FAMILIES SA

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (16:46): I seek leave to ask a question of the minister representing the Minister for Education and Child Development about Families SA.

Leave granted.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: During the Christmas break, I had the misfortune of witnessing two cases to do with the protection of vulnerable children in this state, and they both show the absolute lack of rationale and logic behind decisions made by Families SA. One family I know personally has four children whose parents were done for growing in excess of 30 marijuana plants in their backyard. The look of the house was reminiscent of the 'house of horrors'.

These children had obviously been neglected for a very long time, and that was brought to the attention of the authorities when their 10-year-old son rang the police because they had been without electricity all winter and therefore unable to have hot baths and hot meals. Those children were removed: they were returned within nine weeks to these parents. All they had to do was mow the lawn and paint the house and these four children were returned to this family within nine weeks. They were given a whole truckload of new toys for the children and new furniture and new whitegoods. They were not required to go through any of the rehabilitation requirements of most normal, decent families who have their children removed.

Case No. 2 is a well-known business family who have been foster parents to a young girl for 6½ years. When that baby was brought to them at the age of 10 months she was developmentally delayed. She also had health problems and was undiagnosed as lactose intolerant for 10 months within the care of Families SA. This family has provided private education for this child. They are a loving family, and they have met all her medical and educational costs and also provided her with the nurturing she needed.

On 18 December, they were given 35 minutes' notice that the child was being removed from their care and to have her packed up and brought into the Families SA office, and now they are not even allowed to have unsupervised visits with this child. My questions are:

1. Will the minister take the initiative to review these cases personally?

2. Given that Families SA have stated in writing to the foster parents in the second case that they do not have any concerns about abuse or neglect, what possible justification can there be for requiring supervised access?

3. Are foster parents held to a higher standard than parents when determining whether to remove a child and whether to reunify that child; if not, how can the minister justify the refusal to reunify the foster family when the drug-addicted parents, who have received minimal intervention, have had their children returned to them expeditiously?

4. Will the minister please consider integrating family preservation—proper family preservation—as part of Families SA's core service delivery so that in appropriate cases children can avoid the trauma of unnecessary removal whilst their family receives the support it may require?

5. Did the purchase of an entire truckload of household goods come from the extra $19 million promised in last year's budget for reunification of children in state care with their families?

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: He does very well. The minister.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, Minister for Social Housing, Minister for Disabilities, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers) (16:50): Thank you, sir; most excellent President and very good rulings, usually. I thank the honourable member for her very important questions relating to the protection of vulnerable children. I will refer those six questions, I think, to the Minister for Education and Child Development and bring back an answer.