HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2024-06-21 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Department for Child Protection, $799,333,000


Membership:

Mr Teague substituted for Hon. V.A. Tarzia.


Minister:

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


Departmental Advisers:

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

Mr D. Shephard-Bayly, Acting 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 S. Barr, Executive Director, Out-of-home Care, Department for Child Protection.

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


The CHAIR: Welcome back, everybody, to Estimates Committee B. I welcome the Minister for Child Protection. We are now examining the Department for Child Protection estimate of payments. I declare the proposed payments open for examination and I call on the minister, if she wishes, to make a statement and to introduce her new advisers.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I will start by introducing the people with me. First of all, on my right we have our Chief Executive, Jackie Bray. On my left, we have our Chief Financial Officer, Joanne Male. Further on my left, we have our Acting Deputy Chief Executive, Mr Darian Shephard-Bayly. Behind me on my left, we have Gabby Ramsay, who is our Chief Operating Officer, and Sue Barr, who is our Executive Director, Out-of-home Care. Behind them, we have Sarah Wendt, who is the Director of our Social Worker Registration Scheme.

The CHAIR: Welcome to you all. Do you have an opening statement?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: No.

The CHAIR: Member for Heysen, you are the lead speaker. Do you have an opening statement?

Mr TEAGUE: I will go straight to questions.

The CHAIR: Go ahead.

Mr TEAGUE: I turn first to Budget Measures Statement, Budget Paper 5, page 12. At page 12 of the Budget Measures Statement, Budget Paper 5, we see that there is a budget measure for the Department for Child Protection that is described about halfway down that page as 'Out of Home Care—additional resources' and at operating expenses an amount that is estimated for 2023-24 to be just short of $70 million. Would the minister agree with this characterisation of the need for that provision of resource?

I will put it this way: we are talking roughly 10 per cent increase in the cost of housing children taken into state care but housed outside state facilities. The number of children being accommodated has not necessarily increased by 10 per cent, so it reflects a really significant increase in the cost of these non-government organisations looking after these children, and that can be for a whole range of reasons.

It might be that they have chosen staff at those facilities, short-term contract staff, who tend to be much more highly paid than ongoing permanent staff. It might be that the facility is only booked for a short time and that the object therefore is to deal with that in a much more cost-effective manner. Would you agree with that characterisation in terms of the need for that $70 million top-up and how that might be addressed in the year ahead?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: First of all, what I will do is give the member some broader context about the investment that our government has made over the last couple of years into the child protection and family support system. Since coming to government, we have invested, including the investment that appears in the budget this year, almost $450 million. I am really glad that we are making those investments.

They are investments that speak to our government's dual commitment to make sure that we are providing care to those children and young people who cannot live safely at home, those children who live in out-of-home care, but also, as this complex portfolio demands, within that significant investment we are making decisions to prioritise and invest in those programs that help to tackle the difficult issues that families are facing, the complex issues that families are facing, and to undertake the work that is required to try to walk alongside families and help them to safely stay together. When I say that, I am talking about those investments into programs like reunification, kinship carer assessment, family group conferencing and a range of other measures.

In amongst that budget commitment is also significant investment in improving payments to the incredible carers who are absolutely vital to the child protection and family support system. The member would be aware that last year we allocated an additional $50 to each payment made to carers who were caring for children of 16 and under and, also last year, increased their payments by 4.8 per cent as a contribution to the costs of caring, recognising that that is a contribution and it does not necessarily meet every aspect of those expenses.

The investment that the member refers to is an important one in terms of making sure that, again to come back to my first comment, we are providing services and support for those children who are living in residential care. What I would also say in relation to the member's question is that, in amongst the investment, what we are always trying to do, with children at the centre—bearing in mind we absolutely always want to make sure that children are safe and enabled to thrive—is work to try to keep them safe within family as the first priority.

However, there is need for residential care support. Some of that residential care is provided directly by the Department for Child Protection and some is provided by our non-government partners. We have a very strong relationship with those partners, and we will keep working with those partners to make sure that those children and young people in residential care are being provided with the best possible support and also that we are providing that support in a way that is efficient and focuses on making sure that there is stability in the workforces of those non-government partners. So there are several things, rightly—this is a very complex area—that we focus on.

To come back to my first point, I am really proud of the significant investment that our government has made. I am dismayed that the former government actually implemented efficiency measures in relation to this department. Savings that were put in place by the Treasurer in the then government meant that in the vicinity of $17.5 million had to actually be managed in terms of savings efficiency measures cuts, or whatever that government wanted to call it.

In contrast, we are focused on investing, and we are absolutely focused and immersed in balancing that investment across the priorities. They are priorities that constantly interweave and overlap because, as I said, we have a number of objectives: of course, absolutely keeping children safe; strengthening families; providing the right kind of care when children cannot stay with their families; and also working and working to give families the best chance to stay together and be strong and safe together.

