Motions

Foster and Kinship Care Inquiry

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:11): I move:

That this council—

1. Condemns the Minister for Child Protection and government's mishandling of the setting up and arrangements for the independent inquiry into foster and kinship care that the government did not consider necessary;

2. Expresses its concerns regarding the Minister for Child Protection and government's motives in not seeking the advice and support of foster and kinship carers in the appointment of an inquirer and then ignoring feedback they subsequently received; and

3. Expresses its deep concern about the motives of the minister and government in publishing terms of reference for the independent inquiry into foster and kinship care to foster and kinship carers that is not the complete wording from the legislation, creating a misleading impression.

The government has not been willing to listen to foster and kinship carers. Both the Minister for Child Protection and the Premier have made statements and taken actions without seeking the views of foster and kinship carers. This was shown in August last year. At a meeting with foster and kinship carers, the Premier was advised that many carers felt that they were not treated with natural justice and procedural fairness when making complaints, and this was affecting their role and the retention of carers.

In response, a couple of months later the Premier advised, on advice from the Department for Child Protection that he:

…confirmed the department takes any matters raised by carers seriously and has made carer engagement and participation a key priority in recognition of the invaluable role carers play.

This was clearly not an answer to the question carers raised. Carers were increasingly concerned that their voices would not be heard in the legislative review of the act scheduled for October.

Carers considered an independent inquiry was required focusing on their needs. The independent inquiry would assess the procedures, including the handling of complaints processed within DCP. The inquiry would address the inherent enormous power imbalance between DCP officials and foster and kinship carers. Many carers are afraid that if they question decisions of the department they could lose custody of the children in their care.

It is important for the inquiry to have the confidence of carers and establish processes that satisfy carers. It will only be successful if carers, past and present, are made aware of their right to present their views to the inquiry, believe their anonymity will be protected and perceive the inquiry will be truly independent in receiving their evidence. The minister in a letter of reply to me stated:

…we would find it difficult to support the investment of significant resources into a further independent inquiry at this time…we welcome feedback, complaint and suggestions for improvement. We simply encourage carers, and others as appropriate, to take advantage of these already established processes and mechanisms in order to have them addressed.

The minister is telling carers what to do rather than listening to what they want. This is not consistent with a minister who values and respects carers. On 17 December, I wrote to the Premier after parliament established the independent inquiry and ahead of the cabinet appointment of the inquirer. I quote:

Such an appointment that is not perceived as truly independent would be catastrophic—foster and kinship carers have begun to anticipate this Independent Inquiry as their opportunity to have their voices heard in the child protection system. Any appointment that does not meet the test of perceived independence will lead to anger, bitterness and impact badly on morale of foster and kinship carers.

The reaction in the Legislative Council in February will likely mirror any such reaction from carers. It will be perceived that your Government, Minister and Department for Child Protection are genuinely fearful of an Independent Inquiry and wanting to control the agenda…the proper focus on hearing of the concerns and voices of the carers, and the opportunity for there to be improvements that should lead to improved collaboration and partnership in the sector, will be lost.

But the Premier did not heed this advice. Indeed, he did not seek the advice and wishes of the carers, but instead talked about his 'confidence' in cabinet's appointment of the inquirer and was 'confident that foster and kinship carers across South Australia will have the opportunity to contribute to, be listened to and heard'. Further, the Premier suggested I 'encourage foster carers to make submissions to the inquiry once the process formally commenced'. On 24 January, I wrote to the Minister for Child Protection, noting that:

I have sent a copy of the letter to The Carer Project and CFKC-SA so they may know that I am listening to their views and not just stating a position of confidence that the Premier considers is appropriate. Many people will be watching to see if this Inquiry is successful, and that the government finally belatedly listens to the people this inquiry has as its subject and in which the Government didn't consider necessary. It is the Government that has work to do with foster and kinship carers and not for me to "encourage foster carers to make submissions to the Inquiry once the process has formally commenced."

I clearly believe in the Independent Inquiry. I put the legislation to Parliament and it was the Government that considered it unnecessary to listen to foster and kinship carers. It will be devastating if carers do not have confidence in an Inquiry they so badly want and the responsibility will solely rest with executive government if it fails. I have done everything I can to win the case for the Independent Inquiry and advise government so that it will be a success and I will continue to do so.

I also pointed out to the minister that, and I quote:

I have received many copies of correspondence sent to you by concerned carers. I assume you are addressing these issues in detail, on behalf of the Government's responsibility to set up a successful independent inquiry needing to have the confidence of carers.

The government and minister, not listening or respecting the views of foster and kinship carers, have caused much angst for carers at the commencement of the independent inquiry, for which the government must accept full responsibility. Was this an act of arrogance by the minister and the Premier or something more sinister, a desire to sabotage an inquiry they did not consider necessary?

Dismayed by the mess the government has made establishing this inquiry, I approached the Labor opposition with a request that they rescue the independent inquiry that the government does not consider necessary. I acknowledge the commitment Labor has agreed to, and I quote:

South Australian Labor is committed to ensuring that carers are heard. At the conclusion of the inquiry, South Australian Labor will seek the views of carers and should carers voice that a review of the inquiry's findings and recommendations is warranted, Labor will seek to establish such a review.

What a mess the government has made of their executive responsibilities! As a result, I have felt compelled to ask questions of the minister so that other faux pas may not occur:

1. DCP to provide information

It is expected that the Independent Inquiry will forward redacted carer evidence in a manner that protects individual anonymity at times to obtain a departmental response. In other cases, no doubt the inquiry will seek direct access to departmental files to protect the individual's anonymity. Will government instruct DCP to prepare accurate and relevant responses to issues raised and directed to them by the Independent Inquiry and make their records available? Obviously, any obscuration, avoidance, evasion or attempt to provide hidden or indirect information will be called by the Independent Inquiry and undermine the integrity of the process.

2. Location of the inquiry

My office was advised several weeks ago that arrangements were being made to locate the inquiry in a location independent of DCP. Can you advise when these arrangements were finalised? Given that the inquiry has officially commenced and is meant to be at arm's length from the government, I would also appreciate advice regarding where future correspondence to the inquiry should be directed.

3. Resources made available to the Inquiry

…how carers can make a submission, how…their confidentiality and anonymity [will be protected], how carers will be supported in submitting evidence and the processes and methodology…to guarantee the voice of the carers are heard and acted upon. It is a focus on carers and not the child protection system in total that this Independent Inquiry is about. The Minister representing [child protection] in the Legislative Council, made clear that the child protection system will be holistically examined later this year as part of the legislative review and the carers voice should be an important input…

The final point I raise is the terms of reference of the independent inquiry. On 23 December, when the minister announced the inquiry, the terms of reference were inappropriately precised. It may be understandable in a newspaper article but not on the DCP website. The precis gives the wrong flavour and discourages carers submitting their full range of concerns. The CFKC-SA website quite properly, as required, reproduces the terms of reference in its entirety. The precised terms of reference are wrong on the DCP website and has led a major NGO to record the precised terms of reference.

This may be the last incompetency or deliberate act of sabotage this government inflicts on the independent inquiry. Foster and kinship carers deserve better. The government and the minister, with the their much-touted statement of commitment on foster and kinship carers being informed, supported, consulted, valued and respected, need to recover any credibility by now acting accordingly.

I conclude the motion of condemnation of the minister and government by stating my appreciation to foster and kinship carers for the essential tasks they unselfishly undertake for vulnerable children and call on all members to deliver the independent inquiry they want and truly deserve. Accordingly, I ask that this chamber:

1. Condemns the Minister for Child Protection and the government's mishandling of the setting up and arrangements for the independent inquiry into foster and kinship care that the government didn't consider necessary;

2. Expresses its concerns regarding the Minister for Child Protection and government motives in not seeking the advice and support of foster and kinship carers in the appointment of an Inquirer and then ignoring feedback they subsequently received; and

3. Expresses its deep concern about the motives of the minister and government in publishing terms of reference for the independent inquiry into foster and kinship care to foster and kinship carers that is not the complete wording from the legislation, creating a misleading impression.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (16:25): I would like to thank the Hon. John Darley for his motion, and I echo and support his sentiments. We owe a great debt of gratitude to foster and kinship carers who have been critical to our child protection system for many years. They are classified as volunteers and sacrifice a lot for their families and other people's families.

I also want to take a moment to acknowledge that there is a type of kinship carer that although they are not recognised as a formal figure they, too, do a tremendous amount of caring. Largely, they are grandparents, but also others. While they do not have any formal arrangements, they do this incredibly important work out of the goodness of their heart, out of the desire to see their family members get the care and the opportunities that they need.

They do this without the support of government, day in and day out, with little to no respite. They do it to ensure the children in their care do not miss out on the attention, love and support they need and deserve. Caring for young children and adolescents can be mentally and physically taxing, especially on older people, particularly if the child has emotional and behavioural issues. So thank you to all those foster and kinship carers, for your dedication to our state's youngest citizens, for the tireless work you do to provide for the children and young people in your care.

The worker of foster and kinship carers, although unpaid, is invaluable to our community. Their unpaid work stands in stark contrast to the almost $370,000 paid to the Minister for Child Protection by taxpayers each year. Despite her failing in her basic duties, and her ministerial responsibilities being stripped away from her, she continues to be the minister in charge of child protection.

The Minister for Child Protection has presided over and is—at this point I would like to quote from Judge Paul Rice—'a significant failure', regarding her handling of sexual abuse cases involving two pregnant 13 year olds in state care who were sexually abused by paedophiles. Aside from declaring the Minister for Child Protection 'a failure' the Rice review recommended stripping the minister of her responsibilities for significant incident reporting among children in state care. Add that to the list of responsibilities already stripped from the minister due to her inability to manage her own portfolio.

Let us not forget that Minister Sanderson was appointed as a dedicated child protection minister in 2018, yet within just two months she was stripped of responsibility for:

Commissioner for Children and Young People;

Guardian for Children and Young People;

Child Death and Serious Injury Review Committee; and

Child Development Council.

But wait, there's still more. In March 2019, the Hon. Michelle Lensink was given Minister Sanderson's responsibilities to 'deliver and commission intensive family services with a focus on early intervention, to reduce the number of children entering out of home care as a result of suffering abuse and neglect'.

Despite this, Sanderson is still paid the same full salary of ministers with a much higher workload. I wonder how her cabinet colleagues feel when they are burdened with her responsibilities, and the Minister for Child Protection flits off to yet another function in her electorate? I wonder how those foster and kinship carers feel when, while taking the child in their care to school, they see her standing on the side of the road waving and promoting herself, who has dismissed their valuable feedback, expertise and lived experience of a system under review. I am sure that they expect the Minister for Child Protection, who shares of them the responsibility for the children in their care, to dedicate her life to her job, and the children in state care, the way that they do for the children in their care.

Foster and kinship carers often put themselves last. They make huge sacrifices in their own lives so that they can provide love, attention and support to children and young people in their care, because that is what it takes and that is what they will do. Putting yourself last and making sacrifices are things that many of us as elected representatives are familiar with. We all are, or at least we all should be, dedicated to South Australians first and foremost, and all of us, when our schedules are full, make sacrifices because that is the right thing to do.

We are so privileged to be elected by South Australians to hold the positions we do and, when we take it seriously, our jobs can put pressure on our families and our friends, on our social lives and so much more. We miss dinners with friends when parliament sits late, we give up watching our kids play weekend sport while we are somewhere else supporting community events, but that is part of the job—figuring out which things we should sacrifice and which things we should prioritise. I am sure the Minister for Child Protection is aware that she needs to sacrifice too. It is just that it appears that she is confused about which things she should be sacrificing.

Ministers, of course, have extremely busy schedules and balancing competing priorities can be extremely difficult. Ministers have huge responsibilities. Arguably, the responsibility of children in care is amongst the highest. But this is why ministers are being paid as much as they are: to sacrifice their time for the time spent on their portfolios; to take the time to engage; to listen to peak bodies, to those with lived experience and to advisers; to be balanced on upcoming views; to look at evidence and reports and determine what needs to be done to ensure the best outcomes possible for the portfolios they are managing and the people affected by those outcomes. Ministers are extremely busy and finding time in their schedules for all of these is not an easy task.

So when Minister Sanderson took on her busy schedule, I can understand there are things she simply does not have time to do. Luckily for the Minister for Child Protection, she does now have less to do than she did since Minister Hon. Michelle Lensink has taken on so many of her responsibilities. That is a relief. She has had time now for the really important things, not meeting with foster and kinship carers or meeting with her departmental staff about paedophiles getting children pregnant, not about ensuring that DCP staff who have police records for domestic violence are stood down, not for actively engaging with peak bodies nor the crossbench about the Child and Young People (Safety and Miscellaneous) Act—for that, she could find time.

Judging by her Instagram, she has spent a little bit of time for the important things, though: breakfast with friends or time in her garden, time to contemplate sunsets, art gallery openings, days at the beach, a mosaic stepping stone for her holiday project, time to explore the Botanic Garden, street parties, a night at the theatre, dinner with friends, festival openings, hosting parliament tours for musicians and days out at the footy.

Just hours after revelations that children were pregnant in state care, Minister Sanderson was at a citizenship ceremony—a significant and important event for new Australians to be at, but is it the appropriate place for a minister to be when she has just found out through the media that a child is pregnant in state care? I would think not. It could only be seen that the minister was more worried about her own job than the safety of children.

What is the Minister for Child Protection finding time for this week when questions are being asked of her office regarding the inquiry into foster and kinship carers, when the Hon. John Darley is bringing up this motion and when a tabled government bill from her portfolio was adjourned for the fifth time just yesterday?

If we check her schedule and we go over things that are really important, we can go to her Facebook page. It says: 'I'll be out and about for the rest of the week'—what a lucky minister she is—'doorknocking in my community'. That is not all she is doing. She is also found doing one of the most important things as the Minister for Child Protection: standing on the side of the road, waving at motorists as they go past! Is there a formal way to describe my tone of sarcasm in the last line for the Hansard, or do you think it will be obvious?

Again, in thanking the Hon. John Darley for his motion and for his attention and consultation with foster and kinship carers, we, too, condemn the Minister for Child Protection. We, too, express our deep concerns regarding the Minister for Child Protection's motives as well as her priorities, and we question what the Minister for Child Protection's priorities are. Are they the priorities of the role and responsibility of her portfolio or the valued children in her care, or, as it appears, is it sandbagging her marginal seat?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (Minister for Human Services) (16:36): I rise to make some remarks on behalf of the government in relation to this particular motion. I would first like to place on the record once again the appreciation of all of us for our foster and kinship carers in terms of the important support, love, nurturing and care they provide to so many children in South Australia who, for various reasons, are unable to be with their birth families. It is important work.

It is often hard work. Some of the children come from very complex families. They can have trauma histories, and that can make them even more challenging to provide care for. Sometimes, they are in the situation where the carers will be handing the children on to someone else who provides instability for them, but they continue to do the best work that they do.

In relation to this particular motion, the Children and Young People (Safety) (Inquiry into Foster and Kinship Care) Amendment Bill 2021 introduced a new section 169A, which received royal assent from Her Excellency the Governor and came into operation on 9 December 2021. This section requires the Minister for Child Protection to cause an independent inquiry to be established into foster and kinship care and requires this to occur within one month.

I understand that the Minister for Child Protection met with a number of stakeholders, including Connecting Foster and Kinship Carers, the peak organisation in SA that represents foster and kinship carers; CREATE; the Hon. John Darley MLC; and Belinda Valentine, and she has also listened to many carers about the process for the inquiry. The government has chosen to appoint Dr Fiona Arney as the independent person to lead the inquiry.

Dr Arney has significant national and international experience in child protection spanning two decades, including serving as independent professorial fellow to the board of inquiry into the Northern Territory child protection system, the royal commission into the South Australian child protection system, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and the Royal Commission into the Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory. Those credentials demonstrate very clearly that Dr Arney has been on many occasions considered as an independent, highly credentialled person to conduct this inquiry.

Dr Arney has served as a member of independent oversight bodies, including child death review committees and reform monitoring committees, and she was the Chair of the South Australian Council for the Care of Children, whose role included legislative review and monitoring, providing independent advice to government and promoting the rights of children. Dr Arney has extensive experience in oversight and independent evaluation of child protection reform relating to the recruitment, retention and support of foster carers, including the redesign of complaints and support mechanisms for foster carers and kinship carers.

Dr Arney has received awards for her service to research, reform and advocacy, including for her contributions to child health and development, science and innovation, community engagement, policy impact and women in leadership. Dr Arney was formerly the director of the Australian Centre for Child Protection when it was a member of the external expert consortium.

This consortium was actually engaged by the former Labor government to provide independent research and evaluation to support the reform of the child protection system following the Child Protection Systems Royal Commission which had uncovered the shocking state of the system under the former government. The consortium comprised leading academics from across South Australia's tertiary institutions, including the University of South Australia and the University of Adelaide. It was formed based on Commissioner Nyland's recommendations to engage relevant independent experts external to government to build a rigorous evidence base to support sustainable change.

Dr Arney supported the consortium in conducting the case study reviews. These reviews provided critical insights into the experience of children and families engaged with child protection. Collectively, the work of the commission identified serious challenges with the structures of the child protection system at that time and provided frank advice on the critical need for a systems overhaul.

I note that some people have stated that the inquiry should be conducted by a retired judge. With due respect, retired judges do not necessarily have expertise in these areas. It can take them quite some time to get up to speed, if you like, on the areas within the terms of reference, and Dr Arney is very broadly respected in all of the areas in which she will be undertaking the review.

Significant Australian and international inquiries into child protection have also been conducted by highly regarded academics and subject matter experts. These include, for example, the inquiry into the child protection system in the Northern Territory, which was led by Professor Bamblett, Dr Roseby and Dr Bath; Professor Davis's independent review into Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people in out-of-home care in New South Wales; and the United Kingdom's Munro Review of Child Protection.

It is somewhat disappointing and potentially disrespectful that Dr Arney's reputation, experience and independence are being questioned in this way. Dr Arney has the confidence of many carers and stakeholders in the sector as someone who will be and is capable of being impartial and fair. The government has confidence that her independence, combined with her knowledge, will ensure that this is a fair and balanced inquiry that listens to the voice of all carers.

In relation to the terms of reference, the government has always stated that these are determined and contained within the act. This is provided in the first line under the terms of reference on the inquiry website, and I quote, 'The scope of this inquiry is determined under section 169A of the Child and Young People (Safety) Act 2017.' There was a summary of the terms of reference included in the original media release, as the terms of reference in the act are somewhat long, wordy and confusing.

The inquiry has a set of procedures and processes free from the influence of government or the department. The inquiry website is live and there is an email for the inquiry, I am advised. As would of course be necessary and appropriate, the department will have no involvement in receiving or reviewing submissions and strict confidentiality procedures are in place, including to protect the identity of responders who wish their submissions to remain confidential. I hope that provides some commitment to give people confidence in this process.

Our government deeply values the role of carers in providing a loving home to some of our most vulnerable children and young people. As I have said, these people open their hearts and their homes. Since coming into office, this government, through a whole-of-government strategy for child protection, has made significant improvements to our child protection system to better support carers and we are continually looking at new ways to improve.

We are reversing the mismanagement of the previous government and we have implemented many new child protection measures to improve outcomes. Just last month, through the Mid-Year Budget Review, an announcement was made of the biggest foster and kinship carer payment increase in more than a decade of an additional $50 per fortnight for general carers who look after children under the age of 16.

We are making improvements in education, early intervention, health and increasing funding to carers. We have extended carer payments for eligible carers and young people up to 21 years of age through the Stability in Family-Based Care program. We are introducing the Next Steps program in residential care, which is extending existing supports to young people up to the age of 21. We have increased the number of family-based carers, and we are always looking for more people who would open their hearts and homes to our most vulnerable children, and are working to reform a system which had many well-known failures under the former Labor government.

I would like to address some of the, I think, spurious and unfair comments in the Hon. Emily Bourke's contribution. In relation to machinery of government changes, she identified some of the commissioner roles and the early intervention directorate. There have been many machinery of government changes across government, quite frankly, since we took office because things could be better aligned in other portfolios. So I think it is just character assassination, quite frankly, for the Hon. Ms Bourke to try to attack the Minister for Child Protection when we are realigning what were often departments that had all sorts of functions which better sat with others.

The Hon. E.S. Bourke interjecting:

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Again, the Hon. Ms Bourke, who is very involved in the campaign for the Labor Party in the seat of Adelaide, is criticising the Hon. Ms Sanderson for campaigning in her seat. Goodness me—she is getting out and about and talking to people. It is shocking, absolutely shocking, that she should be poster waving at 8 o'clock in the morning with myself and others—absolutely shocking to be accessible to people in the community.

The Hon. E.S. Bourke interjecting:

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Bourke, we listened to you in silence.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: It is rather bizarre, and she is criticising the Hon. Ms Sanderson for having dinner with her friends. What does she expect? Those of us who have children, post pictures of our children. The Hon. Ms Sanderson is entitled to have dinner with her friends. I think the Labor Party is just in the gutter.

I am disappointed with the Hon. Ms Bourke because I know that many of her colleagues love to get in the gutter, but I am disappointed that she has chosen this way. She probably has too much personally invested in the Adelaide campaign, but she really needs to stop, take a step back and be a little bit objective and a little bit fairer because I think most people would judge her comments as being pretty darn grubby. We are not supporting the motion.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. H.M. Girolamo.