Bills

Children and Young People (Safety and Support) Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 18 March 2025.)

Clause 1.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Today, by email, I received some answers from the minister's office to my questions that I asked not last sitting week but the sitting week before. Could they please be put on the record?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised the questions to which the honourable member refers are those here, and I am happy to table them.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Could they please be put on the record? She did not seek leave and leave was not granted, as far as I am concerned.

The CHAIR: I think we are looking for you to read those answers into Hansard, please, minister.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Regarding the rationale in relation to the definition of 'parent' at clause 85 of the bill, I am advised:

Clauses 85 to 90 provide for a scheme relating to the assumption of guardianship of children and young people where a parent is found guilty of certain offences, known as qualifying offences. The qualifying offences scheme was inserted into the Children's Protection Act 1993 (CPA) as a consequence of a recommendation made by the State Coroner following an inquest.

Specifically, recommendation 22.2 recommended an amendment to the CPA to quote 'provide that a child born to a person who has a conviction in respect of a child born to them for manslaughter by criminal neglect, manslaughter or murder will, be placed from birth under custody of the Minister'.

On 28 April 2016, the CPA was amended to require the Chief Executive to take action in relation to parents convicted of particular offences (qualifying offences). The qualifying offences provisions were subsequently replicated in the CYPS Act—sections 44-48.

Under the CYPS Act, a parent who commits an offence of criminal neglect, endangering life, causing or creating risk of serious harm, manslaughter or murder (and the attempted forms of these offences) against their child is guilty of a qualifying offence. The range of qualifying offences captured in the CYPS Act is broader than the recommendation of the Coroner (murder and manslaughter). In both the CPA and the CYPS Act the definition of parent in the qualifying offences scheme excludes a step-parent.

The recommendations of Coroner Johns with regards to qualifying offences were limited to children born (i.e. the biological children) of persons who have a conviction of a child previously born to them for manslaughter by criminal neglect, manslaughter or murder). The recommendation did not extend to stepparents or persons standing in loco parentis. Of course, this does not preclude the Chief Executive from taking action to protect children or young people from adults who have convictions for serious offences against other children (not their own) or indeed adults.

Clause 99 enables the Chief Executive to apply to the Youth Court to seek a guardianship order or refraining order (or any other order under clause 112) if the Chief Executive reasonably suspects a child or young person is at risk of harm and the making of orders is necessary or appropriate to protect them from harm or allow the performance of functions under the Act.

While the Bill largely replicates the existing scheme, it proposes to further expand the category of qualifying offences to include persons who are convicted of domestic choking/strangulation and serious sexual offences against their own child. These additions represent an expansion of Coroner Johns’ recommendations. It is noted that persons who are convicted of certain sexual offences against children will also be subject to the requirements of the Child Sex Offenders Registration Act 2006.

In relation to the ATSICPP reporting:

The proportion of Aboriginal children and young people with an approved Case Plan (including compulsory cultural elements), is reported in the department’s Annual Report.

C3MS’s reporting functions have been enhanced over the past three years, however the State Government ultimately determined that the system needs to be replaced, and since coming to Government, funding has been allocated for this purpose.

Any remaining reporting limitations will be addressed as C3MS is gradually replaced.

The department makes every effort to support the cultural needs of Aboriginal children and young people in care through the Case Plan process. Case planning includes cultural components of care previously captured by Cultural Maintenance Plans, as well as the Aboriginal Cultural Identity Support Tool (ACIST). The cultural aspects of case planning are foundational for the department’s casework and detailed records are maintained for individual children and young people; system limitations currently prevent aggregated reporting.