Mr TEAGUE: If we go to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 83, we see the program net cost of services summary for the Department for Child Protection. The 2023-24 budget is the subject of the table, and in the middle of the page there is a single line item:

Program

1. Care and Protection

The budget for 2023-24 is just short of $788 million and the estimated result is $855 million, which is the blowout of $70 million for which there is a need in the Budget Measures Statement to make that additional provision. What I just quoted before in my prior question was the Treasurer yesterday indicating that the means by which the government is going to have any hope of getting close to the budget that returns $70 million or so back to the $793 million for 2024-25 is by, and I quote the Treasurer further:

…entering into different and more cost-effective arrangements with non-government service providers. If they are using short-term contract staff, why can we not give them certainty about the level of services they will be providing on behalf of government and they can employ people on a more permanent and more cost-effective basis, for example?

That is the Treasurer's question.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Yes, we have the transcript.

Mr TEAGUE: You do?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: We have that, of course.

Mr TEAGUE: Does the minister have confidence that the government is going to be able to meet that approximately $70 million of operating efficiencies, to use a term that the minister just used a moment ago, by employing measures, including those indicated by the Treasurer yesterday? Does the minister have anything further or different to add, and does the minister otherwise agree with the Treasurer?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: First of all, just to take the member back, I find it really curious that you describe this as a blowout but then, on the other hand, at different points in time, including late one night this week, you referred to this investment differently. We have also had the shadow treasurer talking about the need for further increases to the child protection budget. So I am very unclear as to what the member and his party's actual position is on this. We are yet to see any policies whatsoever. The only thing I can take from those words like 'blowout', etc., is that you would perhaps make cuts to the child protection budget. I find that really disappointing but not surprising because, as I said, since we came to government, we have invested—

Mr TEAGUE: Sure. We really need to focus on—

The CHAIR: I beg your pardon, minister, just hang on. There is a point of order from the member for Heysen.

Mr TEAGUE: The point of order is to bring the minister to the question. We have had one lengthy monologue and we look like we are heading into another lengthy monologue.

The CHAIR: You are well qualified to talk about lengthy monologues, member for Heysen.

Mr TEAGUE: The question—

The CHAIR: I heard your question. I am listening to the minister's answer, and I think her answer is germane to your question and to the way it was put.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: The very first line of your question was to accuse the government of a budget blowout, so I am responding to that. They are exactly your words, so I do feel the need to respond to your question. I know there was some degree of monologue, so I will try to work through the different issues. But to come back to the first one, I do find it confusing as to what is the opposition's position. I also find it disappointing. I am proud that we have invested $450 million, or around about, since coming to government, in child protection and family support, and I am sure there will be opportunities to take the member through how those different investments are delivering for children, for young people, for families, etc.

To go to the other part of the member's question, of course I listened to the Treasurer yesterday in estimates and I think he did speak about exactly what I just said in my last answer about the need to keep working with our non-government partners about how service is being delivered and to work with them, as we always do—we have very strong partnerships—to make sure services are, first and foremost, child centred and focused on the safety and wellbeing of children and young people, but also that they are steady and stable in terms of the workforce and also effective and efficient. I am not quite sure if there is another part to the question, but I make those reflections.

Mr TEAGUE: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 85, sets out, within child protection, Program 1: Care and Protection, Description/objective, and then moves to a series of dot point highlights for 2023-24 and is followed by a series of dot point targets for 2024-25. I will endeavour to link a highlight with a target where it is possible to do so and invite the minister, in case I have missed one.

We see that target dot point 1 at about point 6 or 7 on the page is to introduce changes to the Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017. There is a partial dot point highlight in relation to the act, but that is another topic. I might for context note in that regard that there was a review into the Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017, a report dated February 2023 that was tabled, as I recall, in the parliament on 23 March 2023. When will the amendments for the Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017 be introduced by the government?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: The very short answer to that is really soon. To give some context to that, as I have spoken about many times in the parliament and wherever we go, and as I have demonstrated, as our investment demonstrates, as the sorts of things we are focused on demonstrate, as some very early signs of change indicate, we are absolutely focused on doing what we can to keep children at the centre of our efforts, to keep them safe, well and supported and enabled to thrive and to make sure, which we are constantly working toward in this very complex and challenging area, we reform the system so that it meets children's and families' needs now and into the future.

The complexity of doing this cannot be underestimated. In South Australia we are receiving notifications about one in three children. There were around 114,000 call centre contacts made to the child protection and family support system in 2022-23. Every single one of those contacts speaks to a child and their family experiencing a range of complex, interconnected, difficult issues, issues that include intergenerational trauma, poverty, mental ill-health, sometimes substance misuse, and all sorts of other stresses. So this area is very complex. I will come to how the legislation fits with that point in a moment because the legislation is also, rightly, complex.

What we constantly strive to do in this system is to have children at the centre, assess risk to children—risk to children's safety and risk to children's wellbeing—and we know that there are many factors that go into those assessments. We know that the incredible workers in the child protection and family support system carry that risk in the decisions they make. That does go straight to one of the issues that we are contemplating in the legislation, as the member is well aware.

These workers are constantly assessing, making those difficult decisions about whether to remove a child and then there are a range of system issues, legal, legislative issues that come with that, service-related issues that come with that, distress—absolutely—that comes with that. There is also then this other set of issues that we look at in assessing that risk as to how we can strengthen families so that they have the best opportunity to stay together strong, so that children, and particularly Aboriginal children, have the best opportunity to stay connected, safe in family, connected to culture, country and community. We are constantly trying to work in each of those spaces, always with children at the centre.

The reason I explain that is that whenever we think about our legislation, indeed whenever we talk about any policy or practice change in the child protection and family support space, I can guarantee you that there is a push and a pull around those particular factors. Every time there is a decision to remove and there is distress for children and for families, sometimes there is also distress when a decision to keep a family together means that there are some really difficult issues that the family contemplates. It is our preference that families safely stay together, but there is always this push-pull.

A really good way of thinking about that is when I think about the conversation that I have had with many kinship carers. I think that is a really stark example that comes up to describe the complexity of child protection and family support. I speak with amazing kinship carers and I am eternally grateful for what they do. I have spoken all over the state with grandparents, great-grandparents, siblings, aunties, uncles, and close extended family members who are caring for children. I absolutely applaud them for doing so.

The reason I use this as an example is that every time one of those amazing kinship carers is caring for a child who is at risk, there is another side to that story where, because they are kinship carers, they have become estranged from their child, their niece, their nephew, their grandchild, and as a result of whatever has happened there they are caring for their children. So there is this constant tension and risk and heartbreaking complexity in the system. We grapple with that every day. The process of changing legislation equally reflects that deep complexity.

The member is right, we conducted a thorough review, as we committed to do before the election and as we are also required to do by the legislation. More than 900 people engaged with that process of review. Hundreds of people attended community consultation sessions. We received numerous written submissions and numerous responses to the online survey, and the document that I tabled in parliament also reflects the complexity that I spoke about. There are a range of views in relation to almost every clause of the legislation that reflect that complexity, that push and pull, the heartbreak and the risk that sits in that system, and the opportunity for change and positivity for children that sits in the system.

We have undertaken, as we should, with a deep understanding of the complexity, the interconnectedness of issues, and we have contemplated that review. We have also contemplated other information that has come to us, other reviews that have happened alongside the review of the legislation. That is why we have taken our time to get this legislation right, because there are competing views: there are always two sides to what is happening for particular children.

In the legislation we need to get our thresholds for notifications right. We need to get it right in terms of ensuring that Aboriginal families are empowered in decision-making. We need to get it right in terms of who can have contact with particular children and how that works. We need to get it right in terms of absolutely putting children at the centre of that legislation and preserving their rights and amplifying their voice, recognising that every single point that I make also has other views about what should happen in relation to that particular circumstance.

We have done a very thorough review, and we are going through a very robust process to make sure we get it right. We will be consulting and providing information on a draft bill, and I will be happy to talk with the member about that when the time comes for it to be released, to talk through that bill and the complexity within it and the varying range of views that exist about almost every clause within it.

We are determined that we get this right. Legislative change is really important to making sure that our vision for the reform of the child protection and family support system can rely on legislation that gets a whole lot of fundamental things right, that enables children and families in the right way and also provides the right kind of protection for those children and for those families.

Mr TEAGUE: The introduction of changes to the act was a target for 2023-24, so the question is: having failed that target, will we see the amendments to the act before the end of this parliamentary sitting year, 2024? Just as it was a target in 2023-24 to refresh the statement of commitment, it was a target in 2022-23 to establish the peak body for Aboriginal children and young people. Are the minister's long answers or long monologues to the estimates committee today really just cover for a failure to meet target after target?

The CHAIR: Member for Heysen, I do have to point out to you that the way you phrase questions and the implications and assertions you make do invite the minister to make the lengthy answers that she does, and I would not be surprised if her answer now reflects on the things she has already said. You kind of invite these things on yourself, but I invite the minister to answer as succinctly as she can.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I just want to clarify because there were a number of things, you are right, that I will have to address in that question. I will come to the thing about my fulsome answers and the assertions that the member has made about targets, etc. You spoke about legislation and you spoke about the statement of commitment and the peak. I will try to address all of those points that you made in your question. I think I have them all.

Mr TEAGUE: The two previous targets that have not been met in my proposition, just to restate them, were a target in 2023-24 to refresh the statement of commitment—that has not happened—and a target in 2022-23 to establish the peak body. We see there is a highlight in 2023-24, which is the second from the bottom dot point highlight for 2023-24, the establishment of the Aboriginal peak body, but the target for 2024-25 heads into finalising implementation of the peak body.

The question was: having failed to meet the stated target last year in 2023-24 for the introduction of the changes to the Child and Young People (Safety) Act 2017, on top of the failure to meet the targets, two of which I have identified, are the long answers of the minister just cover for repeated failure to meet targets?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I will try to go in backwards order. First of all, my long answers are absolutely because I am desperate, absolutely desperate, for the member to understand the complexity in the child protection and family support system and what children and families are going through. I am desperate for you to understand and to walk with us in driving reform. I try over and over again in my answers in parliament, in speeches at particular events that you are at, through inviting you to our Child Protection and Family Support Symposium that you did not attend. I am trying so hard to invite you into this conversation to walk alongside you.

