HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-11-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SELECT COMMITTEE ON FAMILIES SA

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER (16:34): I move:

That the interim report of the committee be noted.

On 14 March 2007 a select committee of the Legislative Council was established to inquire into Families SA and any predecessor entity in existence since the proclamation of the Children's Protection Act 1993. I do not propose to read the lengthy terms of reference.

To date the committee has received a large number of submissions, many of them voluminous, complicated and confidential. We received a discrete body of material and submissions concerning the SOS Children's Village, which operated as a licensed foster care provider at Seaford Rise between 1996 and 2004. We consider that the methods used in the dealings between this organisation and the department raised significant issues about the operations of Families SA that are relevant to the references of this committee, so the committee has taken the decision to deliver this interim report.

SOS Kinderdorf is an international organisation which provides long-term, family-like care for children who are abandoned, neglected or orphaned. It operates in over 130 countries and provides homes for more than 60,000 children and adolescents. The organisation, established in 1949 and headquartered in Innsbruck, Austria, claims to be the world's largest private welfare organisation. SOS Kinderdorf is politically and denominationally independent and, as I said, has a high reputation throughout the world.

In 1993 SOS Kinderdorf approached the department and other non-government agencies concerning the possibility of establishing a village in South Australia. A formal written proposal was sent to the department in March 1994. This proposal included the provision that SOS would be incorporated and controlled by a local management committee and registered as a professional foster care service. SOS would build a village comprising good-quality family homes for eight families (approximately 40 children) in a suburb recommended by the department. The local organisation would remain affiliated with, and enjoy substantial financial support from, SOS Kinderdorf International.

It was proposed that the organisation would target children who were wards of the state and who needed long-term care, especially sibling groups, those experiencing multiple placements, those from non-English-speaking backgrounds, and those with a slight handicap. It should be noted that it was never the intention of SOS to provide temporary care: its whole philosophy revolves around providing family-type surroundings and keeping families together. Neither does it claim expertise in handling severe behavioural problems.

Financially, SOS proposed to be responsible for the capital cost of land and construction, all costs to select and employ 15 staff, and all other establishment costs. It was proposed that the department would pay the normal child allowance for foster carers for the first two years, and SOS would then consider applying for government subsidies in line with other NGOs. It is important to stress that the SOS philosophy is to give a family-like sense of belonging through childhood and adolescence until the children are able to begin an independent life. This sense of family was reinforced by each home having a woman designated and referred to as the 'mother'.

By December 1995 SOS had purchased land and obtained planning and building approvals at Seaford Rise. The new development was welcomed by then minister Wotton, but did not enjoy the support of the then opposition. The village opened in September 1996, and a protocol was developed between the department and SOS which set out the roles and responsibilities of both parties. SOS was duly licensed as a foster care agency, and 72 children were placed in the village between 1996 and 2005.

However, it quite soon became obvious that the philosophy of the department was diametrically opposed to that of SOS, and that the department was uncomfortable without complete control. It very quickly became evident that funding was to be a major issue between the department and SOS. Although Mr Ellis Wayland, executive chairman of SOS Children's Villages in Australia, South Australian Division, told the select committee that SOS had never asked the government for funding and had operated with complete financial independence from the government, indirect funding was derived from state and federal sources. Ms Beth Dunning, Executive Director of Families SA, told the select committee that SOS had been reluctant to enter into funding agreements with the department as this was contrary to SOS's model of autonomy. If I may comment, it is our view as a committee that the department lacked the ability or will to think outside the square. The very crux of the issue is its unwillingness to allow this autonomy.

Despite fund-raising and other efforts, the SOS village remained outside the departmentally funded alternative care system. However, in 2000, a one-off $50,000 payment was made to SOS. This was made up as follows: $20,000 from Anglicare SA, committed as part of unspent brokerage for its alternative care program; $20,000 contributed by Family and Youth Services (FAYS, as it was then) from the Children's Payment Budget; and $10,000 from the Family and Community Development Fund.

It should be noted that the reason provided by Anglicare for its contribution was that 'SOS Kinderdorf fills an important niche in the alternative care system'. It should also be noted that, even with one-off grants, the operation of the SOS village resulted in considerable financial savings to the government. Mr Wayland said that it cost SOS roughly $780,000 per annum to run the village. In 2004, when the government took over the village, it allocated $1.2 million annually to fund operations and spent a further $900,000 to 'change the model over to a government model'. By 2006, the operational cost had risen to $1.5 million per annum.

