Statutes Amendment (Rights of Foster Parents and Guardians) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 25 September 2014.)

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (11:22): Today I rise to speak on an extremely important amendment which might not seem monumental but which will matter hugely to those who it affects, and the cause of individuals and small groups within our community is a very important one in this place. I thank the member for Hammond for bringing this bill to the house—I know it is something that is very dear to his heart and he is very passionately following it.

Grief is a difficult process, and there have been an unfortunate number of deaths in my local community over the past eight months. As the local member, each one of them hits hard and hits home. I have seen grieving families deal with their loss. Indeed, I saw this house deal with its loss yesterday in quite a public way.

I believe that Finn's law amendments are an opportunity for the law to show compassion—something that I think that the law is not always able to do. In this instance, there is a very tangible and clear way that the law can show compassion, and I think it is an opportunity that we, in this house, should take.

The job of a foster carer is extremely difficult—extremely difficult. We do not have enough of them; we struggle to deal with the number of children who require foster care in our community, and we need to do more to support them. I think this bill is a very common-sense way that we can support them, to recognise more fulsomely their right and their involvement in the lives of the children they bring up.

This matter, in my view, is common sense. I do not see too much in the way of politics about this amendment. I think this amendment is common sense. It is merely around recognising the contribution that foster carers make in the lives of the children they look after.

Foster carers do a great job. By and large, they do a great job. Done properly, it is a form of care that is immeasurably preferable to institutional care. I think about the history of children in institutional care in South Australia. We have moved away from that in all but the most necessary of cases, and I think that is a good thing.

I agree that the biological parents are still first and foremost the best people, in the first instance, to look after their own children. I do not believe that society is ready, I do not believe that the government is ready, to become the de facto carer of all children, but foster care is, I think, done properly, the best alternative. To provide a loving home and loving parents and siblings to a child is a way to give them nurturing and upbringing and teach them skills about life that they would struggle to get in institutional care with rotating 24-hour surveillance.

I know that the government is still to make a decision on this, so the pressure I would like to apply today I wish to be quite gentle. It is disappointing that this has not been dealt with sooner by the government, but I respect the fact that it is still to come to a firm view, and I implore the Minister for Education and Child Development to move swiftly now to give these rights to parents.

These laws came to prominence after Monica Perrett, who is the parent of foster son Finn who died last May, and who went through this awful process of not being involved in Finn's funeral, started an online petition that raised 40,000 signatures. That is by no means a small issue. That is an issue that resonates very much with our community. It led at the time to a meeting with Ms Rankine in June, at which the government indicated its support but, unfortunately, Ms Perrett now doubts the minister's sincerity. She says:

I was quite thankful because I believed everything she said to me and she came across as a very caring person, but three months Finn's been gone today and I still have not heard anything from the Government at all so obviously she didn't mean it.

Someone said to me this morning that private members' time is a great way to debate small pieces of legislation that are not groundbreaking in their reform but otherwise provide for good, small common-sense issues where the politics of the situation are taken out of it. I would like to say that I believe fundamentally that these amendments are exactly what the member was talking about when he made those comments to me this morning. I would also like to highlight a contribution here where it was said:

I remind the Minister for Education and Child Development of her promise made when talking on ABC Radio on 13 June this year, where the minister promised to look into contacting the department of births, deaths and marriages to see if they can add a statutory declaration to each death certificate of a child who dies in foster care acknowledging the foster parents if it is appropriate to do so.

Again, that is a second example of where the minister has made a statement in a more public way. Again, I would say that we in this house are today trying to provide gentle pressure to the minister to come good on her promise. I would also like to highlight some comments made by Peter Sandeman, who is a former foster child and current CEO of welfare agency Anglicare. He says:

Foster parents are in temporary care for the child, I would like to see more permanency to give them…

I'm extremely sympathetic to her situation—

being Monica Perrett's situation—

and other foster parents…

What we would prefer is to have some arrangement so that all those connected in Finn's life could be involved in celebrating his life…

Again, that is a man who has been through the system, a man who is devoting his life to community service, and I think a very valid voice in this debate. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.