I have heard your leader say that reform in the child protection and family support system needs to be bipartisan. The sector is crying out for that bipartisanship. I try over and over again to invite you into that and the reason I do so is that this is a challenge for our whole state, for our whole community. We need the whole of government, the whole of our parliament, the whole of community and the whole of the sector absolutely focused on how we can, with children always at the centre, reform our system.

It is complex. It is long term, as Professor Leah Bromfield from the Australian Centre for Child Protection says. We need to transform the system and that needs a 20-year vision. This is not a quick process. This is not just about changing particular programs. This is about fundamentally re-envisaging a system that was built decades and decades ago to respond to incidents of physical harm. It is not a system that was built all those decades ago that even contemplated some of the issues that families and communities face in an intergenerational way. Our system is changing to contemplate that complexity, to contemplate the now prevalence of cumulative harm and neglect, which is the prevalent form of abuse and risk now.

So the reason I give these answers is that I am desperately trying to bring the opposition along on this journey. We need to have everyone involved in this change. We do not need small-target potshots and trying to make a point about words. What we need is genuine bipartisanship, with children at the centre, that advances us toward genuine, lasting, long-term change that makes a difference in the lives of children and young people.

I am inviting you again to be part of that, to absolutely be part of that. I was really disappointed that you did not come along to the symposium, with the whole sector, with families, with children, all speaking in a very open way about the problems with the system, about what needs to change. That is why I keep speaking with you in this way, in an attempt to bring us together as a community, as a government and opposition, trying to make change. As I said, it is also what the sector wants. The sector have been very clear. They want us to act together for this most important thing.

The reason I am so deeply, deeply engaged in this process is that I am heartbroken every single day by what children and young people and families go through. I am acutely aware that no one person can actually turn everything around, so I constantly, with those children in my heart, invite others into this program for change, and I extend that invitation again to you today. I hope that answers your question about why I give long answers. I hope that answers your question, and I hope that you have heard that invitation that has been extended to you again.

I think I have comprehensively answered the question about legislation. It is really complex. We are determined to get it right. We are determined that children are at the centre of it, and we are determined that we do the best job we can to respond to a range of different, complex, slightly different views from all sorts of different parties right across the sector, from families, from carers—there are a range of views. We are focused on getting that right. As I said right at the beginning of my previous answer, you will have that legislation really soon and I look forward to talking with you about that.

In relation to the peak body for Aboriginal children and young people, I am really proud to talk about the peak body. I am not sure if the member saw our release and discussion recently about the peak body. There is an incredible steering group that I am so grateful for. They have been working together with SNAICC to develop the peak body and recently came and saw me about their progress with the peak body.

You can talk about it as a failed something—whatever your language was—but, actually, empowering Aboriginal people to steer that process, enabling them to take that power and to develop the peak in the way they want to, is the right thing for us to do. That is the right thing for us to do, and I stand by empowering those people in that way. They absolutely should lead decision-making about their peak body. It needs to be Aboriginal-led decision-making that shapes what that peak body looks like.

So we have funded it—something that I do not think when you were in government you even contemplated funding—we have provided $3.2 million and we have absolutely empowered the Aboriginal community to develop what that peak looks like, and rightly so. That is something I will stand by and I will not resile from. It is the right thing to do. That is a very important point.

To come back to another point, when the steering group came to see me a few weeks ago they let me know the name they had developed for the peak body, and the name they have developed and announced is Wakwakurna Kanyini, which means 'holding on to our children'. It is a beautiful name and, as I understand it, is a combination of both Kaurna and Pitjantjatjara words—I think that is right.

They spoke with me about the beautiful progress they had made in developing the peak, and it was lovely to hear about the processes they have gone through to develop it, the consultation they have done. Their shared leadership was extraordinary. As well as letting me know about the name, the beautiful name of the peak body, they also let me know that they have been out advertising for a CEO of the peak. I think it is perhaps today—or very, very soon—that that process closes. So in terms of the member's question about progress, they have been making incredible progress.

The other thing, rightly, that they are doing alongside that, of course, is talking about how the organisation will continue to be governed, their ongoing connection with SNAICC and, really importantly, how we will walk together as they bring forth the issues that Aboriginal children and families continue to experience. When I say 'bring forth', they bring forth their ideas, their feelings, about how things can change.

I can absolutely say to the member, very proudly, that he can say as many things as he wants about this, but I will not resile. I am really proud to empower the peak body, those remarkable Aboriginal leaders who drive that peak body, and I will continue to do so, because that is the right thing to do. Empowering Aboriginal-led decision-making is absolutely the right thing to do, and I will continue to do what I can to empower that decision-making.

The establishment of the peak, of course, responds to longstanding calls for funding for that peak. It was back in 2021 that SNAICC first started working on this, but there was not the funding from the previous government. As I said, we proudly provided that funding. I understand, as I said, that those Aboriginal leaders who are leading the establishment of the peak are engaging with community right across the state but also with the multiple Aboriginal organisations in our state that rightly need to have a voice in that establishment process.

I also understand that some of the other things that have been progressed by the peak body are the development of a project plan, and the engagement of an artist for the beautiful logo they have developed for Wakwakurna Kanyini. They have gone through a communication stakeholder engagement plan, they are well progressed in terms of that governance, they are well progressed in terms of identifying those practical infrastructure requirements, etc.