Recent reports have indicated that the average annual cost incurred by the department for each child in the alternative care system, including departmentally staffed housing, is $270,000 per child per annum, and the total annual expenditure in 2007-08 was $16 million. Again, I can only say that the department's obsession with controlling all aspects of care has excluded a system which not only appears to have been successful for the children but also could have saved the taxpayer significant amounts of money.

By 2000, significant differences had developed between SOS and the department. The protocol signed in 1996 did not truly reflect the arrangements which SOS believed it had with the department. SOS complained of a lack of understanding and focus on its mission to provide long-term care of children. Changes to the protocol were discussed on 17 October 2000. SOS believed it was not provided with sufficient background on the children placed with them. It had always claimed that violent and aggressive children were beyond its capacity but believed that it was seeing an increasing number of those children.

Another protocol was discussed in October 2000 which was to attempt to settle these differences and to have departmental assistance using its connections with other government and non-government providers to work with difficult adolescents. The seriousness of the situation was reflected in Mr Wayland's notes of the meeting of 17 October 2000. He said, in part:

The fundamental and essential problem was the placement of children in the SOS village with severe behavioural problems which, despite determined efforts to cope with, had proven to be beyond the capabilities of the village and more particularly, the SOS mothers and aunts.

He wrote, as the bottom line:

SOS cannot continue to operate in a profile which is diametrically in conflict with an ethos and operating profile which has been developed over 50 years in virtually every country in the world.

Finally, on 31 October 2001, a second protocol was signed and an internal memorandum was issued advising departmental staff that FAYS and SOS had agreed that young people with a history of perpetrating physical violence were beyond the capabilities of SOS.

Mr Wayland acknowledged that SOS did not initially fully appreciate the complexities of long-term childcare in a first-world country. However, SOS had experienced the same learning curve when setting up in Canada, Europe and the USA without, apparently, the same blockages as were apparent in Australia. At the heart of their many differences was the department's philosophy of birth family reunification at all costs.

Finally, on 12 February 2004, SOS notified the department that in one month it would cease operations at the village. At the time, seven of the 11 homes were in use and 24 young people were being accommodated. The department subsequently took over the operation of the village and purchased nine of the 11 houses in June 2004. Mr Wayland believed that SOS 'was forced to close by union action and government mismanagement'. He said in part:

The SOS model is based fundamentally on a mother. As such, this terminology was politically incorrect and the only term acceptable to the department was 'carer', even children in care were to be referred to as 'clients' and not 'children'.

Mr Wayland claimed that the government caved in to the demands of the Australian Services Union, which sought to classify SOS mothers as carers under the relevant industrial award and, I might add, without any provocation by most of the village mothers.

The village mothers at the time were paid $40,000 per annum and provided with accommodation, living expenses and petrol costs. This can be contrasted with current carers' allowances of between $7,118 and $15,396 per child—depending on the age of the child—out of which the carer must pay most expenses. Mr Wayland said:

We could not possibly meet the ASU pay demands which would result in massive additional operating expenses. They wanted the mothers paid double time for sleeping in their own home; time and a half if they had to attend to a child; a lunch break; and, if they were required to serve meals, a loading because they were cooking; another loading if they were suffering any sort of stress because of child behaviour. And so it went on, it was just absurd.

Mr Wayland took great umbrage at any suggestion that lack of funding was a reason for village closure. He also considered that the departmental policy of reunification with their parents as a primary objective conflicted with the SOS experience worldwide, which was that mandatory unification is not necessarily in the best interests of the child.

In summary, Mr Wayland believed that the conflicts eventually became irreconcilable and led to the decision to close down the village. The government's response was to dispute Mr Wayland's claims. The minister at the time, Mr Weatherill, said that the government was forced to take over because SOS did not want to continue and, further, that the SOS model was 'dodgy', unsustainable and not capable of working in the Australian industrial context.

The select committee believes that the SOS village made a significant and worthwhile contribution to the South Australian child protection system during the 10 years of its operation. We consider that the circumstances which ultimately led to the cessation of SOS were deplorable and reflect poorly on the department and the government; and, in particular, the claim of minister Weatherill that the SOS model was 'dodgy' was both offensive and unwarranted.

In our conclusions, we further reflect that the department was not sufficiently flexible in its thinking or practice to accommodate the model of care offered by SOS. We accept the departmental point that it has legal powers and responsibilities for young people under the guardianship of the minister; however, we believe that the department was overly rigid in its application of the rules and unnecessarily restricted the capacity of SOS staff in handling residents.