Clause 23 of the Bill currently before the Legislative Council sets out the requirements with regards to the Minister’s annual reporting, including reporting relating to Aboriginal Children and young people. Clause 23(1)(d) requires the inclusion of a part setting out the operation of Part 4 of the Bill during the reporting year, which must, in accordance with any requirements set out in the regulations, be prepared in consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons or bodies and must include the information required by the regulations. This enables the reporting obligations to be developed with Aboriginal people, reflecting the State’s commitment to recognising data sovereignty, and ensures that reporting measures capture the right information. Practically, there will be a significant number of reporting obligations, however some of these require further consideration and community input before being finalised. The C3MS replacement system will be designed to ensure compliance with these reporting requirements.

It should be noted that despite being aware of the C3MS limitations, the previous Government did not allocate any funding for its replacement.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: What proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children who were placed in care were placed in care according to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle in 2024?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the figures are available for the 12 months ending 30 June 2024 and that the percentage was 61.5 per cent.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Given that almost four in 10 Aboriginal children who were placed in care were not placed in care according to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle, how will this bill improve those outcomes?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that part 4 of this bill is dedicated to improving those matters, in particular embedding the Aboriginal placement principle to include active efforts and expanding family group conferencing. Whilst obviously not part of the bill, it is also worth mentioning that the peak body has now been established which will also assist in these matters, and that was an investment of $3.2 million.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the minister please explain how that Aboriginal child placement principle, which is aspirational in this bill rather than enforceable, can be guaranteed to improve these terrible outcomes of just over 60 per cent of Aboriginal children who are placed in care in this state actually being placed under the expected Aboriginal child placement principles?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Clause 44(3) of the bill states:

Without limiting any other provision of this Act, each person or body engaged in the administration, operation or enforcement of this Act must—

noting the word 'must'—

in making a decision under this Act relating to an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child or young person, implement each of the elements of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle that are relevant to the decision to the standard of active efforts.

Further, in clause 56 is a provision that states:

Without limiting any other provision of this Act, or any other power the Court may have, the Court must—

again noting the word 'must'—

before making an order, be satisfied that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle has, so far as is practicable in the circumstances, been implemented to the standard of active efforts in relation to the Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child or young person who is the subject of the order.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Why does the Aboriginal child placement principle language in this bill remain aspirational rather than mandatory?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think I have just outlined two provisions where it refers to 'must'. That is of direct relevance to this particular matter.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will break it down. In the provisions around the Aboriginal child placement principle, the bill has lots of shoulds and mays and mights. The courts are directed with a 'must'. If something should have, could have, would have happened but not 'must have happened', the courts' hands are then tied. Does the minister have concerns that the Aboriginal child placement principles are not necessarily as enforceable as the courts would find useful?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I note that the provision that I just read out had language 'as far as practicable'. I think that provides the explanation.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: It might provide an explanation, but it certainly does not provide an excuse. I turn to clause 78—Direction that person undergo certain assessments, which provides that the chief executive may in certain circumstance direct a certain person to undergo an assessment relating to drug and alcohol use. It goes on to include parenting capacity or mental health. Given the recommendations of the Coroner, Mark Johns, why are we still not seeing, where the chief executive has formed a reasonable suspicion that harm has been caused to a child due to alcohol or drug use, drug and alcohol assessment being implemented as mandatory?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that some parents will engage voluntarily in drug and alcohol treatment programs, in which case it would not be necessary for it to be enforced because it is already happening. The language in the bill makes provision for those types of circumstances.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Well, that is a new one. On how many occasions has drug and alcohol testing been refused when requested, upon reasonable suspicion that a person who has care of a child as their parent or guardian is abusing drugs or alcohol to the point that that child is in harm and has been identified as such?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The bill provides that:

The chief executive may, by notice in writing and in accordance with the scheme set out in regulations, require a person to whom this section applies to take part in random drug and alcohol testing and, for that purpose, to take the action, and within the period, specified in the notice.

There is the ability for it to be mandatory for the parent in question. My understanding of the original question was why it says the chief executive may issue such a declaration. If I misunderstood the nature of the question, my apologies.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will rephrase the question. Does the current legislation and the proposed bill require that, should a suspicion be formed by the chief executive that drug and alcohol abuse is placing the child in harm's way, that drug and alcohol testing shall occur, regardless of whether or not the parent or guardian complies?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that, as stated, it says the chief executive 'may require a person', etc. As mentioned earlier, there may be instances—and one example given was where the parent is willing to participate voluntarily—where it will not be required to issue such a notice because the desired action is already occurring.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am advised from stakeholders that requests for drug and alcohol testing have been refused by particular regions on the grounds of lack of budget. Can the minister please clarify whether lack of budget has hampered the ability to administer drug and alcohol testing where it has been defined to be necessary?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that it is important to note that drug and alcohol testing is but one of a suite of potential interventions that can include counselling, parenting psychology, mental health, and so on. So that is an important point to make. We are not aware of any situations that were referred to by the member, if I have interpreted my advice correctly, but I am happy to take it on notice and bring back additional information should there be a need.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: It is your amendment.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Section 37(5) of the current act actually provides that a person must not 'without reasonable excuse, refuse or fail to comply with a requirement' in relation to that random drug testing, and there is a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment. How many prosecutions have there been for people who have not complied with the requirement to undergo a drug test?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that, whilst there have not been any prosecutions to the knowledge of those who have given me the advice, noncompliance would of course affect custody arrangements, given that safety is the concern of those who are seeking to assist the child or young person.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: If we can just elaborate on that answer a little. Is the response that, to the minister's knowledge, there have been no prosecutions because nobody has ever refused to undergo a request for a random drug test, because the provision is quite clear in terms of what is required?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that it is worth noting, to start with, that no offence requires a prosecution; a prosecution must always be considered to be in the public interest. I am further advised that the consequence of not complying will mean that measures around the parent's ability to keep a child safe will, of course, be influenced by the fact that the parent has not complied. The department will then determine what action is needed to keep the child or young person safe, and that of course can include control orders, including a court order for drug testing.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: When the minister responded before to the Hon. Connie Bonaros, she said she was advised that that would affect custody. What did the adviser mean by 'custody'?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I may have used the wrong terminology; I think what I was referring to was care arrangements.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I may have missed this, and I apologise if I did, but can the minister also elaborate on the scheme that is set out in the regulations when it comes to the application of section 37—Random drug and alcohol testing?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Just to clarify, is the honourable member referring to the current act, or the bill that is before us?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Section 37 of the current act is the subject of amendments under the current bill. The minister in her responses alluded to the regulations that exist around random drug and alcohol testing, and I am asking her to elaborate on that scheme in relation to random drug and alcohol testing as it relates to the amendments that are being moved.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: To clarify, there is an amendment filed on this issue that is in the name of the Hon. Connie Bonaros.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think we need further clarification as to what exactly the honourable member is asking in her question. It is not clear to either myself or the advisers who are present here.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I will come back to that one with some further clarity. In the meantime, can the minister advise what, if any, data is kept with respect to the number of random drug or alcohol tests that have been undertaken since these provisions came into effect?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that we do not have that data available today.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the minister make that data available to the chamber, please?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am happy to take that on notice, yes.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: On that particular topic, in consultations I have been advised by stakeholders who have a particular interest in this area that they were told that the topic of random drug and alcohol testing was not under consideration as part of the government's consultation process and that the enforcement of lax rules and application of what no doubt Coroner Johns thought he was going to see the department change their behaviours on was not something that was a topic of interest in the consultations. Can the government clarify whether or not they are open to further strengthening random drug and alcohol testing as a child protection measure?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that it is considered that the provisions within the bill mean that tests can be mandated where required and therefore meet any concerns to which I believe the honourable member might be referring.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Then I repeat my question: is the minister aware of cases where alcohol and drug testing has not been undertaken due to cost prohibitions, in that the department has said that they cannot afford it?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I did answer that earlier. My advice is no, not to the knowledge of anyone here.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Turning to harm and significant harm, there are some amendments in the name of the Hon. Connie Bonaros before this chamber on that topic, and also this particular bill before us does seek to have definitions of 'harm' and 'significant harm'. I am interested in why the government has claimed that the CARL system is being overwhelmed by unnecessary reports from mandatory notifiers.

Can the government clarify how many reports from mandatory notifiers would fall into the definition of harm and how many would fall into the definition of significant harm? I will leave the minister to take whatever quantum her advisers can provide her with, whether it is a financial year or a calendar year—certainly recent years.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have some information that may be helpful in terms of answering the question. I am advised that in the 2023-24 financial year there were total notifications of 98,931. Of those, 39,957 were screened-in notifications, resulting in 12,242 investigations. So that would indicate the level at which they were considered to be reaching that threshold that is under consideration.

However, it is also important to note that the current act is setting mandatory reporting requirements for that lower threshold. The bill that is before us is simply saying that those lower levels are not mandatory to be reported, but of course it does not prevent anyone reporting any level of harm, and that is an important distinction to make.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: My question was: how many of those reports were by mandatory notifiers and at what levels of harm? That was not answered in those statistics, but I appreciate there are some statistics. We have heard these statistics before. In terms of mandatory notifiers, they have access to eCARL and they have access to eCARL because we did not want nurses and teachers sitting on phone lines for hours trying to make a report. How many notifications to eCARL can come in at a level of just harm rather than significant harm currently?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that retrospective analysis has not been undertaken to apply the proposed test going forward to the past situations. I trust I have understood that correctly from my advisers. eCARL was upgraded and an investment made to eCARL to enable timely responses and for those reports to be made in as timely a way as possible. That is also an important addition to note.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Is it possible for a mandatory notifier to make a notification of significant harm through the eCARL service that was indeed designed to be fit for purpose—to stop nurses and doctors and teachers and other professionals from sitting on a phone line for literally hours and hours, should they be able to get through at all? So is it possible for those mandatory notifiers that we told, 'We are not going to have you sitting on a phone line rather than doing your job, tending to your patients, teaching your students,' to actually report significant harm through the eCARL system?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I trust I have understood the question correctly. The short answer is yes. The professionals being referred to can make a mandatory report through eCARL through the email provisions. In addition to that, in terms of phone notifications, wait times are monitored. Callback provisions are also part of that particular system.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Is it possible for a mandatory notifier to report significant harm through the eCARL system?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I believe I did just answer that, but the answer is yes, according to my advice.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Is the minister confident of her advice, and has she looked at the eCARL system to try to make such a report and followed that process?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have not been a mandatory reporter in terms of having a need to report significant harm.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: What are the wait times currently and what are the number of calls not picked up for the eCARL reporting phone line?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that we have the wait times for January 2025. The average wait time, according to my advice, was 10 minutes and four seconds.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: What was the longest wait time?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am sorry, I do not have that information available.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: So you have the average but not the shortest and the longest? Also, at the beginning I asked how many calls were not picked up at all.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The specific information that the honourable member is asking for, according to my advice, is not available here. We can certainly take that on notice and also it is emphasised that there are additional measures available, such as the callback provisions.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Thank you to the minister for taking those things on notice. I look forward to those responses. My question is: how does somebody who does not get through make themselves able to take advantage of a callback process if the phone is not picked up in the first place?

The Hon. C.M. Scriven interjecting:

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Well, I have asked now how many calls have gone unanswered, and you have not given an answer. How many calls have gone unanswered like this question so far?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My previous answer, where I said I am advised that we do not have that information available to hand today but I will take it on notice, was intended to cover that exact question.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just one supplementary in relation to the Hon. Tammy Franks' questions: does the department have a way of identifying the wait times of somebody who does not get through at all; that is, there is no call back, they simply have not got through? Do we keep track of, or a log of, the wait times that are applied to those individuals?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: If I could clarify the question: the honourable member is asking how long would the phone ring for before it would cut out and then not be answered; is that a correct understanding of the question?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: You call and you are waiting on hold. Do we keep records of how long people wait for before those calls are terminated? Do we keep any stats on that or do we just take stats on the average number of average wait time once those calls are responded to?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: We will take that on notice and see if that specific information is available and, if so, bring it back to the chamber.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Finally, if I could go back to the issue of drug and alcohol testing, the minister undertook to provide some data to the chamber. Could she also provide data on the number of removals that have occurred specifically related to drug or alcohol use identified and substantiated via random drug testing, and how many of those removals apply to Indigenous child removal specifically?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: If that information is available and can be provided I will certainly bring that back to the chamber.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: It has been reported that the Minister for Child Protection has issued directives to the department's chief executive. What are those directives?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that directives issued to the minister's chief executive were regarding policy positions of the government. These included:

elevating 'best interests' as a new guiding principle in all procedures, manuals of practice, training materials and professional development assessment processes, whilst always retaining 'safety' as the primary, prevailing and foundational principle for protecting children;

privileging the voices of children and young people so that they are more meaningfully and appropriately involved when decisions are made about their care;

working with the relevant peak bodies, to inform implementation of the full Aboriginal child placement principle to the standard of 'active efforts';

expanding family group conferencing, with the intention that, as planned increases in capacity allow, they will be convened for all Aboriginal families;

ensuring carers are offered the opportunity to attend the annual reviews of children in their care and requiring case plans to be considered at the review;

introducing specific quality of care guidelines for replacing care concerns and assessing reports of harm to children;

developing complaint guidelines for children, carers and birth families to respond within 60 days to feedback on DCP services and decisions;

developing a new statement of commitment for children and birth families;

providing a copy of the charter of rights to all children in care; and

commencing development of a state strategy for children and young people.

I am advised these policy directions do align very closely to elements in this bill. The minister issued this direction, as we know that many elements of this bill are strongly supported by the sector and are elements that we should be able to get on with. It is very much the position of the government that all of this should be in legislation; however, there is nothing stopping us from ensuring we are moving on with this important work. I would assume that everything the minister has outlined in the media are reforms that we can all agree on and that all would be glad to see them progress in policy.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In the elevation of the best interests principle, what is the wording that has been used?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The information I have is that it has elevated best interests as a new guiding principle in all procedures, manuals of practice, training materials and professional development assessment processes.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: How has 'best interests of the child' been defined?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The information I have outlined is the information that I have available.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Could the minister please provide the wording with the definition of how 'best interest' has been defined in the minister's decree?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I will certainly take on notice the question in regard to the direction that the minister has issued.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: Regarding the directives the minister has just read out from the Minister for Child Protection, is that the full instruction that was given to the chief executive and, if not, can they be brought to the chamber?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I will take that on notice. The information I have is that these are the directions that were specifically in relation to obviously what we are talking about today. Clearly, at any time a minister has various discussions, so I am assuming that is not what the honourable member is referring to.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the minister please outline why the rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people in care per thousand in South Australia is 83 yet the national average is 50.3 per thousand? Why is there such a discrepancy? To clarify, that is from the 2025 Productivity Commission Report on Government Services, so I think it is a reasonably authoritative source.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised, and of course I know also, that the government is committed to closing the gap to attempt to meet the targets and has been doing a lot of work to be able to improve the numbers that have been referred to.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Supplementary: why are other states doing so much better in closing the gap than South Australia is then? Our numbers in South Australia are 83 per thousand, compared to a national average of 50.3 per thousand. That is an extraordinary figure that is hardly closing the gap.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that South Australia has slowed the growth of Aboriginal children in care to 0.4 per cent. If I recall correctly, that was something that was discussed in earlier sitting weeks in regard to this bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: When the minister says 'slowed the growth', is that a six-child decrease on the previous year? Can she give the numbers for this year and the previous year, when she says that we have slowed the growth?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that in the year ending 30 June 2020 the growth was 13.1 per cent. In the year ending 30 June 2021, it was 8.5 per cent. In the year ending 30 June 2022, it was 4.8 per cent. In the year ending 30 June 2023, it was 3.5 per cent. From 30 June 2024 to 31 January 2025, it was either zero or close to zero.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: So we went up by over 13 per cent, increased by 8.5 per cent on top of that 13 per cent, then increased by another 4.5 per cent on top of that 13 per cent and 8.5 per cent, then we increased by 3.5 per cent on top of that over 13 per cent, 8.5 per cent and 4.5 per cent. What are those numbers for those years, so we can actually see why and what this really looks like, when we have 83 per 1,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children going into care in this state, compared to the national average of 50.3 per 1,000 children?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that I do not have those specific numbers here at the moment. What I would point out is that obviously we acknowledge the over-representation. That is something that the minister and this government are keen to address. Actions to address this issue have included establishing the peak body.

Also, of course, the Voice to Parliament plays a part in that. I think it is worth noting that since 30 June 2022 the growth has slowed significantly. As I said, from 30 June 2024 to 31 January 2025 it is zero or almost zero. Obviously, there is more work to be done, and that is what this government is committed to doing.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will resist the temptation to ask if we have run out of Aboriginal children to remove. I note that, if you are walking up a hill and you stop at the top, then the rate of your elevation does hit a plateau or slightly decreases as you start to come down, but you have still gone up Mount Everest, in this case, in the meantime. Why is the rate of children in care less than 12 months who have had three or more placements some 18.3 per cent in South Australia, compared to 12.4 per cent in the rest of Australia as an average?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the reasons there might be differences are multifaceted. The government and the minister are focused on trying to improve those numbers. Departmental focus on retaining placements and achieving stability in care through additional supports, respite options and payments for carers, as well as the offer of increased therapeutic supports, has aided in improvements so far.

Specific efforts to improve placement stability have included new flexible respite support payments to family-based carers of $800 per year to assist with the costs of caring for a child or young person in care, with payments under this $2.15 million per annum initiative commencing in January 2024.

The Stability in Family-Based Care Program is providing carer payments to carers of more than 160 young people over 18 years where the young person continues to live with their carer and does not receive wages in excess of the carer payment. The over-18 education initiative is providing carer payments to carers of more than 100 young people over 18 years where the young person up to age 25 continues to live with their carer and is engaged in full-time education or training.

The DCP specialist therapeutic carer support team provides short-term, in-home support to family-based carers to assist with the understanding of children's development, strengthening relationships and building capacity for continued care. I am further advised that there may be additional placements, following or during a temporary placement, because a longer term placement is identified and established, so that can also be one of the factors.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Again, referring to a comparison of child protection performance under the Productivity Commission Report on Government Services 2025, comparing South Australia to the rest of the nation on averages, why is the rate of children in care who have had 11 or more placements 8.1 per cent in South Australia compared to the 3.3 per cent average across the country?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that there are a range of factors in terms of complexity, disability and so forth. Of course, we are pleased that some positive changes have resulted in some improvements. We also acknowledge that there is still more to be done with families facing ongoing and complex challenges, which of course will take time and collective effort to address. These challenges highlight just how important our programs of far-reaching reform for the child protection and family support system are in addressing the underlying drivers of contact with the system.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: According to that same document, the proportion of child protection expenditure on family and intensive family support services in South Australia is 12 per cent as a proportion of that budget, and yet across the country the average in Australia is 15.6 per cent. Why is South Australia's proportion of child protection expenditure on family and intensive family support services so low?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: According to my advice, an additional $129.1 million was provided to the Department for Child Protection in the last Mid-Year Budget Review, bringing the total new investment to $580 million since coming to government. The investments that our government is making into the sector are aimed to ensure that vulnerable children and young people, including their families, have the best system possible.

Under our government, as I have mentioned, I think on previous occasions we have seen a reduction in the rate of children coming into care from 7.9 per cent in 2018-19 to 2.5 per cent in 2022-23, and in 2023-24 the rate of children and young people in care has been a low 0.64 per cent. Remember that obviously there is a suite of measures. No-one, I am sure, is suggesting that there should be one simple measure; there is a suite of measures that the government is investing in.

Family group conferencing, which has proven to be very effective in supporting vulnerable children and families to remain together, has received additional funding of $13.4 million as part of the 2023-24 budget process to expand the program. The year 2023-24 saw success rates of 91½ per cent and 90.4 per cent achieved for the 538 children and 241 Aboriginal children who remained in the care of their families after family group conferencing.

There was $3 million in new funding to extend the Next Steps program for another three years as part of the 2024-25 Mid-Year Budget Review to support young people with complex needs to age 21 who are transitioning from residential care. There was continued support of the Child and Young Person's Visitor program, originally funded as part of the 2022-23 budget, for $1.87 million over four years, providing an additional safeguard for children and young people in residential care.

There was ongoing support of $723,000 per annum indexed for the independent Aboriginal community controlled peak body designed to empower the Aboriginal community to ensure measures are in place to improve care and protection outcomes for Aboriginal children and young people. There was $997,000 per annum indexed from 2024-25 to fund an additional seven full-time equivalent staff to undertake additional kinship care assessments. This is helping to ensure kinship placements are explored for children and young people to support them in keeping strong connections with family, community and culture.

We have also seen a 17.2 per cent increase in the number of children commencing intensive family support services, representing—according to my advice—services for 542 more children from 2022-23, and an increase of 43.2 per cent for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, representing 495 more than last year. I am advised that, overall, 5,876 children were reported as receiving intensive family support services, which was an increase of 8.3 per cent from 2022-23. We are aiming for a holistic approach that involves many different measures that, collectively, we are keen to see result in significant improvements.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In the minister's response, I am not sure if she mentioned the number of children in residential non-family-based care and the costs associated with that, rather than other alternatives. I have a couple more questions; I am almost finished. Is the minister concerned that there is 17.3 per cent of children in residential non-family-based care in South Australia compared to the 10.5 per cent average under the RoGS report of 2025? Is that in any way being addressed in terms of the moneys being targeted towards that proportion of expenditure going more so to the intensive family support services, rather than putting kids in residential care?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the government has established a program called Finding Families, which is a family scoping team that has resulted in 110 children being able to exit non-family-based care into care that is appropriate in terms of their family or kinship connections.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: What is the future of the Finding Families program? How long has it been funded for and how many children is it expected to find connections and homes for outside of the care system in the near future?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that it is a partnership with KWY. There was an initial 12-month pilot program and that has now been extended for a further two years.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: When does that two years expire?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I will need to take that on notice.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am looking forward to receiving the responses taken on notice. I have one more to add, which is a supplementary to the Hon. Ben Hood's. With regard to the minister's directives to the chief executive officer, what was the date of those directives and did they come before or after the chief executive appeared before the Budget and Finance Committee?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I will take that question on notice.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: Is the government's decision to retain the existing 2017 legislation, should this bill be amended to reflect best interest principles, a result of advice received by the chief executive?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have referred previously in this place to the reasoning around why the government is elevating the principle of best interests while retaining safety as the top objective, if you like. I think it has been answered multiple times in this chamber on this bill, and I would refer the honourable member back to Hansard where it has been answered.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Is the minister aware that the top objective of best interests actually is to protect the child from harm?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Exactly. It is as set out in the bill.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: To go back to that question, though, was the government's decision to revert to the existing legislation, should they not get their way, a result of the advice received by the chief executive of the department?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I do not have advice to that effect.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: So your government is saying that you will retain the current existing legislation, yet you cannot say on what advice those decisions have been made. Is that simply just the decision of the minister to retain the 2017 legislation?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: If legislation is not amended, then of course the existing legislation continues.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Quite a few of the questions that we have asked today have been taken on notice, so I move to report progress.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.