Again, I want to be really careful that I summarise those developments because I do respect that that establishment steering committee absolutely needs to lead that process, and I really look forward to continuing to walk alongside them. I have such faith in the peak body in terms of their enormous collective heart and desire to improve outcomes with and for Aboriginal children and families.

One of the things that we spoke about in our meeting was the desire to make sure that we walk together as we also respond to Commissioner April Lawrie's report, the Holding on to Our Future report. The peak body will be integral to response but also, again, how we change the system, how we better embed the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle. We will continue to walk alongside the peak body.

The other thing that I would say again is that there is so much to do. The over-representation of Aboriginal children and young people in care is terrible. It is a call to action, a call that we are absolutely focused on and are deeply thinking about. The peak body investment is obviously a response to that over-representation, a response that we are proud of and we are hopeful about. That over-representation is unacceptable. Everybody agrees with that.

What I can say is that the tiniest, tiniest signs of a complete slowing of growth have happened over the last few years. In 2020, the growth rate of Aboriginal children in care was 13.1 per cent. It now sits, right now, at minus 0.4 per cent, taking into account the first 10 months of the 2023-24 financial year. That is a very small but important change, but there is so much to do in this space, and I will be absolutely relying on that Aboriginal-led decision-making that will come through the peak body for Aboriginal children and young people as we take those steps forward.

The third part of your question was in relation to the statement of commitment. What I can first of all say in relation to the statement of commitment is—rightly, I say this all the time—I am so grateful to the incredible foster and kinship carers, the growing number this year of foster and kinship carers, who open their whole lives, their hearts, their homes to children and young people. They absolutely help transform young people's lives.

That is why we are working to better support those carers. It is why last year, as a contribution to caring, we increased the carer payment by 4.8 per cent, plus another $50 for each of those payments. It is why, having listened to foster and kinship carers earlier this year, I announced the flexible respite payment of $800 each year on top of existing respite care arrangements. I have literally gone all over the state. My office tells me I have done almost 50 forums or conversations or round tables with carers, and we are making changes according to what they tell us. The flexible respite payment is a really important part of that.

In relation to the statement of commitment, which was another part of the member's four-part question, the member may remember that in 2020 and 2021 the previous minister moved amendments to the Children and Young People (Safety) Act. During the course of those amendments, the incredible people at Connecting Foster and Kinship Carers, the peak body for carers here in South Australia, came to see both myself, as the shadow minister at the time, and the minister and advocated so strongly that we include measures around procedural fairness for carers into the bill. I moved amendments along those lines. Unfortunately, your government did not support those. Similar amendments were moved in the upper house. Unfortunately, they were also not supported. So the Hon. John Darley at the time introduced a bill to establish the foster and kinship care inquiry.

The previous minister appointed Dr Fiona Arney to conduct the foster and kinship care inquiry, and she handed down her report. One of the recommendations in that report was to establish a Carer Council, which we have tasked Connecting Foster and Kinship Carers, the peak body, with doing. That Carer Council is established and, in terms of carer-led decision-making, they are rightly reviewing the statement of commitment.

Again, I am committed to empowering the voice of carers. The Carer Council, rightly, is looking at the refresh of the statement of commitment, and I really look forward to our continued work with the Carer Council and to any refresh that they advise is needed to the statement of commitment. I am not, again, going to resile from the fact that we are empowering them to look at that statement of commitment. That is the right thing to do, to have carers' views heard about the statement of commitment. I will certainly keep the member up to date about their views, any refresh and the launch of any refreshed statement of commitment.

Mr TEAGUE: In Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, at page 87 there is a table of performance indicators. The first line item contains data and the heading '% of investigations commenced within 7 days from notification (response time)'. There is a target that finds itself in the 2023-24 budget of 75 per cent. That is repeated in 2024-25. We have seen against that target of 75 per cent an actual result for 2022-23 at 56.4 per cent and an estimated result for 2023-24 of 57 per cent. Just for some SA perspective, I understand that is against, for example, a result in 2018-19 of a tick over 80 per cent.

In circumstances where there is an opportunity for some comparison, we have Victorian data that sets a performance measure that is the percentage of child protection investigations assessed as urgent that were visited or attempts made to visit within two days of receipt of the report, which is running somewhere in the high 90s. I just wonder whether the minister is satisfied with that result and whether or not there is some explanation for the deterioration since 2018-19 and otherwise against the target, and is the target realistic?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I am glad you have asked that question actually because I have been wanting an opportunity to explain the way that data is now calculated. What I can say is that that target of 75 per cent is a target that is set against national reporting, and it is a target that references a seven-day national reporting time frame. What has changed now in South Australia is that here in South Australia investigations are assessed as requiring either a 24-hour commencement—and I understand that we are one of only a few jurisdictions that has the 24-hour assessment—or we have a 10-day commencement.

Whilst I do not have every detail on how other jurisdictions assess their notifications of risk or imminent harm, what I can say is that here in South Australia now it is either a 24-hour response or a response within 10 days, so measuring against a seven-day response is actually quite different for South Australia. It is an interesting way in which we measure that particular metric in South Australia.

As I said, just to be really clear, South Australia's responses either commence within 24 hours or within 10 days. Just be really clear, the data, the 75 per cent target, refers to a seven-day national time frame. I want to make the point really clearly that that has been the case for some time. It has not changed; it has been the case for some time. I hope that is now clear for the member; please tell me if it is not. We are measuring against something different from what the national target sets out. I want to make that point clearly.

The second thing that I would say is that here in South Australia we have the lowest threshold for notifications in the country—in the country—which, as you know, is one of the issues that we are contemplating in the legislation. What I can also say, just to go back to the point that you made about reaching the target, is that it is a different target. But if you took a national average, the national average of achieving against that target of 75 per cent is actually 52.5 per cent, so we are actually better—better, which I am sure the member will be really pleased to hear—than the national average. I hope that makes sense. As I said, I invite the member, if that is not understood, to let me know.

What is also really important to note here is that the RoGS data referred to South Australia as being 18 per cent better in concluding investigations than any other jurisdiction. One of the things that I have been turning my mind to here, in the reform of our system, is that we have this very low threshold, which means we have more notifications than any other state. As I mentioned earlier, they are up to around about 114,000 call centre contacts per year.

Going back to your point about the earlier data, we are doing more investigations now. Back in 2019, we did 5,353 investigations. This year, to date, we have already done 11,000. That is a really important point for the member to think about in understanding the data and the context: we are doing more investigations, we are better than the national average in terms of our response times—which, again, I am sure he is glad to hear—and we are 18 percentage points better than other jurisdictions in the country at completing investigations, in an environment where we are receiving more notifications than any other jurisdiction.

That may sound really promising, because we are exceeding those national averages and we are the best in the country at investigations. The thing to be really aware of, and again this is an attempt to try to get the member to understand this broader context, is that we have got very, very good at undertaking investigations, which is excellent, it is fantastic. However, when we have this volume of notifications—higher than any other jurisdiction—we are the best at undertaking investigations, which is excellent, but it also means that we are constantly—there is this argument, and I am sure the member would have seen it in the review report in terms of the review of the legislation—contemplating whether that is the best thing.

Does that mean that we are focused totally on investigations, without having the group of children most at risk more quickly in front of us? That is the thing we need to contemplate in terms of the review of the legislation. I hope that has cleared up the fears against that national average. Again, to be really clear, the national average response time, when you average it over the 24-hour, seven days, 10 days, is 52.5. As the member has pointed out, in the budget papers we exceed that national average. Again, to reiterate, we are dealing with a different timeframe for those responses.

Mr TEAGUE: Getting back to page 85, the workforce strategy—and coming back to the point about highlights and targets—in 2022-23 there was a target to begin on the workforce strategy. A highlight in 2023-24 was to consult on a draft, and a target for 2024-25 is to finalise and implement a workforce strategy. Can we expect that will actually be achieved some time in the year ahead?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Absolutely—here it is right here. Thank you for the question. I am really pleased to be able to talk about the workforce strategy. The reason we went down the path of developing a sector-wide child protection and family support workforce strategy is that we know we need to continue to attract more of those incredible workers who I think are extraordinary in terms of their commitment to the wellbeing of children and young people and in terms of, as I described before, the risk they carry every single day. They are the ones who have to make the most heartbreaking, difficult decisions in really difficult circumstances.

We need more of those workers and we need more of those workers in an environment where a number of sectors need more workers. Both nationally and at a state level we have growing industries for which we need more workers, and across the broad, fulsome human services sector we need more workers also. We went about a comprehensive process of making sure we consulted with the sector, with children and young people, with carers, to have their input into the development of a workforce strategy.

I am really pleased that since coming to government we have grown the child protection and family support workforce, but we need even more of them. I am really pleased we went through that consultation process early. I am also really pleased that just recently, following all that consultation and feedback from the sector, from workers themselves, from unions, from all sorts of people interested in developing the workforce, we have concluded our consultation process. We have had a final version of the workforce strategy out for another round of consultation. That has also concluded. I can literally hold it up in my hands. The final touches of the strategy are done, and I think we are literally just working out a date in the coming days and weeks to launch the strategy.

What I would say is really pleasing is that the feedback on that final draft has been very positive and, as well as people engaging with the strategy in the consultation processes, I think another really good thing has come out of that and that is that I think, right across the sector, there is unity of purpose in terms of the need for more workers, the issues that need to be addressed to attract and retain more workers, issues around job security, issues around how we develop understanding of what child protection and family support work is, the sorts of pathways to that work, how people can move across the sector from government to non-government and back again and how that is contemplated.

We have had really good, consistent feedback. I feel really positive about the workforce strategy and, as I said, the actual document, but also the fact that there is such unity of purpose around the need for change and everybody, no matter which perspective they are coming from, to work together toward that. So please stay tuned. We are literally—and it may have happened while I have been in here—we have been trying to find a date in the coming days and weeks to actually launch the final strategy and then, of course, we will continue to go about implementing it.

Mr TEAGUE: I think we have—

The CHAIR: It is 11:45 on this line, member for Heysen.

Mr TEAGUE: Good.

The CHAIR: I am as surprised as you are.

Mr TEAGUE: I did not want to impact on the time allocated for the next session. In the circumstances then, Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 85 might be the most convenient point of reference. The minister has referred to the highlight from 2023-24 as the second dot point for 2023-24, the increase in carer payments, and the minister spelt out what they were.

My question is in relation to the target for 2024-25, which is the implementation of a targeted campaign to increase carer recruitment. My question is: are the increased payments having an effect? Is there otherwise a plan or more particularisation the minister can provide in relation to when that targeted campaign will be put into effect? What other measures, other than the increasing of payments, will be deployed, and will we see that target met in 2024-25?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Thank you very much. Again, I think there are a few questions in there, so I will try to address the different points that have been made. I am just checking on one particular figure that I want to provide you with about the growth in the number of foster and kinship carers. This is some really good news that, again, I am sure the member will be happy to hear. First of all, I cannot talk about carers without, again, thanking them for what they do—they are extraordinary. Children and their families rely on them, and our whole system relies on these remarkable people. They are absolutely extraordinary, and I thank them.

I also reiterate how much our government understands that family-based care is a vital placement option for children and young people in contact with the child protection and family support system. Carers are crucial to keeping children and young people safe and giving them love and a home environment that nurtures and supports them to thrive and grow.

The other thing I want to say about carers—before I give you these figures—is that it is often really challenging to be a carer. As I said, I have traversed the state and met hundreds and hundreds of carers, and I am inspired by every single one of them. As you mentioned, rightly, last year we increased carer payments by 4.8 per cent, and an additional $50 payment this year. We have also provided the additional $800 flexible respite payment, as asked for by carers.

One thing I would say is that it is absolutely crucial that we keep attracting and retaining carers. It is really important to note that we do so whilst—as I spoke about in my very first answer to you—we also have those other priorities of family group conferencing and reunification of families, trying to get families back together. In both family group conferencing and reunification we are seeing success. In the case of family group conferencing our success rate now sits at 92 per cent. Our reunification numbers are growing. I say that because we are always trying to do multiple things at once. Every time we reunify a child, that is a beautiful thing, but it may also change numbers in terms of foster and kinship carer numbers.

Taking that into account, I can say that over the past financial year—or up until 31 May—we have actually grown net the number of foster and kinship carers. We have more carers in the system than we did a year ago, and we have less children in care. We have a lot more to do in both of those things but they are excellent steps in the right direction. Just to be really clear, we have more carers in the system than we did a year ago, and we have less children in care than we did a year ago.

Amongst all those multiple and complex efforts, that is making a difference. I say that because it is a really important thing to say as it is really good news. Also, both of those things about the number of carers—to go to your question about whether the money is growing that number—all of our efforts impact upon one another. To ever say that one particular facet of our work to reform the system means that it has delivered that particular growth, the answer is more complex than that. To be really clear, we have more carers in the system, and less children in care.

In terms of the Carer Recruitment Strategy, we are constantly looking at new ways of recruiting and retaining carers. Our Carer Council is also looking at this particular issue. Carers themselves have very good ideas about what the best way to go about doing that is. Just in the last couple of days, I have seen a first iteration of particular aspects of our carer campaign that will be launched. I think we are just looking for a date in the coming days and weeks. I really look forward to sharing that with the member and, of course, in terms of that strategy, we hope that it also further increases the number of foster and kinship carers.

There is just one final thing I would say about that. One of the things that impacts on carer numbers is the retirement of particular carers and I just want to draw the committee's attention to a couple of examples—I am hoping I can find my piece of paper with that—of extraordinary carers who have recently retired. I will point to two couples, in particular. Both of these couples I have had contact with.

I met Wendy and Tony in 2022 at a carer recognition event. Wendy and Tony are extraordinary. Over the course of 38 years, they have fostered more than 330 children. I met them in Port Augusta, where they were undertaking their caring role. They have decided to retire, and they have moved to Adelaide. Wendy and Tony are the most beautiful couple and so are—they say they have 330 children—their biological children. They are all beautiful.

But the thing that was so remarkable about Tony and Wendy when I met them is that I also met their daughter Leticia, from memory, and Leticia also spoke about the incredible experience for her of having these other children in their house and being part of that caring journey. The thing that Leticia now does, again to go to foster carer numbers, is she has also decided to explore a foster caring role, which is just so incredibly lovely.

There are many reasons that carers may no longer be carers and one of them is, of course, because of retirement. The other two I want to mention briefly are Margie and Gary. They have been carers for more than 30 years. They have looked after 107 children in South Australia and another 200 when they lived in the Northern Territory.

They have cared for children for those 30 years. They have mostly done so constantly on short term and respite foster care arrangements, which again is quite remarkable because they are very quickly providing support, love and care to children for a short period of time and giving them the best experience they possibly can and then those children will move on. I want to acknowledge those carers and say thank you to both of those couples. There are many other examples I could give you as well.

In terms of our carer strategy, I do not think any of us would ever offer anything but love, gratitude and understanding to those carers who stop caring because they have got to a point in their lives where they want to retire. I wish them all the very best and again I look forward to sharing further details about the campaign with the member. I am hoping we might have a date in my diary in the next few days to launch it, but it is looking really good.

Again, I would just reiterate that, to be really, really clear, we have now more carers in the system than we did a year ago and we have fewer children in care then we did a year ago. We have so much more work to do—complex, challenging work—but we are focused and we will continue in this difficult, hard environment. I will continue to extend invitations to the shadow minister and the opposition to be part of this journey because, again, we need everybody involved.

Mr TEAGUE: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, at page 88 has activity indicators for the department. Program 1 for Child Protection is Care and Protection. Fourth on the list of activity indicators is the number of children and young people under the guardianship of the chief executive for a period up to 12 months. That number is projected for 2024-25 to be 650 children. That is 100 more children than there were in 2022-23. What is the reason for that increase and what is the annual cost to the budget per child for this measure?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: What I can say to the member is that what you will see there is that this particular figure relates to the number of children and young people under the guardianship of the chief executive for a period of up to 12 months. That is as opposed to the number of children who may be on an order all the way until they are 18 years old.

So what that figure speaks to is also—again, there is always this push-pull—there are potentially fewer children on orders up to 18 years old, which speaks again to what I have spoken about in terms of our investment into reunification. The number of reunifications is growing. It also speaks to reunifications, family group conferencing—that body of work that we are doing to strengthen families and restore families being together.

So that is not about more children overall being in care because, as I said, that number has gone down. Pleasingly, we have now slowed growth to minus 0.2 per cent. It has gone consistently down since we have been in government. There are a whole range of factors that go into that. We are seeing a slowing of growth, so that number does not speak to growth or otherwise. A 12-month order means that we are exploring viability of reunification. That is a good thing, that we are seeing more families being considered for those processes that can lead to reunification.

I just want to be clear, for the member's benefit, that that is not a figure about the number of children in care. That figure has gone down; we are just beginning to see—touch wood, touch everything—a slowing of growth. That figure refers to those children on orders up to 12 months, which absolutely indicates children and families being considered for possible reunification.

Mr TEAGUE: And the second part of the question?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I am sorry, you are going to have to repeat the second part of the question.

Mr TEAGUE: The annual cost to the budget per child.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Sorry; which line are you talking about?

Mr TEAGUE: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 88, the table, activity indicators, and the headline that the minister repeated just now.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: The thing to be really clear about is that when you are talking about children being on those orders up to 12 months, there are multiple things that happen for each of those children. Sometimes children will be on a very short-term order and reunification may happen really quickly; family group conferencing may be highly successful and mean that the child is cared for in an extended family environment with a whole lot of people wrapped around them.

Very sadly, sometimes, for those children that you see represented there, reunification is not possible, and those children may go on to be subject to a 218 order. If you think about a child, if they are 12 that may be six years, and that may be for a particular reason or a particular need that child has. It may be that they are in specialist residential care for all of that time.

Mr TEAGUE: How many children are in out-of-home care right now, for example?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: If I can just finish. When we say 'in care', that can be with a kinship carer or a foster carer. To go to your question about the cost for that particular cohort of children, again there are multiple and complex factors happening at that time, in those first 12 months. The range of placement types that may happen is that they may be in short-term general foster care, they may be in specialist foster care, they may be in kinship care, they might be in family day care, they may actually be in independent supported living.

Sometimes children come into care at the age of 16 years and nine months and, for those 15 months until they are 18, we actually support them to live independently. Somewhere in—

Mr TEAGUE: Does the minister know, or will the minister take it on notice?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I am trying to answer the question you just asked me.

Mr TEAGUE: How many children are in out-of-home care right now?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Residential care in NGOs, residential in NGO specialist placements, residential care with DCP, they might be on a placement and support package. To go to the question about those numbers, it is really complex but—and, again, this is nuanced and there are complex factors—often it is a better thing that rather than growth in the 'to 18' orders we see there are more children in the up to 12 months orders, because we know there is that viability for reunification, etc.

Mr TEAGUE: How many in out-of-home care today?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I can talk with you about the number, I can talk with you about the numbers that are published online, absolutely. You have those figures, and I presume you look at those figures. As at 30 April there were 4,854 children in care—that number is very clear. I have the number for today, and that will be published in due course.

The reason I say that—it is really important for you to understand this—is that I am always aware of the number, but when we have the number what needs to be understood is that at the end of each month we have to look backwards and before we publish it make sure that we have been notified of every order that has been made, every almost 18 year old who may find their transitional living placement a few days before their 18th birthday, children who have been reunified.

I always have the number, to be really clear, in case the member was not. I always have the number. The official number is published, and the really good news is that the number, right now, that I have is continuing to trend downwards—thank God.

The CHAIR: The allotted time has expired and I declare the examination of proposed payments for the Department for Child Protection complete. I want to thank the minister's advisers and advise that we will now move to the Office for Women. I will just give you a chance to reorganise yourselves. While you are doing that, minister, I note for the committee that you will be staying here as Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Excuse me, I am so sorry, Mr Chair. Can I please just say thank you to all of the wonderful DCP staff who have been with me today and who have helped me with preparing for estimates as well. I really appreciate them. Thank you.

The CHAIR: On behalf of the committee, I thank you too.


PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT