Grievance Debate

Residential Care Facility Visits

Ms STINSON (Badcoe) (15:13): I rise to speak about the pretty extraordinary responses that we saw in question time from the Minister for Child Protection. What is really notable is what was said as well as what was not said, the very careful words that were used, the very careful answering of questions, the very careful construction of a ministerial statement and the very, very careful construction of a statement from the chief executive, Cathy Taylor. We have had explained to us on this side of the house by very reliable whistleblowers that, on 12 April—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms STINSON: —the minister visited a residential care facility. We understand there was some planning that came before that. There were some discussions that went on about what was going to happen at the residential care facility, and we know that the minister insisted that she be able to speak with children who were in state care, and there is no problem with that. There is no problem with the minister visiting residential care facilities. Our former ministers certainly have informed themselves of what goes on in those residential care facilities, and there is absolutely no problem with this minister also going and informing herself about this very complex portfolio.

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Education will not interject or he will be departing the chamber.

Ms STINSON: What is a problem is when the department provides advice that it is not wise to interact with children, and there are good reasons for that. For example, children in these facilities are vulnerable. They have complex backgrounds and complex psychological issues that they are dealing with. There are reasons why authority figures going into a residential care facility—their home—would disrupt them and cause them great stress and that that stress could result in things like verbal altercations. It could result in violent behaviour. It could even result in absconding.

We assert, and the whistleblowers who have come to us assert, that that information, that advice, was given to this minister, yet this minister—the Minister for Child Protection—ignored that advice and decided to proceed anyway. She decided that she knows better than the experts in her department. We understand that she proceeded with this meeting. In fact, she does not deny that she attended this facility on 12 April in the afternoon.

She talked to a young man, a 17 year old, and he expressed that he felt he should have been in a larger room, a bigger bedroom. The minister, I am sure with best intentions, took on his cause and advocated for him to get a bigger bedroom. Unfortunately, she did not take the time to ask staff why that young man was in the bedroom he was in, about the security concerns, the welfare reasons or why he might have a particular room and other children might have different rooms.

What ensued was that the child became very upset when his hopes of a new bedroom were not realised and could not be realised by the minister. We understand from whistleblowers who have come to us that he became verbally abusive, swearing at staff, and had to be removed to another room, and the minister had to be separated from him. This caused him to then lash out and violently beat his fists against a door. He went from having a civil conversation to being highly agitated in the short period of time in which he was having a conversation with the Minister for Child Protection.

Of course, it gets worse. The minister left the facility. Pretty soon after that, the minister was informed that this individual, this child, had absconded from the facility and had met up with other children from state care facilities. He had gone to Brahma Lodge and allegedly robbed a house—these are charges in front of the court at the moment—had stolen a car, and not just once but twice had stolen petrol. The police caught up with him and others across the Victorian border after a police chase.

Time expired.