Evidence we received establishes that this government, which came to office in 2002, was not sympathetic to the SOS model and that this model was anathema to the Australian Services Union.

Given minister Weatherill's stated views, it is not surprising that the government did not provide the political leadership and financial and other assistance that would have enabled the SOS village to prosper. The fact that the government was prepared to purchase the village in 2004 and continues to operate it at vastly increased cost demonstrates the need for such a facility. It suggests that the government was averse to the involvement of non-government enterprise in general and to SOS in particular.

South Australia is the poorer for the departure of a dedicated internationally acclaimed care provider. There was and is a need in South Australia for the long-term care of children and young people under the guardianship of the minister. It is not sufficient for the department to dismiss the SOS model of care on the ground that it worked only in so-called third world countries. There is nothing to say that, with appropriate adaptation and flexibility, the model could not have worked here. The reason for the closure of the SOS village was not that the model was deficient, but that neither the government nor the department was prepared to support it.

The select committee also considers that the criticism of the department's approach to family reunification is warranted and that its reunification practices require re-examination. We believe that the department was never fully committed to allowing SOS to follow the model of care and the style of operation that it developed and used internationally. The committee accepts that the SOS chairman (Mr E.B.J. Wayland) is an assertive and forceful character. There is no doubt that he was frustrated by what he saw as a bureaucratic obstruction and indifference as well as trade union bloody-mindedness. Perhaps if he had been more diplomatic, the SOS village might have struggled on; however, it could not have survived for long in the face of the demands of the Australian Services Union and the entrenched attitudes and inflexibility of the department and the government. The select committee will make detailed recommendations in its later report; however, with regard to this matter, we make the following three recommendations:

1. The department should be encouraged to foster new and innovative models of care and service delivery. In particular, non-government organisations, such as SOS, should be actively encouraged to participate in the field of providing care.

2. Departmental policies and practices should require that relationships between it and providers, whether they be an individual, an organisation or a family, should be based upon a true partnership in which the powers and responsibilities are more equally shared between the provider and the department.

3. Departmental practices and policies in relation to family reunification should be re-examined and adjusted in the light of recent research findings of Dr Paul Delfabbro and others. In particular, reunification should not be universally demanded, but should be targeted, 'time-limited' and subject to change, if parents do not demonstrate sufficient progress for their child's development and emotional needs.

This is a difficult committee, with much very personal and emotional evidence. As I have said, much of it the people concerned have asked remain confidential and so I would particularly like to thank the staff who have assisted us since its inception. The late Trevor Blowes helped us for a short time, followed by Noeleen Ryan. I do hope that this committee did not precipitate her resignation from this place. Her place has been taken very adequately and efficiently by Guy Dixon and our research officer throughout has been Pam Carroll. I express my personal thanks to each and all of those people.

The committee consists of the Hon. Ann Bressington, the Hon. Rob Lawson, and the Hon. Andrew Evans' place has now been taken by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire. It is significant and saddening to me that, from its inception, the government has refused to take part in this particular inquiry, because it is far-reaching and it does certainly cast some very deep questions as to the internal philosophy of Families SA and the departments that preceded that particular department. As I said, this is an interim report on just one small section of our inquiry and I seek the support of the council for its acceptance.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (16:55): I am going to be very brief. I would like to thank the staff who have contributed to this particular select committee. As the Hon. Caroline Schaefer said, it has sometimes been very difficult evidence to hear from people about the hardships they have had to endure and some of the less favourable outcomes for families that have occurred. The issue of the SOS Village I raised not long after I came into this place. I asked a question of the minister as to how the closure of that facility and service had come about. The answer that I received was in direct contrast to the information received from Mr Wayland. I am very pleased that he decided to come forward and provide the committee with information. I will make this point again as the mover of the motion for this committee: I thank the crossbench and the Liberal Party for their support which enabled the committee to go ahead.

I regret that the government saw fit to boycott the committee and have nobody present on it. I still cannot imagine why the government would want to be excluded from such a process, as it could have contributed some recommendations to improve the function of the Department for Families and Communities and other groups that may be able to work together with that department to bring about some sort of a resolution for some of the difficult situations that children, parents and families in general find themselves.

I also would like the council to accept that interim report. I encourage members to read it independently and to ask questions of people who may be able to provide answers as to what actually did happen with the SOS Village. Perhaps there could be some discussions in the Labor party room as to how we can seek perhaps to reconcile that situation in the future.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT