budget.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I was asked by the member to explain by what I mean by some of those complex needs that require particular sorts of care.

Mr TEAGUE: Excess to budget.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I will never apologise for expending funds on the care of those children—

Mr TEAGUE: But how did you? Do you even know?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: —with highly complex needs. I will never, ever apologise for that, and I am surprised, frankly, that the member is questioning that. Of course we need to provide care—

Mr TEAGUE: Does the minister know how that was done at all?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: —for those children and young people. I am absolutely across the different needs of children and young people in care and, as I said, there are a range of needs, and we have to respond to all of them. Of course we do.

Mr TEAGUE: You have $793 million budgeted to do so.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Of course we do. So we are expending our funds on providing for that care for children and young people with complex needs. Of course we are. We will keep doing that. Whichever child or young person comes into contact with the system, what their needs are must be responded to—

Mr TEAGUE: The minister says the minister will keep doing so.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: —by the department—

The CHAIR: Maybe a little advice that might smooth things over a little. The minister does, quite rightly, talk about complexity, and we are here to examine the budget. You asked a whole set of questions, multibarrelled questions at times. Maybe if there was a focus on program areas and you then used the program areas to elicit some examples. If you hone in a bit and make it a bit more specific then the minister might well be in a position to respond to the questions.

Mr TEAGUE: Let me put it this way—

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: If I can just conclude my answer—

Mr TEAGUE: —the question to the minister is—

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Is there a point of order?

The CHAIR: Please! One at a time, please. The minister and then the member.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Could I please conclude my answer just to try again to explain it to the member? Each day, a child may come into the care of the system who has highly, highly complex needs—sometimes particular conditions or a complexity of conditions or a group of conditions—

Mr TEAGUE: But what are you going to cut?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: —so we have to pay for the care of that child.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, and how are you going to cut that now? It is $82 million of cuts.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: We have to pay for the care of that child. We will continue to do that. I am failing to understand what the member—

Mr TEAGUE: I can see that. The whole committee can see you are failing to understand.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: —the point that he is trying to make because on the one hand he says there is a budget blowout, and then he talks about cuts. I am not following his argument.

Mr TEAGUE: Let me explain it to you.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: What I will say again is that—

Mr TEAGUE: The budget for 2024-25—

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: If I can conclude my answer: $674 million—

The CHAIR: Minister, like I said, if we can get back to specifics. If there could be a budget line item that we can work off.

Mr TEAGUE: It is the penultimate line of the table on page 86.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I will try again to explain it to the shadow minister—

Mr TEAGUE: Chair, if—

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: —$674 million of investment into the system for children and young people.

The CHAIR: Order! I actually think we are not going anywhere; I think we are going around in circles.

Mr TEAGUE: It might assist the committee just to bring—the minister has sought the reference point again. The line item relevantly remains the penultimate line of the table on page 86, which we have been at the entire time. The minister says that the minister is not understanding the question.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I understand the question.

Mr TEAGUE: The budget for 2024-25 for child protection is $793 million. The estimated result, if I may, for 2024-25 is $948,153,000, a blowout of the budget by $155 million, sufficient that the government has seen fit to cut the budget for the year ahead by $82 million. What are you going to cut, minister?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: That is just not true. It is absolutely not true.

Mr TEAGUE: Or is this meaningless?

The CHAIR: You have asked your question, 'What are you going to cut?'

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I will just say it again.

The CHAIR: The minister can now respond.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Thank you.

Mr TEAGUE: You say you will keep providing services.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: There has been $674 million of new investment into the child protection and family support system since coming to government—$94 million of new money this year. That is not a cut.

Mr TEAGUE: She is not responsive.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Those figures are absolutely clear.

Mr TEAGUE: It is not responsive.

The CHAIR: Next question.

Mr TEAGUE: The minister has indicated that the minister will keep on meeting the needs, including those complex needs that the minister has referred to in such general terms. The committee, I am sure, is interested to know, and I invite the minister to seek reference to those advisers who are here present in the committee to the extent that it may be necessary, what command has the minister got—indeed, to what extent is the minister satisfied that those needs will be met in the face of the $82 million reduction that is on the face of the budget paper set out in the relevant line item from the estimated result in 2024-25 to the budget in 2026? How are you going to do that? Or are you just not going to attempt it?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: We have $94 million of new investment into the budget this year—$94 million of new investment.

Mr TEAGUE: Alright, let's go there. That is the Budget Measures Statement at page 17. We can all look at that. Should we go there? That is the Budget Measures Statement, Budget Paper 5. I hope the minister has that readily to hand. Budget Paper 5 at page 17. We have budget measures, described as additional resources for out-of-home care; do you see that? There is only one table on the page—one line item—operating expenses for out-of-home care, additional resources.

This is a so-called initiative to provide $85 million over four years from 2024-25 to support young people and children in care. I say 'so-called' because those expense amounts, including $61.4 million in the 2025-26 budget, the second number from the left, are to be compared and contrasted with the $82 million budget cut from the estimated result in 2025 to the budget in 2025-26. How does the minister explain the additional resources, except by some sort of Orwellian reference of comparison between budget 2024-25 and budget 2025-26, given that the estimated result for 2024-25, which the minister has not challenged at any point, is in fact $948 million?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Kids need 24-hour care.

Mr TEAGUE: Here we go.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: That costs money.

Mr TEAGUE: So the budget is meaningless for child protection; is that right?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Kids need 24-hour care. That costs money. We have invested significant funds since coming to government—$674 million of new investment and $94 million this financial year. The really important thing for the member to understand is that, as well as providing care and being able to respond to those children and young people who come to us with really complex needs, we are also expending money on programs like family group conferencing; the Additionally Approved Carers Program, which has more money in this budget; the Finding Families program; and the reunification programs.

Whilst we are working to provide care for those children and young people who cannot safely live with their families, we also need to invest in those other services that strengthen families, hence our investments in family group conferencing, reunification, Finding Families and the Additionally Approved Carers Program. We will continue to do that. We will continue to invest in all of those sorts of programs in providing funds to care for children who cannot safely live with their family. We will continue to do that: it is the right thing to do.

Mr TEAGUE: Budget Paper 5, page 17. Maybe I should stress that, after three years, none of these are trick questions, none of this is a gotcha moment. It is an opportunity to provide some precision around where the money is going. There has been blowout, excess to budget, repeatedly. If the minister had command of the budget and the department, she might care to tell the committee where it has gone, why it has exceeded budget, and there is an opportunity to do so in the table at page 17 of Budget Paper 5 in the Budget Measures.

I am somewhat sceptical of the characterisation of the Budget Measures additional resources—I have flagged that. Is the minister able to, again, enlighten the committee to any extent as to what those specific amounts—in 2025-26, $61.408 million; in 2026-27, $4.544 million; and, in 2027-28, an estimate of $554,000—those very precise amounts of money, are going to be applied to? Why are they to be spent in that way over that time, and how are they not just to be read as some papering over of this excess of budget expenditure in the department more broadly?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Again, as the member has pointed out, on page 17 of Budget Paper 5, we will continue to invest in caring, as it sets out on that page very clearly. We will continue to provide care for children and young people—of course we will. I am interested to know whether that is something that the member would back away from. Of course we need to provide funds to care for children and young people, some of the most vulnerable children and young people in our state. I am appalled that the member is backing away from providing those funds for children and young people in care. It is absolutely appalling.

Mr TEAGUE: Point of order.

The CHAIR: What is your point of order?

Mr TEAGUE: The point of order is again mischaracterisation, apart from being completely inappropriate. The minister is seeking to apply some outcome of what the opposition might do, completely without any reference.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: What is the point of order?

Mr TEAGUE: I take exception, again, to the mischaracterisation. The minister should answer the question about what the government is doing by reference to the line item.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Just because you take exception it is not a point a order.

The CHAIR: I think we do need to move on. We can keep going around in circles, which is what we appear to be doing—

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Could I please finish my answer? There is not a point of order.

Mr Teague interjecting:

The CHAIR: Wait, please.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Just because the member does not like what I am saying is not a point of order.

Mr TEAGUE: The point of order is that the minister answers the questions by reference to the line items, just as the questioner is required to stick to the line items.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: If I can please answer the question: $85 million, as he has spoken about, is right there and will continue to be provided. The funding that is needed will continue to be provided for children and young people in care. That is exactly what we should do. I am not sure why there is this scoffing and laughing about providing care for children and young people who have complex needs. Also—

Mr Teague interjecting:

The CHAIR: Let the minister finish, please.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Also, two other points: I have listed at length all the other programs that we are investing in. I have done that twice now. I can do it again. I am not sure why the member is not hearing that. I have already answered the question. Also, we know—

Mr Teague interjecting:

The CHAIR: Can we let the minister finish, and then you will get your turn.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: We know that residential care is expensive. We know that, and that is why I also just spoke about a process of reimagining residential care in partnership with our stakeholders, bearing in mind that it is both DCP and community organisations which provide those residential care services. I have spoken about the work that we are doing to make sure that it is the best it can be and that children and young people's voices will be heard in that process. We are very clear: we will keep investing to support children and young people who live away from their families—of course we will.

I am appalled that there is this commentary about the government rightly providing those services. Alongside that, we will continue to invest in all of those other programs to strengthen families, to reunify children where it is safe to do so, to convene family group conferences, and to support Wakwakurna Kanyini in its efforts as a peak body for Aboriginal children and young people. I am absolutely appalled by this commentary from these two who do not seem to support any of those measures. Again, they need to be clear about what they would cut—

Mr TEAGUE: Point of order.

The CHAIR: What is the point of order?

Mr TEAGUE: I take exception to reflections on some members of the committee; it is entirely erroneous.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Well, the member next to you is hurling insults.

Mr WHETSTONE: It is the truth.

Mr TEAGUE: Excuse me?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: You heard him just as well as I did.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Can the member for Chaffey please stop.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Chaffey!

Mr TEAGUE: I have a question, Chair. Staying with the table, minister: if the budget process is as I understand it, am I right in this proposition? There is an initiative that provides $85.1 million over four years from 2024-25 to support children and young people in care. Did the minister make a representation to the Treasurer and/or the cabinet, seeking this amount of money? If so, for what purpose? I will invite or flag that my subsequent question will be: can the minister provide any explanation to this estimates committee as to the application of that money in each of the years that are set out in the table that the government has provided for the purpose of these estimates?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I have answered this question. We provide those funds for children living in residential care, and of course all of our cabinet colleagues discuss budgetary matters.

Mr TEAGUE: What the committee is left to conclude—

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Is this a question?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, it is a question. The committee is left to conclude that this is nothing more than a reprofiling that the minister is not taking ownership for in respect of this amount and that there is no explanation for what support children and young people in care can expect to receive in respect of the $61.408 million in 2025-26, the much-diminished $4.544 million in 2026-27 and then this rather specific, relatively minor sum of $554,000 in 2027-28. Is there any explanation to the committee as to what this means, why it is provided in each year and what it might be provided for, beyond the kind of generalised statements without reference to money that the minister has so far provided over the better part of an hour to this committee?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: As I have said before, those funds go to community organisation partners who deliver residential care, and also DCP directly delivers residential care. I have been very clear that funds go to both DCP's provision of residential care and our community organisation partners to deliver residential care. Each time a child or young person comes to the attention of the system and we go through the processes and it is determined that the safest option for that child is to live in residential care, we then assess what is happening for that child and determine the sort of care that that particular child needs. It is right that that is continuously assessed and that decisions are made about the sort of package of support that each child or young person needs.

Alongside that effort and that investment into residential care services, we also invest in a range of programs to strengthen families and we invest in services to support carers who provide care for children in family-based care. For instance, on that note we have increased carer payments in 2022-23 by 4.8 per cent plus an additional $50 a fortnight, then 2.5 per cent, then 2.5 per cent this year. Also, we have introduced our flexible respite payment for carers. That was introduced at the beginning of last year. So we invest in those programs also.

Mr TEAGUE: The minister clearly does not know, Chair. I will move on. Perhaps I will slightly change the topic but bring us back to the point about FTEs that was the subject of multiple answers by government last year. I recall that I asked the minister last year if she was aware of the Treasurer's response in estimates the day before and the minister was aware. There was some focus at this time last year on the point about FTEs contributing to costs in the DCP budget.

I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 86. We are still in that table and we move from the penultimate line to the final line of that table. We have FTEs as at 30 June. The budget 2024-25 provided for 2,551 FTEs. Do you see that, minister? So that is where I am. The estimated result for 2024-25 was 2,582.7 FTEs, a difference of 31, if my maths is right, so there are 31 additional FTEs that were budgeted for. What roles are those additional 31 FTEs performing and what is the breakdown of the additional cost to budget for those additional 31 FTEs?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Two things, just to finish on an earlier point about the member's previous sets of questions. The other thing to be very clear about in terms of the investment into residential care and why that changes is because, as well as responding to complexity, as I said right at the beginning of this hearing but the member does not seem to want to hear it, we are reducing the rate of growth—

Mr TEAGUE: Point of order: I take exception to the reflection on a member of the committee. It is contrary to standing orders. I do want to hear it.

The CHAIR: I actually do not think it is needed and I do not think it is helpful.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I also do not think it is helpful. The slander that I have been subjected to by the member for Chaffey is not okay and I will call it out every time.

The CHAIR: Can you wrap up the summary from what is a previous question? This question is a very specific one.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I will call out that behaviour every time and I suggest that the member for Heysen call out that behaviour. I will go back to what I was saying. The other thing in relation to the costs of residential care that is really important to note, and I said it right at the beginning, is that we are slowing the growth of children in care, so that also has an impact on the funds expended in residential care.

Mr TEAGUE: What roles are the 31 additional FTEs performing?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I will get to the next part of the question. The really important thing to note is that, since coming to government, we have grown the number of staff FTEs.

The CHAIR: Okay, so we are getting to the specific question now.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: The FTE growth has been 241 since coming to government—a 241 increase in net FTE. That is really good news. I am sure the member is very pleased to hear that. We are also very pleased that just recently we have had a record number of frontline youth workers recruited to provide care, support and empowerment to those children and young people, so I am very pleased by the overall result and I am very pleased about that growth in those youth workers at the frontline. The other staffing measure—

Mr TEAGUE: If the minister does not know the answer to the question, the minister is entitled to seek an answer.

The CHAIR: I think the minister is attempting to answer the question.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I am answering it actually.

The CHAIR: There is a reference to youth workers.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I am actually answering it. The other point that the member can see in the budget in relation to staffing is that we have invested an additional $2 million into this budget to increase the number of staff at the Child Abuse Report Line.

Can I say on this point to youth workers, those contact centre staff and indeed all of the staff in the Department for Child Protection and indeed right across the system, thank you for the incredible work you do to provide support to children and young people. Their commitment is absolutely extraordinary. They are the people who have to make those very difficult decisions about whether or not to remove children and their work and their commitment to those children is extraordinary.

I am very pleased—again, 241 new FTEs since coming to government, increase in youth workers, increase in this budget in the Child Abuse Report Line staff.

Mr TEAGUE: What we have learned so far in relation to these additional 31 FTEs is, if I might say so, very little indeed. I ask the minister again: what roles are these 31 additional FTEs performing? Put it in the context of a business in the real world. You employ one FTE, you want to know what they are doing. You employ 31 FTEs, it is a significant business all on its own. Surely the minister has taken some interest—

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Of course I have.

Mr TEAGUE: —in what those FTEs are doing and is aware of the fact that there are 31 excess to budget. I do not know what goes on. Apparently, there is not a particular budget request for a particular outcome. In the same way, in terms of these 31 FTEs, is that just drift through the course of the year that the minister has become aware of on reading the budget papers? Is there some explanation? It might be a good one and, if so, what are they doing?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: For goodness sake!

The CHAIR: Can I make what I think might be a useful suggestion? The minister did indicate, in the broad, the child abuse line and another additional service that has had the benefit of more FTEs.

Mr TEAGUE: I would love to know how many.

The CHAIR: I think you want something more specific than that. It might well be, if the information is not available at the moment—

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Of course it is available.

The CHAIR: —it could be reported back.

Mr TEAGUE: Take it on notice. Good idea. Thank you, Chair, I welcome your intervention.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: No, I do not need to take any questions on notice. I am well across all of the budget, of course.

Mr TEAGUE: Well, answer the question then. Just answer the question.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: So those positions also include case managers and support staff who, again, do extraordinary work supporting children and young people.

Mr TEAGUE: How many case managers were employed in addition to budget? When did they commence? Who made the decision and for what purpose?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: We are talking about the budget for 1 July going forward.

Mr TEAGUE: No, we are not. We are talking about the budget papers at the line of FTEs at page 86.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Again, I will break it down for the member. We have employed 241 net additional FTEs—

Mr TEAGUE: So you want to go that far back now?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: —since coming to government, in sharp contrast to those opposite. We are growing staff numbers to support children and young people. That is the right thing to do. I am not sure what is funny about that. That is the right thing to do.

Mr TEAGUE: The minister just went back three years, having admonished me for analysing the budget result for the last year. That is what is funny.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I have already answered the question about case managers, support staff—

Mr TEAGUE: How many? What cost?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: —and we will continue to grow staff. In that 241 FTEs, from April to April this year—so April 2024 to April 2025—just in that period we employed another 79.5 FTEs. So whichever set of questions the member chooses to give a speech about and ask some questions on, I have those figures. I have just answered the question. I will leave it there.

Mr TEAGUE: I am not going to leave it there.

The CHAIR: Can I just once again intervene?

Mr TEAGUE: We are here analysing the budget.

The CHAIR: The minister has, in part, answered the question. I guess the member is actually seeking specifics. That is why, if it is not available now—

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: It is available. I have just given it.

The CHAIR: —about what the breakdown is, it can be provided.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I have just provided it.

Mr TEAGUE: I appreciate that, Chair. That is on the record as well, and it is there for all to see. The minister has nothing more to say about the matter, apparently. I invite the minister to take on notice the particulars of what roles these 31 additional FTEs are performing and what the breakdown of additional costs for those 31 FTEs is. If the minister wishes to decline, the minister might reflect on that in the remaining 20 minutes.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I have not declined. I have answered the question very, very clearly. I have just spoken about April to April—79.5 FTE higher. So April 24 to April 25, I have described a range of the positions that we are growing.

Mr TEAGUE: The program summary income expenses—same page, same table—the 2025-26 budget provides for 2,595.8 FTEs, nearly 2,596 FTEs. That is an increase of 13 or so for this financial year ahead. How many of those FTEs are allocated to the CARL as per the—I think there has been a government budget announcement about that. What are the remaining FTEs for? There is apparently no reduction in FTEs to contribute to the $82 million cut, reduction in expenditure, that is budgeted for this year ahead. Is it correct to say that there will be no reduction in FTEs to meet that $82 million budget reduction for the year ahead?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: As I said, we are growing FTEs. To go to the first part of the question about the 13, the member will see in the budget papers that one of our many new investments relates to new staff in the call centre and also in the additionally approved carers and Finding Families program.

Mr TEAGUE: I think my next question was: what are the remaining FTEs for?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I have spoken about the various positions across the Department for Child Protection. I have just spoken about the 13, the call centre and the additionally approved carers and Finding Families program. I have also spoken about the sorts of positions that we have been grown in the Department for Child Protection: youth workers and case managers amongst others.

Mr TEAGUE: What we have learned so far, I suppose, is that the number of FTEs from this year, with an estimated result of 2,582.7, to the year ahead of 2,595.8, is an approximately 13 FTE increase over and above the FTE increase the year before. Against that, we see this quite substantial $82 million reduction in the budget. There is an additional, one might presume—but if that is not right, if somehow these FTEs are employed at a reduced cost to current FTEs that might be one explanation, but there is a relatively significant increase in FTEs and therefore, I presume, cost and, at the same time, there is an $82 million cut to the budget as against the estimated result from this year.

Did the minister protest that result to the government? Does the minister have any reasonable expectation of meeting the budget—presumably not contributed to by FTE neutrality or cut—and, if so, what will be the contributors to achieving that $82 million budget reduction for the year ahead?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: First of all, to be very clear, we are not cutting any staff, any FTEs—absolutely not.

Mr TEAGUE: You are adding 13.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: We are not cutting any staff. We will continue to make reforms to the system, reforms that are finally seeing a reduction in growth in the number of children and young people coming into care. That is a really important factor in terms of assessing the cost of providing services to children in care: the slowing of the growth of numbers of children and young people coming into care. Our work on programs like family group conferencing, reunification and Finding Families are all showing results and adding to that result. It is a result I am very, very pleased about.

That reform will continue. We will continue with our investments in programs that help to keep families safely together, and we will also, as I have spoken about, continue our work to reimagine residential care, and whatever complexity, whatever needs a child comes to our system with, when they require care we will meet the costs of that care.

Mr TEAGUE: Turning to page 87 of the same budget paper and same volume—Agency Statements, Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 87—it is the table immediately opposite 'Performance indicators' and the first line of the performance indicators table is a new indicator, as is indicated there, as is set out by the words 'New indicator'. It is the first of them that says '% of investigations completed within 90 days from notification (response time)'.

That is a new indicator. Previous budgets, including the 2024-25 budget, had a similar line item appearing as the first line item. That no longer exists, however, here. That line item was an indicator being '% of investigations commenced within 7 days from notification (response time)'. So they are two response time indicators.

The committee will be well aware of that context, I expect. That was an indicator that was repeatedly and dramatically falling short of target. Just from memory the estimated result against the 75 per cent target was in the 50s each time. It was nowhere near being achieved. Then we see on the application of this new indicator, 'completed within 90 days' the relatively rather more rosy looking figures by reference to the target, including retrospectively—

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: That is just not true, Josh.

Mr TEAGUE: It is not a criticism.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: It is not true, and you know it.

Mr TEAGUE: I see it is true: the estimated result exceeds the target, which I think is something the government would like to see.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: That is not what I am calling you out on, and you know it.

Mr TEAGUE: The previous indicator was a seven-day commencement target, and that was not achieved, by a wide margin. So I am interested to know why the government has seen fit to do away with that previous indicator as to response time, which had repeatedly failed to meet its target, and instead substitute one which I might say members of the committee might regard as being rather less of a—call it—exacting measure of how the department is going about discharging its obligations, what policy reasons might justify that change and what, indeed, the minister can say about the good old response time indicator of investigations being commenced within seven days.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I explained this to the member last year—about the way the national bodies assess rate of investigations. We actually have an investigation turnaround period that is not measured nationally. That is a 24-hour investigation rate. So that is the difference. That is not something that is assessed nationally.

What you will be really, really pleased to know is that the most recent RoGS data actually placed South Australia as having the second highest result of all Australian jurisdictions in terms of the rate at which investigations are undertaken. Really importantly—this is a really important figure for you to understand—again, the RoGS data shows that South Australia's rate of investigations and successful completion of those investigations sits at 15.1 points higher than the national average. That is really, really good news.

The other really good news about investigations is that at the time of Nyland, the rate of cases that were not proceeding at that time sat at 55 per cent. Up until us coming to government, those figures remained worrying. The rate of investigations now, and, again, with 15.1 per cent higher than the national average, now sits, on that same figure about the not proceeding at a rate—we have reduced that by almost 40 per cent.

Mr TEAGUE: I might say, it has been interesting to hear the minister's fluency with respect to this particular data and willingness to address specifics, which stands in stark contrast to—

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Is this a question?

Mr TEAGUE: —an unwillingness to address specifics in relation to the budget as a whole.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Mr Chair, is this a question?

Mr TEAGUE: The question that that begs minister is: why should South Australians, let alone this committee, not form a view that this change of indicator is just straightforward cherrypicking to put a gloss on departmental performance?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I have just explained this particular matter to the member, and, again, I would refer the member to the RoGS data, which shows that South Australia's investigation rate sits at 15.1 percentage points higher than the national average. That is good news.

Mr TEAGUE: What is the South Australian figure, and what is the national average?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: That is really good news. We had, last financial year, in 2023-24, a 17.5 per cent increase on the number of notifications compared to 2022-23.

Mr TEAGUE: That is not the question.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Again, we are 15.1 percentage points higher than the national average. I refer you to the RoGS data to look further at that really pleasing result for South Australia.

Mr TEAGUE: Once again, I am not sure what question the minister was answering there; I will just ask it again. What is the national figure and what is the South Australian figure that exceeded that, as the minister said, by 15 percent?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I am happy to provide the RoGS data to the member.

Mr TEAGUE: Can the minister just put it on the record now? It is apparently in front of the minister now.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I just said I am happy to provide the RoGS data to the member, so I will take that on notice and provide the RoGS data in full to the member.

Mr TEAGUE: I am sure it is interesting for the whole committee. Is the minister able to just indicate to the committee then what percentage of investigations were commenced within seven days from notification over that relevant period?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Again, I can provide all of that data, the RoGS data, to the member. I am not quite sure how else to say that.

The CHAIR: The minister did indicate that that data will be provided, so you will get your answer.

Mr TEAGUE: I appreciate that. Is the minister willing, in doing so, just notate it to whatever extent the minister wishes to point to the figure that the minister would rely upon—

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Sure; I am very happy to do that—that is the answer to that question.

Mr TEAGUE: —in order to substantiate that response?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I am very, very happy to do that.

Mr TEAGUE: Otherwise, I note that the minister declines to answer for the committee here today what the percentage of investigations commenced within seven days from notification happens to be. I do not know what the reason for that might be.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Again, I did explain this before. This is not the case in every jurisdiction, nor how every jurisdiction measures—it is not the case that every jurisdiction measures in this way—but we actually measure commencement within 24 hours, which, again, I am sure the member will be pleased about.

Mr TEAGUE: I want to move to a topic that I think the minister will welcome in the five minutes remaining. For the benefit of the committee, if not for me—and sometimes I am a bit slow—am I to be reminded that the data that the government previously placed at this point in the table, in relation to investigations commenced within seven days, was in fact a figure that indicated investigations that actually commenced within 24 hours? Is that what the minister is indicating to the committee?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: We have two measures in South Australia: 24 hours and 10 days. You will see from the provision of the RoGS data our performance in relation to investigations surpasses other jurisdictions. I presume the member will be very happy to hear that. I also point the member to the fact that we are recruiting additional staff, investing in additional staff into our Child Abuse Report Line, which again will help with that receipt of information.

The other thing to point the member to, which, again, I am sure he is very happy about, is that I have been very clear in previous discussions in the parliament about the child protection share of the Digital Investment Fund. What is very pleasing in this budget is that we have the first tranche of that funding of $14.9 million for Kidsafe Connect, and Kidsafe Connect is the system that over time will replace the C3MS system.

What is really important about that replacement is that will enhance, make much more efficient and effective, how information about children and young people who are the subject of a notification to the child protection and family support system is received and how it is analysed. I very much look forward to that investment—again, that investment through this budget—delivering for children and young people and enabling those remarkable workers at the frontline to continue with their work and to enhance their work.

Mr TEAGUE: The next question is at page 88 of Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, just over the page. It is the activity indicators table. In the two or three minutes remaining, I refer to the fourth line of that table—the number of children and young people under the guardianship of the chief executive for a period up to 12 months. The 2024-25 budget projected that that number would grow to 650 and, as the minister indicated earlier, in terms of a slowing of growth, the 2024-25 estimate is 560, which is a significant variance, and the 2025-26 projection is an increase to 580—still a somewhat significance variation to the 2024-25 projection. Is there an explanation as to why there is such a significant variance, albeit in circumstances of the continued growth of the number of children and young people under the guardianship of the chief executive for that period?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: As I said, we have reduced the rate of growth of children and young people in care, which is incredibly pleasing. There are a range of measures that I would attribute that to; some of them go to the incredible success of our investment into family group conferencing, into Finding Families and also into the reunification programs that we have invested in. I am very pleased with the results that they are showing. Right now, I can let the member know that, as at 31 May, that growth rate is now minus 0.6 per cent. I am sure the member is also pleased with that rate.

The thing to understand about family group conferencing is that one of the things that happens in both family group conferencing and in reunification processes is that—with that figure there, for a period of up to 12 months—those programs are successfully intervening. So when a child or young person is taken into care through the intervention of one of those programs, it is less likely that they will stay in care for a longer period; rather, they will go back to safely live with their families within that 12-month period. Hence we measure that in the way that we do, to think about what interventions can be successful in that 12-month period. Again, that decrease relates to the success of those programs that we are investing in. What I can tell you is that I am advised that around about—

The CHAIR: Can you wind up?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Sure. I am advised that last year, in that period, around 500 children returned home. That is certainly work that we will continue.

The CHAIR: Thank you. The allotted time having expired, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the Department for Child Protection and its administered items complete.

Sitting suspended from 10:32 to 10:45.