Motions

Child Abuse Reports

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (11:30): I move:

That this house condemns the Labor government's record on child protection and in particular notes—

(a) the average waiting times on the Child Abuse Report Line having extended greater than one hour in 2016, compared to 10 minutes in 2012 and 20 minutes in 2015;

(b) that over 200 children and young people currently live in emergency care as compared to zero in 2002;

(c) that almost half of calls to the Child Abuse Report Line go unanswered and of those answered, the majority are closed with no action due to a lack of resourcing; and

(d) the number of children under the guardianship of the minister has reached a record high of 3,280, showing that more needs to be done in the areas of prevention, early intervention and rehabilitation.

I note that these figures were correct as of last year when I actually researched the motion, so some of these figures—for example, the number of children under the guardianship of the minister—have actually risen since then. Although the time to answer calls has dropped, it is nowhere near the level it was in 2012, so it has significantly gone up and any improvements that are being made are still far worse than when this government came to power in 2002.

So, where to start? We have just had estimates, and we were just able to speak on estimates, so a lot of information has already been covered on this topic. Starting from the beginning, the government is putting in extra money, and I welcome the extra money being put into child protection. There was $200 million announced last year, a further $232 million in the Mid-Year Budget Review and a further $86.5 million was added in the 2017-18 budget.

However, unfortunately, this is really just to cover the extra cost or blowout in costs in residential care because of a failure to employ a number of residential care workers, as announced in 2014 under then minister Rankine. An extra 360 workers should have been employed to save on the cost of using agency staff outside the government. The government, by not fulfilling its own election promises and announcements, has cost the state millions and millions of dollars. They continually make announcements of things that will be done, yet they are not implemented and not fulfilled.

We see that in the 2016-17 year there were 64,899 calls to the Child Abuse Report Line, which we know is an extraordinary number of calls from people who are concerned about the welfare of children in this state. It is unfortunate to see that around 23,000 of those calls were unanswered, which is quite a shocking number—23,595 calls went unanswered. We know that, of the people who did get through, many of them were waiting for extraordinary periods of time, up to five hours, just to get their calls answered.

There was a total of 64,899 calls, and 41,304 of those were answered, whilst 23,595 of those were not answered. Some 51,200 were taken as notifications, which I gather means that some of them were duplicates or referring to the same child. Of those 51,200, 21,100 were screened in, so that means they were considered as worthy of being screened in, and we know that around 4,058 of those were investigated. So from all the people who call and wait their five hours a number are screened in, and thus it narrows down and down. From that, there were around 1,500 substantiations, so that is where they are investigated and it is found that there are issues.

However, the figures are slightly confusing for this year. This year we have 21,100 who were screened in. Of those, 1,240 were considered tier 1, which means immediate action was required or that the child was actually in danger. If it is tier 1, you would normally perhaps call the police if a child was in that scenario. For tier 2, it was unclear of the figure. I know that last year it was 16,401. This year, I am still to work it out. We had 3,788 for infants, which has never been separated before, but then there were 7,604 for non-infants, yet apparently there were a remaining 12,908. The figures do not really add up, at this stage.

There were 538 in tier 3, which, in theory, should mean that with the right supports the family can work towards keeping the child safe in their home. There were 2,542 extrafamilial. They are children who are abused or neglected by people other than their immediate family. We can see that it is quite shocking in South Australia. Of course, the government does not cause people to abuse their children or neglect their children—I am not implying that at all. The government's role is to set in place the policies and procedures to give the right supports to families and to identify those most at risk. We know that young mothers or single mothers would be considered most at risk and most likely to end up in this scenario. People who are drug users are high risk. It is quite clear.

You can see—and I have over 100 open cases in my electorate office right now—that people who work in the industry can tell you who is most at risk. It is the government's role then to put in place the policies and procedures not only to identify those most at risk but to support those most at risk and to give them the capabilities and capacities so that they can look after their children safely, because it is not the government's role to remove every child from somebody who poses a risk.

As we can see from the figures that are increasing year on year on year, this is unsustainable, it is bad for the child, it is bad for the mother and the father, and the whole family suffers. As we have seen in Belinda Valentine's case, the grandparents suffer, the uncles and aunties suffer: everybody suffers when a child is removed or left in harm for too long. We can see that the figures are continuing to increase.

We know from the figures reported from the government's own website that there are 3,470 children under the age of 18 in out-of-home care. Out-of-home care includes foster care, which is 1,334; kinship care includes 1,548 children and young people. At the moment, residential care has 388; independent living has 38; and commercial care has 162. Both commercial care and residential care have eight-hour shift workers and that is considered to be the worst form of care for the majority of children. I acknowledge that the minister has indicated that there are some children for whom that is the best type of care, but I would expect that that is quite a small percentage, compared with the number of children who are actually living in those conditions.

It is a shocking indictment that when this government came to power in 2002 the Liberal Party had worked tirelessly and recognised that commercial care, or 'emergency care' as it is known, was the worst form of care for a child. They had policy settings and money spent to ensure that there were no children in emergency care when this government came to power. The numbers are purely a result of this government's handling of this situation. This is not something that has to happen. It is not something that has happened for all time. This is something that has happened under the Labor government under their policy settings.

Whilst commercial care has dropped for this year, because it was an at an all-time record high, the figures in residential care have gone up more than the emergency care figures have dropped. Basically, you could say that they have just been moved to another form of care. It is not as if something miraculously has happened.

The government is spending some money on an Early Intervention Research Directorate, as per the royal commission. However, we know that we already have many research facilities on a federal level and a state level. We have Professor Fiona Arney and there are many researchers in South Australia. It is surprising that after 16 years in government they are only now researching early intervention and prevention when it is obviously a very important area that probably from day one, or from the first time that the government could see they had lost control of their child protection department, they should have been researching what was going on all around the world and what they could do about it. They should not have had to wait for a royal commission that took two years and $6 million to now start researching. It is all a bit backwards, if you ask me.

We can see that there are a lot of issues with the Child Abuse Report Line. In the royal commission, it was quite astounding to hear that notes were handwritten and then their duplicate was entered back into a computer system. The computer systems do not talk to each other. You cannot just enter something once. In Victoria, I believe, it is an interactive form, so if you make an eCARL, an online report, it will trigger different questions and it will ask certain questions. That exact template into which you can enter data that goes into a database immediately can also be used for phone calls. Why are we not using that in South Australia? Two years ago in estimates when I was asking about this, the government had sent a team to Victoria and New South Wales to research this. They came back and they are not using it. It astounds me.

Also, three years ago in estimates I was asking about the callback facility that had been purchased and was supposed to be trialled. It is only now being implemented, three years later. There have been problems in this department for such an incredibly long time that I am over it, the public are over it and even the staff are over it. We have seen the high level of churn in this department. By the minister's own admission, there was a high turnover of staff. This is a very stressful area, but so it is for health, police and ambulance workers, but they somehow can manage their departments so that they do not end up with what the PSA allege is around 390 FTE unfilled jobs. That is why the staff are so stressed: they are expected to work under incredible pressure and they are understaffed.

This government is very good at announcements. They have announced $4.4 million for foster care in 2015 to increase numbers. Then in February they announced $9 million in 2016 for an extra 130 foster carers. We still do not know how many extra foster carers we have. I have asked in estimates, 'How many new foster carers did we get for each of the two years since all this money has been spent? How many left the system? How many do we have in total?' We cannot get the figures. When they say there is a 4.1 per cent increase in 10 months of foster care placements, for all I know they could have been existing foster carers who were already there, who have a spare room and have taken on an extra child, because the figures do not tell us that.

We all know about permanency for children being extremely important and we know about Other Person Guardianship. Again, three years ago in estimates I asked minister Rankine about it. That was coming along quite well. There were over 100 children on OPG orders and there were about 75 or 85 underway. That dropped off for some reason. Something happened; either the department stopped recommending or there were some issues.

Three years later, we are still having issues with Other Person Guardianship. Not enough people are making it through the system to take pressure off foster families having to ring the department with questions about haircuts, school camps and trips interstate. It would also take pressure off the department in that it would not have to answer those type of questions. It would take pressure off foster carers and it would give the children a sense of permanency without it being an adoption. It is a win-win for everyone. I still have no idea why this government cannot get that system to work properly in order to give children more stability in their life.

As part of the budget, we now have $1.7 million for the Commissioner for Children and Young People, for which we are thankful. It took many, many years. That was a Liberal policy many years ago, as was separating the department. We have also announced several policies such as the registration of social workers; foster care to the age of 21, which will give children better stability; and an audit of all children in residential care. I commend this motion to the house.

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (11:45): I rise today to speak against this motion. In June 2017, our Labor government released its first progress report on the reform of our state's child protection system, reform that we are deeply committed to driving.

Mr Pengilly: After 15 years.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Ms HILDYARD: The report outlined significant changes in this area, some of the most significant seen in South Australia, clearly demonstrating that our government is rightly well down the track of implementing a complete overhaul of our child protection and, indeed, our child development system.

Mr Pengilly: What a disaster.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Finniss!

Ms HILDYARD: As a government, we are absolutely committed to fostering real change, change that will ensure that our youngest South Australians have the best opportunities to thrive. Our commitment to change is evidenced through our $432 million funding investment to ensure our overhaul of the system is adequately resourced and supported. In our 2017-18 budget, our government invested an additional $86.5 million to further meet the needs of children in state care, an investment which brings our financial commitment to improving child protection in our state to over $515 million.

We have increased our funding and our staffing numbers to better support our most vulnerable children and young people with very high needs through the implementation of a raft of the Nyland recommendations. Alongside this work, in communities across our state, we are working together with service providers, community members, local leaders, local government, and local clubs and businesses to encourage community members to take collective community responsibility for the wellbeing of all our children and to reach out to those families in our communities who are in need.

Through this collective impact work, we are a part of fostering conversations about how we can work together with families and with vulnerable children, aligning our every effort to strengthen families and ensuring that every child is safe, healthy, active, ready to learn and positively engaging with others. We must absolutely do everything we can to protect our most vulnerable children and we must also do everything we can to ensure that those who are at risk also have the early support of their community in a way that is aligned and that gives them the best possible chance of being well, safe and happy and able to access the support that they need at the earliest opportunity before they are seriously at risk.

We are improving how we identify children and families who need assistance and the services that we are offering them. We are doing this in a number of ways, including through the Child Safety Pathway that began in July this year. This is a priority reform for our state government. The new pathway is an innovative, multidisciplinary approach to child protection notification. It unites and aligns multiple agencies and gets them working together to offer a broader and a deeper range of responses for families and children deemed at risk.

This pathway refers families to the services they need early and ensures a linked-up approach to families with both government and community organisations. When people are at their most vulnerable and reach out for help, the best supports and interventions that we can provide are those that are compassionate and focused on the person's needs, and also those that are efficient, streamlined, and do not subject the person to unnecessary duplication in terms of having to provide personal details or having to repeatedly tell their story.

We want vulnerable families and their children to access services and supports in a way that empowers them to be heard and to build their families' resilience and capacity and to build connections to their communities. This Child Safety Pathway enables them to do just that. Overseeing our reforms is the newly established Early Intervention Research Directorate, which brings together Australia's leading child protection research experts to evaluate how our reforms are performing, to assess early intervention and prevention programs for their effectiveness and to provide advice to government on the best evidence-based strategies for helping our vulnerable families stay together safely.

The passing of the Children and Young People (Safety) Bill 2017 has introduced further important reform in South Australia. This includes greater benefit to our carers, who open their homes to children in need. The new legislation gives them greater oversight of the decisions made about the children and young people they care for, which rightly gives them greater involvement in the lives of the children they have taken into their homes. Again, we want to empower these carers and ensure that they have tools and supports that they need to continue to generously and in turn effectively empower and support the young people they care for.

We are starting to see positive results from these reforms, from our state government's investment and from the collective work that is happening across our communities, work that we support and work that supports local people and leaders to take responsibility at a local level for the wellbeing of our most vulnerable children.

The wait times people experience when contacting the Child Abuse Report Line, known by many as CARL, have more than halved. This fact renders the member for Adelaide's motion obsolete. In 2016-17, the call centre received a total of 64,899 telephone calls. Since December 2016, the average wait time has steadily improved, and for June 2017 an average call wait time of 23 minutes and 14 seconds was recorded. This has halved the wait time since December 2016 and reflects a steady reduction in the average wait time in the months since December 2016. We are making it easier for people and for services to come forward with valuable information that will help us to work with the children and families that need our help.

Through gathering and analysing information like this, through deep cooperation with partners throughout our state and through a compassionate, evidence-based, collective approach that engages our communities, we will be better able to intervene early to prevent issues from escalating. We will also be able to get a clearer picture of the risks children may be exposed to, how we need to act to protect our children and what we can put in place early in families to ensure that children stop being exposed to these risks.

We are pleased our reforms are showing positive results so far, but we acknowledge that there is still much work to be done. We are deeply committed to continuing the overhaul of our child protection and child development systems in South Australia, and we are deeply committed to focusing on early intervention and on strategies that strengthen our South Australian families and enable our youngest South Australians to thrive.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (11:52): I want to congratulate the member for Adelaide on bringing this motion to the parliament. The motion states:

That this house condemns the Labor government's record on child protection and in particular notes—

(a) the average waiting times on the Child Abuse Report Line having extended greater than one hour in 2016, compared to 10 minutes in 2012 and 20 minutes in 2015;

(b) that over 200 children and young people currently live in emergency care as compared to zero in 2002;

(c) that almost half of calls to the Child Abuse Report Line go unanswered and of those answered, the majority are closed with no action due to a lack of resourcing; and

(d) the number of children under the guardianship of the minister has reached a record high of 3,280, showing that more needs to be done in the areas of prevention, early intervention and rehabilitation.

I am speaking in support of this because I did for quite some time have responsibility for both the education portfolio and for child protection. I have to say that in the areas of families and communities, child protection and some aspects of the education portfolio, there are some horrific situations that you need to deal with as a member of the opposition. People come to the opposition when they have exhausted all other options for them in order to get an outcome from the government.

I think the most famous case in recent years involved the rape of a seven year old at a western suburbs school. Wednesday 1 December 2010 was a warm, pleasant day, one week before the end of the school year. At an Adelaide public school, the OSHC director led a seven-year-old girl into the canteen to prepare snacks for the other children, then he blindfolded and sexually assaulted her. That man went on to be convicted. There was a report on ABC radio that, despite that, there was still concern within the school community about the fact that nobody knew—nobody knew.

This is a man who had been working in schools and in the Scouts and had had access to children for 20 years. The governing council were extremely concerned about the situation and continually raised it with the minister for education, who was Grace Portolesi at that time. They raised it with the Premier and they raised it with officials within the Department for Education, and the same answer came back: the school council was not allowed to tell anybody what had happened. It was in breach of an act of parliament that protects people who have charges of a sexual nature laid against them.

Do not forget that this situation was not a charge: it was a conviction. No such rule exists, there is no automatic suppression, for somebody who has been convicted. The concerning thing about this was that parents on the governing council were even told that, if they raised it outside the governing council meetings, they would lose their indemnity as governing council members and they could lose their houses if the department or someone else decided to sue them for raising this outside of the governing council meetings.

It took one brave member of that governing council to visit me as the shadow minister at the time and express the concerns she had about what was going on. We worked out a strategy for what we could do about it. We learned that there were more victims of this paedophile who had not received justice and a mother who was sure that her children were victims of this paedophile but had had no follow-through from police. She reported her concerns to the police and the police did not take her seriously. She told her story, her name withheld and her face covered, in a full press conference.

I then went on to raise questions in the parliament. The education minister at that time, Grace Portolesi, said that she had received police advice that no-one was to be told. Within minutes of that comment being made in the parliament, the police put out a press statement saying that that is not the case, that there was no directive or advice from police not to tell parents about that. As a matter of fact, the Debelle inquiry went on to establish that the contrary advice was given by the police.

The Debelle inquiry also established that the person who was giving all the legal advice in that department was not even a lawyer. They did not have a law degree. It was not that they had not been presented at the bar but that they had not even done a law degree. They were giving legal advice to all the members of the department. It is no wonder that we exposed a terrible situation for parents.

A year or two later (I cannot remember the exact dates), I attended the decision on another five or six rape cases for which that childcare worker was convicted. He ended up going to gaol for more like six or eight years, rather than the 18 months that he was first given on the single sexual assault. Those parents came forward because they noticed a change in the behaviour of their children, which could not be explained until they realised that they were in the care of a convicted paedophile. That is what happened under this government, and the Premier, do not forget, was education minister at the time this event occurred.

This happened under this government. A series of incorrect advice and, I have to say, a very casual attitude to child protection was the culture of the government. That culture has not changed. We heard the member for Reynell talk about money. The Labor Party always talk about money. They always talk about inputs and they never talk about the outputs or the outcomes of spending that money, but the facts, according to the Report on Government Services, are that the spend on child protection per child in South Australia is $70.37 compared with $230.14 Australia-wide and the Australian average.

Despite all the rhetoric about more money being spent by this government to deal with this problem, we are seeing record numbers of children in care in South Australia. That number is going up: it is not going down. It was interesting to hear some of the analysis raised yesterday regarding the very poor NAPLAN results we saw in South Australia—the worst in mainland Australia. People were asking the questions: is that related to our high unemployment rate in South Australia, and is that related to our high levels of dysfunctional families in South Australia? This government spends far more money on out-of-home care—pulling kids out of families and putting them into the care of casual employees, in particular—compared with the rest of Australia: $805.80 compared with $506 on average for the country.

Child protection in this state is an absolute nightmare; it is a mess. We see victim after victim coming forward every year. I am very pleased whenever I hear the member for Adelaide speak about this issue. She is so passionate, and she wants to get a permanent fix for South Australia. She will have the role of dedicated minister for child protection if we are successful after March next year.

Ms COOK (Fisher) (12:03): I have spent many hours in silence listening to those opposite playing a pointscoring game on many subjects in this house. Many things like power, traffic rules, trade, employment and so on do not have a dangerous flow-on effect if those opposite confabulate. There is not a vulnerable population at risk. Child protection is very different. I have listened to the member for Adelaide during her many fishing exercises during question time. I listened recently as the child protection budget lines were examined during estimates, and then I listened as late as yesterday during the report on estimates that was delivered in the house.

There are a couple of things regarding yesterday's report that I wanted to point out as being untruths. The member for Adelaide talks about young people in care who leave care being completely institutionalised. I do not argue that that is actually the case with some of them, but they are actually taught many life skills throughout the time that they are in care, and I have been involved in these life skills programs.

The member for Adelaide talks about these young people not ever cooking their breakfast or not being able to undertake any of these skills when they leave care. It is simply not true. What she does not take into account when she says these things is that some of these young people living in care are the most traumatised, most vulnerable young people in our community who are experiencing a level of trauma that does not allow for them to adequately take on some of these lessons.

The member made a statement yesterday regarding her visit to a house of government care. I am glad she has been to one. She went to a house where children are under the age of 10, and she made a statement that these children were not bad enough to be in this house or were not suitable for this type of accommodation. I do not know what qualifications the member for Adelaide has to be able to let her deliver such a statement, but I would love to sit with her and have a chat about that. As a foster parent, I know the suffering and the detrimental effect that abuse and trauma have on children under 10 and what they are left with. There is more I could go about yesterday's statement, but I will continue.

I have come to the end of my acceptance of just listening to some of the untruths that are said. I understand how frustrating it must be not to be able to get immediate answers to what you consider very simple and obvious questions. I do not blame the member for Adelaide completely for some of the things that have been said because she goes on what she is told, of course. I do not know all the life experience of the member for Adelaide, so I will not judge that.

Seriously, it really does not excuse making things up either in here or in public. When I am confronted with things that sound absolutely ridiculous or make no sense, I just engage a filter that says, 'Don't ask that. Don't say that.' You just do not talk when you do not understand what is being said. I experienced this myself when I was left in a situation where I could not understand how somebody could have hit my son in an out-of-control incident, in an act where they did not respect themselves enough actually to respect others.

I did not understand how that could happen so I went searching for answers. I searched data on youth crime, I searched evidence and I searched academic studies. I found so much evidence about at-risk youth and within that, deeply embedded in that, a common theme of young people in out-of-home care. There is a consistent picture, not just in Adelaide, not just in Australia but worldwide. It is not SA-centric.

This is a worldwide problem faced by young people who have experienced the most severe trauma and neglect. They have experienced things being done to them that you could not imagine, and this is why these young people are the way they are. These children are most likely to end up as recidivist criminals, if not as juveniles then as adults, and they are also most likely to end up as victims—victims of crime not just in South Australia, not just in Australia but actually worldwide.

This is not a consequence of any government's care, not state, not federal, not Labor, not Liberal. This is a consequence of the most traumatised young people and how they are treated by those who are supposed to care and love them the most, generally their parents. It does not mean that the levels of care or standards that sometimes we see around the world should be accepted; it is just the facts. I certainly based my search for answers on fact: mentoring, fostering, life skills, tutoring, all those things and more. They all cost a lot of money and they must be invested into this group of vulnerable children who cannot remain with their birth families.

I am not always sure of the motives of the member opposite, the member for Adelaide. I know that she says that she wants better outcomes for these children, but sometimes the comments that are made are just so bad and damaging to the system that is trying to be put into place for these children that I am left wondering. This emotion is obviously not aimed at improving the situation for the state's most vulnerable children; rather, it is an opportunity to try to score political points again.

Rather than offering ideas and informed opinion about how we can work to improve the situation, time is being wasted in trying to undermine improvements that are actually happening. At every opportunity, there are tragic incidents raised, individual incidents that should not be talked about in the public, even on Hansard, in a place where it is supposed to be protected. These children-focused incidents should not be raised individually. Jurisdictions throughout the world are grappling with child protection, as are most areas of challenge that SA is facing. We are not on an island.

Unfortunately, the number of children needing assistance in this state is increasing. These children can no longer be cared for by their parents because of these awful circumstances that are not their fault. This is an appalling situation. What makes the situation worse is that there is no magic solution and there is nothing miraculously that will make everything right. To thrive, children need the unconditional love of parents or carers. It takes a village to raise a child. We have to work together to improve the situation—and we are.

As a community, we have to do what we can to identify where there is a problem and how we can help. We are investing much time, effort and dollars. Yes, we have to talk about money, but not as the core focus. The time and effort put into relationships by great people working in the department and by people in NGOs is incredible. For children who need care, we are investing to improve the options available to them. We are improving the programs available and the circumstances that they are living in.

We are focused on reshaping the out-of-home care system. Currently, we have 145 children in commercial care, not the over 200 children in emergency care as stated. We have seen a gradual decline in the numbers, and we are working with NGOs to find forever homes for these young, vulnerable kids. We also are making a concerted effort with Indigenous Aboriginal communities to get appropriate cultural and kinship care.

I find it incredibly hard to accept the complete lack of support from the opposition sometimes in this area, and comments made publicly by the member for Adelaide are damaging. It is ironic that a party fixated on cutting back so much in spending on public services, particularly from a federal department at the moment, is critical of either how much or how little we are spending to dramatically overhaul our child protection and development systems. The public record shows on every front that the Liberal Party wants to reduce spending on every important social issue. However, you cannot improve the situation for vulnerable children and families without investing in them.

I know the member for Adelaide in a previous life got a lot of satisfaction from helping young people and young adults in Adelaide achieve improvements in their general presentation and career options through a modelling agency, I believe. Running child protection and child development systems is very different from running that type of agency. Helping children who have suffered extreme abuse and neglect and who suffer ongoing trauma requires a lot more than deportment lessons to permit them brighter futures. It is one thing to teach these children how to walk with a book on their head, but it is another to teach these children how to read that book: it is very, very different.

These children are vulnerable. Suggestions without evidence are dangerous. Flippant comments are unforgivable. What is even more astounding is that, a year on from the Nyland report, those opposite have not actually committed to the reforms the commissioner recommended. They sit opposite and pass motions aimed at more political pointscoring without offering a single useful evidence-based solution.

The member for Adelaide has professed on radio that she has hundreds of ideas that will fix child protection in this state. Terrific! We would love to hear them. One idea I heard one afternoon was the member's suggestion that boarding schools would be a positive move and probably cost a lot less per child. I pulled over that day and just sat, shook my head and pondered; I just could not believe what I was hearing.

Those opposite have one eye on the election and the other on ministerial seats. That is what this member and this party care about, not our vulnerable children. I remember hearing the Leader of the Opposition saying, 'I didn't go into politics for social issues.' Well, there are many people on this side who did go into politics for social issues and will continue. Please stop looking for headlines and start supporting historic reforms that will change lives. By your own admission, member for Adelaide, this motion is inaccurate, so I expect you will join us in voting down your own nonsense.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (12:13): I rise to support the member for Adelaide in her motion:

That this house condemns the Labor government's record on child protection and in particular notes—

(a) the average waiting times on the Child Abuse Report Line having extended greater than one hour in 2016 compared to 10 minutes in 2012 and 20 minutes in 2015;

(b) that over 200 children and young people currently live in emergency care as compared to zero in 2002;

(c) that almost half of calls to the Child Abuse Report Line go unanswered and, of those answered, the majority are closed, with no action due to a lack of resourcing; and

(d) the number of children under the guardianship of the minister has reached a record high of 3,280, showing that more than needs to be done in the areas of prevention, early intervention and rehabilitation.

Let me say very clearly that the member for Adelaide's motion right at the start says that she condemns the government's record. There is nothing personal in the member for Adelaide's motion. She condemns the government's record. Sixteen years in government and I do not think there is a person in South Australia who thinks that the government is doing a good enough job in this area. We have had multiple inquiries over time looking into this issue, and the recommendations of previous inquiries have not been implemented.

There is probably no-one in the state who is not aware of the Debelle inquiry a little while ago, and the damning findings it brought out, but let me say again that the member for Adelaide has not, in her motion, tried to say anything about any individual government member or minister. I think it is entirely inappropriate for any government member to be making personal attacks on her. It really does show that the government wants to play the man and not the ball on this issue, and it is the issue that is important.

I know in my heart that every single member of this parliament, the other house included—Liberal, Labor, other parties and Independents—knows in their heart what an incredibly important issue this is. Protecting the most vulnerable people in our community must absolutely be one of the highest priorities of any government, whatever political persuasion they are. However, I say again, as per the member for Adelaide's motion, that the government's record makes it very clear that not nearly enough is being done.

This is an emotive topic as well, so it is not surprising that members of the government would have some low blows. It is inappropriate, but not surprising, that they have found this such an emotive issue that they have not been able to stick to the facts the way the member for Adelaide is trying to stick to the facts. If we are good enough to be elected, I know that the member for Adelaide will be an absolutely outstanding minister for child protection. She will be a champion for children in this state. They will receive care, protection, policy, support from her, support from cabinet and support from the Liberal government, which they have never had before and which would clearly improve upon the current government's record in this area, which is just a matter of fact.

I know that Steven Marshall, Leader of the Opposition, is incredibly highly focused on this area. That is one of the reasons he created a shadow portfolio and will create a government portfolio specifically for this issue, so that a minister for child protection in a Marshall government will not be distracted by a range of other responsibilities. That person will be the member for Adelaide if we win the election and she would do an absolutely outstanding job, and she will be supported by all of us on this side.

Every member in this house knows that it was actually the Leader of the Opposition who called for a commissioner for child protection to be established. The government said it was not necessary, and it would not do it. Well, lo and behold, after they thought about it a little bit longer, a bit harder and a little bit more deeply they realised it actually was a good idea and they have taken up that suggestion.

There are many other very positive suggestions that a Liberal government will bring into place, not least of which is having a dedicated minister to deal with one of the most important issues in our community: looking after these children who, through zero fault of their own, find themselves in bad circumstances, all the way through to diabolical circumstances, which is completely unacceptable.

In my electorate of Stuart, as you might know, Deputy Speaker, we have over 30 towns and communities, and many people living in outlying areas outside those towns and communities as well. This is not just a metropolitan issue, this is a country and an outback issue as well. There are children all over our state who need more from the government and who deserve better from the government.

This complete deterioration in the amount of time even just to get a phone call answered on the CARL is completely unacceptable. I cannot imagine there would be a member in this place, even the most ardent Labor-supporting government member, who could honestly say that it was acceptable that someone should wait on hold for an hour before their call was answered. It is preposterous to think that any member of this house would think that was acceptable.

When I wrote to ministers with concerns about particular households, institutions or children, I used to receive letters back telling me to deal with it myself. I remember one time being advised that what I should do is call the CARL. I was told not to waste time writing to ministers seeking help for a particular household or a particular situation, but I should call the CARL and report it that way. I have to say that I get very good support in my electorate office from the education minister, the member for Port Adelaide, when I talk to her about these issues.

I respect the fact that many of these issues are confidential and I do not seek all the details that are going on. However, when I get a call or an email to my office with an allegation about some harm being done to a child or a child being in a completely inappropriate situation, and if I deem that advice to be worth following up—because there is an aspect of judgement in all our work—when I go to the education minister's office I do not get that response anymore: 'Call the CARL and chase it up yourself.' I do get good support from the minister's office in that regard.

The statistics across the state make it very clear that the results are still not good enough. It is completely unacceptable to have 200 children and young people currently living in emergency care, compared with none in 2002 when this government came into office, and to have 3,280 children under the guardianship of the minister. These are completely unacceptable outcomes.

The member for Fisher said in her contribution that she finds fault—I will not get this exactly right—overwhelmingly in the parents, the guardians and the people responsible for these children who end up in these bad situations, and I agree with her wholeheartedly. It is not the kids' fault. It is overwhelmingly the fault of the adults who are responsible for those children. However, the reality is that the government needs to deal with that. The government must deal with it and the government is not dealing with it. The results that we have at the moment are completely unacceptable.

As the member for Unley said, for the government to say how much money they are spending in this area does not solve the problem. That is not an acceptable answer. It is the results that count and it is the record that counts. The member for Adelaide has been deliberately focused on the government's record and she is deliberately focused on improving the welfare of the children.

Just to say how much money is being spent in this area is not good enough because it is not achieving the results. It does not matter whether no money is spent in this area or billions of dollars are spent in this area, all that counts are the outcomes for these children. That is the highest priority, that is the only thing that really matters and it is very clear that after 16 years of Labor government the results are not nearly good enough.

Sixteen years ago we had no children living in emergency care. That is the goal that we need to get back to. That is the target that we need to aspire to and that is the outcome the current government certainly has not achieved.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:23): I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Adelaide:

That this house condemns the Labor government's record on child protection and in particular notes—

(a) the average waiting times on the Child Abuse Report Line having extended greater than one hour in 2016, compared to 10 minutes in 2012 and 20 minutes in 2015;

(b) that over 200 children and young people currently live in emergency care as compared to zero in 2002;

(c) that almost half of calls to the Child Abuse Report Line go unanswered and of those answered, the majority are closed with no action due to a lack of resourcing; and

(d) the number of children under the guardianship of the minister has reached a record high of 3,280, showing that more needs to be done in the areas of prevention, early intervention and rehabilitation.

Before I get into the substance of my speech, I congratulate the member for Adelaide on not only bringing this motion to the house but taking on a very difficult portfolio. I would like to briefly make a comment on what some members on the other side seem to like taking as a personal attack, like the member for Fisher. When she is in this place, she tells us about her past life and her career. We hear it a lot and that is her call.

I acknowledge what the member for Adelaide has done in her previous life in running a very successful business, but she does not have to get up and scream it from the rafters every five minutes. She does not have to do that because her record speaks for itself, both in this house and previously in her work record, in running a very successful business and employing many people, and still keeping in contact with those people today as friends and colleagues. I think people should focus more on what we are discussing.

In regard to the Child Protection Systems Royal Commission, which was established in August 2014 to investigate the adequacy of the child protection system in South Australia, I note that we have had many reports over the time of this Labor government. The final report of the Child Protection Systems Royal Commission was delivered to the Governor in August 2016 and then we saw on 1 November of that year a new Department for Child Protection was established.

Of the 260 recommendations that came from the Nyland commission, the government confirmed that, after they had some consultation with the community sector, it had accepted 196 of those recommendations, agreed in principle with a further 60, and chose not to adopt four. That was as of late 2016 in November.

It is interesting to note that a lot of money has been put forward, but it has not achieved the results that we should have achieved in regard to child protection. The government made a commitment of $432 million over four years for statewide child protection reform and additional support for children in out-of-home care. I will just detail some of the things that they said they were going to do:

$299 million for additional staff, resources and new initiatives in out-of-home care;

an additional $45 million for early intervention programs and services, including the establishment of an Early Intervention Research Directorate, funding for the Family by Family program, $9 million to establish three pilot child and family assessment and referral networks in northern, central and southern metropolitan Adelaide, and a further $5 million per annum for early intervention programs and services;

$26 million to improve the government's investigations and response capabilities, including an additional $10 million for professional development and training of Department for Child Protection staff;

$6 million to establish the Office of the Commissioner for Children and Young People;

$6 million to establish a child protection service at the Lyell McEwin Hospital;

$13 million to improve the Child Abuse Report Line; and

an additional $10.8 million for support for young people transitioning from care.

I note that, as of late last year in 2016, over 3,000 children were in out-of-home care and, of those, there were 1,495 in relatives care or kinship care, 1,301 in foster care, 333 in state-run residential care and 181 in emergency care, which is in motels and other accommodation similar to that. There are over 200 now in emergency care and at that stage there were 39 living independently.

There are predictions that the number of children living in out-of-home care could rise to as much as over 3,500, which since 2010-11 is a 48.6 per cent increase. We saw that, in 2015-16, 821 children were placed on legal authority for the first time. In June 2016, 190 children were in emergency care; an average of 157 days for children in emergency care; and a cost of $600,000 for the month of June in 2015.

With regard to the Child Abuse Report Line, there is an inquest backlog. At four years, 18 per cent of cases are still open in South Australia. We can compare that with 2 per cent in the Northern Territory and 7 per cent in New South Wales. In 2015-16, there were 912 drug tests. Regarding the Child Abuse Report Line, only 62 per cent of calls were answered in December 2016 and only 58 per cent were answered in 2015-16. At the moment, the average wait time to get through on the Child Abuse Report Line is over one hour—it is outrageous.

One in four children in the state is the subject of a notification to authorities. This was admitted by the Premier in a media release on 29 November 2016. As far as reported notifications and screened-in notifications are concerned, in 2015-16 there were 54,704 reported notifications and 21,427 screened-in notifications. That tells us that overall 39 per cent of reports were screened in. There was a backlog of 1,500 around the middle of 2016. There were 21,500 projected notifications of abuse or neglect assessed as requiring further action, which were screened in in 2015-16. There were 5,375 projected investigations of child abuse notifications and 2,258 projected child protection notifications that were substantiated.

After all those many hundreds of millions of dollars, we have a major problem in this state with child protection. It is ridiculous that people get on the Child Abuse Report Line and have to wait an hour for their call to be taken. We absolutely have to make sure that our most vulnerable children are looked after. We have to look at the policies that see children, through no fault of their own, end up as renegades by the time they are three or four. Essentially, in my mind, a lot of these children are lost to society.

It takes much management, with up to a dozen staff attending schools to look after a single incident with one child. I think there needs to be far better management and far better help. I know of one lady who has had at least 14 children and they are just taken at birth by order. We have to do far more for our children. Instead of just throwing money, the government must make sure that their policies are effective.

Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (12:33): I rise also to speak in support of the motion put forward by the member for Adelaide:

That this house condemns the Labor government's record on child protection and in particular notes—

(a) the average waiting times on the Child Abuse Report Line having extended greater than one hour in 2016, compared to 10 minutes in 2012 and 20 minutes in 2015;

(b) that over 200 children and young people currently live in emergency care as compared to zero in 2002;

(c) that almost half of calls to the Child Abuse Report Line go unanswered and of those answered, the majority are closed with no action due to a lack of resourcing; and

(d) the number of children under the guardianship of the minister has reached a record high of 3,280, showing that more needs to be done in the areas of prevention, early intervention and rehabilitation.

As we look back over the history of this government's efforts in this area, it is alarming to note the number of reports and inquiries that have gone on since 2003 under this government and potentially before. If we do take note from since 2003—that is more than 10 years under this Weatherill Labor government—we saw the Layton report back in March 2003, a 400-page report into child protection put together by Robyn Layton QC. The findings from that are amazing when we look at them.

After that review found that the state's criminal justice system was failing children and that the government's child protection services were struggling to cope with demand, the amazing upshot of that was the key recommendation to appoint a commissioner for children and young people and a guardian for children. That was the key recommendation—and I note again that this was back in March 2013—and the government failed to act.

There were more reports after that, too. There was the Mullighan inquiry in April 2008, where retired Supreme Court judge Ted Mullighan QC was given responsibility to inquire into any allegation of sexual abuse of a person in state care, whether or not any allegation was previously made or reported, in 2004. So that was another inquiry held after the Layton report.

There was a parliamentary select committee on Families SA in November 2009, which received 92 written secret submissions and heard evidence from 38 witnesses, including departmental whistleblowers, who gave evidence to that inquiry. Again, very little was done by this government and things continued to deteriorate. It is a very sad indictment on this government's performance in the area of child protection.

I would like to think that it saddens everyone in this house and all the South Australian community that nothing has been done. I commend the member for Adelaide for bringing forward this motion to bring attention to this point to the house and to the people of South Australia. The member for Fisher said that this was about creating headlines, but this is actually about putting all the facts on the table.

We move on with the reports. In 2013, the Debelle inquiry was held. This independent education inquiry was launched after it was revealed in state parliament in November 2012 that parents of a western suburbs school were kept in the dark for two years after an out-of-school hours care worker had been arrested and later found guilty of the rape of a girl in the care of the school, who was aged seven—absolutely abominable, horrendous and disgusting in every way, shape or form. As I stress, inquiries and select committees have been going on and on for more than 10 years, and this government has failed to act.

Of course, we know that in April 2015 there was a coronial inquest into the death of Chloe Valentine, where State Coroner Mark Johns held an inquiry into the 2012 death of four-year-old Chloe Valentine, who had been the subject of more than 20 reports to Families SA before losing her life. It is horrendous. Most people in the community know that story. It is terrible that so much went unattended to by the department, and that that was where we ended up.

Then, of course, we had the Nyland royal commission. Again, the member for Adelaide has made a number of very good points about this along the way. What was unearthed here was a culture of secrecy, unwieldy bureaucracy, a lack of resources and a failure to put children first, which is what I think appals everyone on this side of the chamber most definitely. That should not be accepted here in our state.

Child protection and the protection of those most vulnerable, especially young children, is incredibly important, and that is why on this side of the house our leader has made it imperative that we pay the appropriate attention on this, and has set aside the task for the member for Adelaide, who is now acting in the shadow role of child protection. We see it as a key pillar of what we would be delivering in government, namely, protection of young people. Having a minister specifically for child protection I think is a great initiative.

There is more than a decade of mess here that needs to be fixed up and it needs that specific attention. It really is a blight on South Australia's copybook that we have found ourselves in this situation. I think everyone feels a sense of shame that it has dragged on for so long. As I pointed out before, the last election that we contested called for some changes to happen. We called for the Department for Child Protection to be established and we called for the implementation of the recommendation from the 2013 report for a commissioner for children and young people. Eventually, the Premier listened and eventually that has come to bear.

As I said, I have gone through all those inquiries, all those committees and all those reports, and a royal commission is what it took to get to that point, yet we had been calling for that for a long time before. It is a shame that it took so long. It is an indictment on this government. The South Australian Labor government that has brought us to this position really has made a heck of a mess of child protection in South Australia.

I was also disappointed to hear the member for Fisher before making a very personal attack on the member for Adelaide—someone who has worked very hard in this space. The member for Fisher indicated that the member for Adelaide brought this motion on to create headlines. I think that is a pretty low claim to make. She also had a go at her for her past. The member for Adelaide has been a very successful businessperson in Adelaide. I think the member for Fisher did get very personal. On reflection, she would probably regret those comments because they were very personal and this is not about personal attacks.

This is about fixing a problem in South Australia that has been going on for more than a decade and escalating and escalating. What the member for Adelaide has done is point out the fact that there have been a number of reports that have raised red flags, admitted there are problems and pointed out the problems that we have in the system, yet this South Australian Labor government continued to ignore them. As the member for Fisher wants to talk about headlines, I note with interest The Advertiser headline on Wednesday 22 June 2016. The headline reads:

SA's dysfunctional child protection system has failed our most vulnerable again and again. Its design was the Premier's first major reform and he's defended it across years of scandals. Now, he's finally admitted…

I was wrong.

Families SA to be split off and boss shunted. System 'in crisis'.

That is right: this was put together by the Premier. It was his first major reform and it failed over more than a decade. There were numerous reports outlining the failures, numerous red flags, but this government did not listen. On this side of the house, we see child protection as a number one key imperative for any government. Again, I stress the point that that is why a Marshall Liberal government will put in place a minister specifically for child protection to help correct the mess that has been created over such a long period of time. We will work tirelessly to fix the mess that South Australians have endured in this child protection space and do everything in our powers to prevent anything like what we have seen from happening again.

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (12:43): I rise to support the motion put forward by the member for Adelaide and to make a brief contribution to it. It is quite interesting to look at the current Premier of South Australia and some of the portfolios that he held prior to being Premier. Some of the things that may have taken a bit of time to come out are coming out in due course. If this government really wanted to win the next election, I might suggest they look at the Premier and perhaps replace him. There is probably somebody sitting in the seat right now who would be quite happy to do that.

When the Premier was in charge of the environment—I would have to go and check my records—we had a massive investment in wind farms in Clovelly Park. I am not begrudging those, but certainly we now face an unreliable grid due to intermittent energy. More importantly, when the current Premier was the education minister he made a strategic move to combine the education department and Families SA. For those working in that industry at that time, it was met with a fair bit of dismay that this was just not going to work.

In fact, when the Nyland report came out, it pretty much confirmed everything that those people who were working in the department were saying at the time. The current Premier was also the Minister for Families and Communities. It is quite interesting that after the Nyland report he said the following: 'My government accepts full responsibility for the failings of the state’s child protection system in keeping children safe.' It was not 'he as minister' or 'he as Premier' but 'his government'.

I guess it comes back to not just spending more and more money. When the Premier was the minister for families almost a decade ago, he promised to fix the system which the Nyland report indicated needed an urgent overhaul. In 2014, when he addressed parliament he said that he saw no rational reason, frankly, why he would split Families SA and the education department and make Families SA a stand-alone unit. Again, the royal commission said that that was exactly what needed to happen.

Some of the other things that this government could do is adopt the Liberal Party's position of having a single, dedicated cabinet minister responsible for child protection instead of the current scenario, where the portfolio is split between the Deputy Premier and the Minister for Education and Child Development. It was and is massively confusing between those two.

I want to go back to some reports that come into my office and talk about the on-ground experience of a number of people who come into my office. As parents in our society, we always try to be positive role models. Besides being loving parents, we owe a duty of care to our children to provide sustenance, to ensure they are provided a sound education, a safe home to reside in and to look after their health and welfare.

I have encouraged my own children from a young age to participate in team sports, whether it be football, netball, soccer, tennis or dance. This provides them with physical exercise for health and wellbeing as well as helping them form lifelong friendships. Unfortunately, not all family units are surrounded by such nurturing environments. It may be due to economic reasons, due to loss of employment, marriage breakup, death of a family member, or the effects of alcohol or drugs, and in particular we are seeing the rise of ice and the devastating effect it has on communities.

Too often, we hear of family units being decimated by a parent who is addicted to alcohol or drugs. I welcome the state government's announcement of $8 million for ice rehabilitation and the 15 detox beds that have been announced without further detail. I encourage the minister responsible for the South Australian task force to release the details of where those beds are going to be located.

Concerned relatives, teachers and friends try their best to help and may even report issues that they see, but sometimes these reports fall on deaf ears or the reporting system is simply too difficult. Help is needed now; it is not hanging on the phone for over an hour. Or it could be there are simply too many reports and there is a lack of resources to handle so many complaints. It is interesting that in December 2016, I think during a Budget and Finance Committee, that Families SA were unable to fill 300 jobs that would have taken them to their full-time equivalent of 1,949, having only recruited 1,652.

I have had many instances of people coming into my office, but I want to talk very briefly about one. A grandmother at her wits end came into my office seeking help as she was deeply concerned about her grandchildren. Her grandchildren are currently living in Adelaide, and I read the following from a letter which she has provided to me and which details the reports the grandmother has made and comments from her grandchildren:

…nothing in life changes for these children and they are told that nothing will change so they may as well stop complaining because that's the way things are.

As I said, this comes from the grandmother. The letter continues:

The children tell me they have a rule, 'what happens at home stays at home' and is not to be discussed with others. I have been told they are bodily hurt if they break any rules. The reports I have personally lodged are…

Again, this is from the grandmother.

That the boys are being kicked by their stepfather, I have seen him put his 5 year old at the time in time out by cupping his hand over the child's shoulder and kicking him behind the knees, causing the boy to collapse onto the floor where he is left. The grandchild was profusely crying while he was waiting to be put in time out.

One of the boys has been kicked in the back and stomach by the step father while lying on the floor as punishment for something. The boy was still in considerable pain days later. We didn't know at the time he had been kicked, we just thought it was rough play with his brothers or would have taken him to the hospital. He was not allowed to discuss with anyone—he was scared. We later reported this incident to the police, they say they can't do anything without Families SA requesting an investigation, let down again, Families SA closed file again.

The children are not fed properly. A typical meal may consist of a meat pie or chips and nothing else; on another occasion, mashed potato, nothing else; on other occasions, rice custard; and on another occasion, just fish fingers. The letter continues:

The boys are not allowed to wash their hands at home, brush their teeth or help themselves to get a drink.

The fridge…cupboards and [kitchen] are out of bounds as there is a lot of 'adult food' in them. The children are continually hungry. It is a punishable thing to help yourself to anything, being hungry doesn't count. I have seen lots of adult foods in the freezer, it contains frozen meals from the supermarket, left overs for the adults.

When I have rung Families SA to try and improve life for [my grandchildren] I am suddenly the most hated person [by Families SA staff]. The kids are struggling at school, probably from poor nutrition, poor hygiene, low self-esteem all the things that can go with [that feeling]…

They are told to accept the way things are by their mother and step father. They are abandoned. Fortunately for these children the schools do give [them food]…Someone please do something for these children.

The above letter is a harrowing story from a grandmother who desperately wants to help her grandchildren. She has reported her concerns but has been told that the files have been closed. These children need help. The system is failing them. With that, I will conclude my remarks.

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (12:53): I would like to thank members for their contributions, particularly on this side of the house for their thought-provoking stories and for keeping it non-personal. It is very disappointing that the Labor members have to make this a personal attack. It is clearly an issue that has been going on for almost 16 years under this Labor government, and child protection has been fraught with story after story. We had the Layton royal commission in 2003, but the children's commissioner, who was recommended then, some 14 years ago, has only been implemented this year.

It is not that the government does not know what is wrong. They have had two Mullighan inquiries that also told them what was wrong. They had the Debelle inquiry that gave them further information on what was going wrong. They have had coronial inquests into baby Ebony, into Chloe Valentine and into Jarrad Delroy Roberts. This government has been given a plethora of information on how to fix a broken system for almost 16 years.

They have spent copious amounts of money and they have done lots of reports so they can have plenty of media attention and it looks like something is happening, but we can see from the results and from the facts and figures that nothing substantial has improved for children in this state. We see that we are at the highest numbers ever of children in out-of-home care. The calls are still not being answered.

Imagine if there were 23,000 calls not answered to the ambulance. Imagine if 23,000 calls made to the police were not answered. Imagine if 23,000 calls were made to the fire brigade and they were not answered. There would be an absolute outcry. The minister would probably be sacked. This is unacceptable. These are our most vulnerable children who are being left in danger.

Then, of the 41,000 calls that did get through, many are considered notify-only concerns, so they are not taken seriously, and many are closed with no action due to a lack of resourcing, as in no staff available to do the investigation. Of the very slim number that are investigated, we then see many that are substantiated re-substantiated within a year. We have the worst performing safety record of nearly all the states in Australia, which means that even knowingly the minister and her department are leaving children in danger—in further danger, after it has been substantiated.

As we have just heard from the member for Mount Gambier, there are many, many cases where the department knows children are in danger and they are doing nothing about it. They are left there to the crisis point. They are the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. The children are moved after years and years of neglect. They are mentally and emotionally behind on every level. They do not perform academically. They are damaged because they have been left in chronic neglect scenarios due to a lack of resourcing at the correct end of the system.

It takes a special kind of incompetence to brag about copious amounts of money being spent for the worst possible outcomes for our children in this state. The government is spending all their money at the end—the emergency care, the commercial care. We know that there was a $99.7 million blowout in emergency care last budget because of the failure to employ or recruit adequate numbers of residential care workers. It is an admission of their own fault: they have not employed the right number of staff, so they have spent nearly $100 million on agency staff, when it was announced in 2014 that 306 extra full-time staff would be employed in residential care facilities.

They are not even achieving their own goals, let alone the goals that should be required, and deservedly so, for our children. There needs to be more emphasis on early intervention and prevention. This is not a personal attack. The whole of government is responsible: when you know that children are in danger, which we do, it is not your fault they are in danger, but when you find out they are in danger you need to answer the calls. You need to act on the calls. There should not be 600 eCARL reports still not dealt with. It was 1,500 a year ago, so you have improved, but that is 600 children that mandatory reporters have reported to you that no-one has even read about. They have not even started the investigation.

It is an absolute shambles, what is going on in this department. After years and years of endless money and endless reports, there has been no substantial difference made. Shame on this government. I commend the motion to the house.

Motion negatived.

Sitting suspended from 12:58 to 14:00.