HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-11-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Committees

SELECT COMMITTEE ON FAMILIES SA

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER (16:07): I move:

That the report be noted.

I move the adoption of this report and I must say that my only pleasure in doing so comes from the fact that it is finished. It has been a long and arduous inquiry. The committee has heard a litany of evidence, all of which condemns the department. I commend the Hon. Ann Bressington for bringing this reference to the council. I am sure she will speak for herself but, after two years of often harrowing evidence, I well understand the frustration which prompted her to do so.

The committee received 98 written submissions. Many of them were deeply personal, in great detail and quite heart-wrenching. For this reason, the committee determined that it would retain the anonymity of all but the experts. Given the number and extent of written submissions, we did not seek verbal evidence from everyone but, rather, sought a broad cross-section and endeavoured to cover all aspects raised.

On 11 November last year the committee tabled an interim report on the department's relationship with and eventual closure of the SOS Children's Village. Given the time constraints, I do not propose to revisit that report; suffice to say that we believe the minister and his department must look at more flexible arrangements for the housing and care of children at risk.

It is a great disappointment to me that the government chose, at the outset, not to participate in this committee. Had it done so, many of the problems that were uncovered might have been addressed on an ongoing basis rather than continuing to fester for another two years.

There have been numerous inquiries pertaining to various aspects of the neglect of children commissioned and delivered over the past 20 years. We have referred to many of these throughout this report. Sadly, it appears that the lot of children at risk and their families has not improved, in spite of the numerous recommendations made over those 20 years.

I also acknowledge the most recent effort of the government in its introduction of the Statutes Amendment (Children's Protection) Bill, which was debated to second reading in this place yesterday, but I am cynical that it will be successful unless the root cause is addressed. Our committee found that, to quote one witness, there is a rotten culture of power without accountability in the department which is now called Families SA and, until that deeply ingrained culture changes, little else will change.

We were told that many officers behave in an unprofessional, biased and vindictive manner and that they are permitted to hide from recrimination. Case workers are bullied by supervisors, and policy is developed without input from workers at the coal face, who feel that they are unsupported by their superiors. In fact, many believe they are used as scapegoats for organisational failure. This is, of course, in absolute contrast to the policy quoted in the Families SA annual report, which says it is 'connected, ethical, brave and respected'. The committee has found that the words and the actions do not match.

In spite of the emotionally draining, often traumatic conditions of working in child protection, it is a poorly remunerated profession; therefore, staff tend to be young and inexperienced, yet they have unfettered power and poor supervision, and in most cases they lack mentoring. Many have no experience and therefore no ability to work in partnership with families and foster carers. They are often untrained or under-trained in child development. They also lack training in conflict management and case conferencing. Although the work requires the minimum skills of a qualified social worker, many caseworkers do not have those qualifications. It is little wonder that there is a high turnover of staff, which in turn exacerbates the lack of experienced workers.

The statutory child protection system in South Australia is in crisis. The total number of notifications has doubled in 10 years. The tier system for isolating children at severe risk has failed. The committee heard that Families SA investigates less than half the notifications it receives. Non-government organisations contracted to provide services under the Keeping Families Together program, which was introduced in 1993, are not respected or asked for policy input and claim that they do not have cases referred to them in spite of the desperate need for such services.

South Australia spends 35.4 per cent less than the national average per child on out of home care, yet has the highest per capita number of children in alternative care for a five year period. In 2007-08, Families SA spent $270,000 per child—that is, over $16 million—to care for a small number of children in motel type accommodation. We believe that dedicated facilities must be established for emergency accommodation as a matter of urgency.

South Australia relies on foster carers for the placement of 49.5 per cent of the children in state care, yet our committee received numerous complaints from foster carers who have been treated with disrespect by departmental workers. Procedures for investigating complaints against foster carers are, to say the least, unsatisfactory. Many believe they are given unsatisfactory information with regard to the children they care for.

These are dedicated volunteers, yet in many cases they are treated by caseworkers with suspicion. They are rarely offered professional training, and many live in fear that they will have false complaints raised against them. Procedures for investigating these complaints are not satisfactory. The competence of the Special Investigations Unit is questionable.

The committee was assured that the unit has been reorganised, but serious questions remain about the fairness and efficacy of the investigative processes. Many carers have no confidence that their case will be given a fair or transparent investigation. Thirty-six per cent of children in state care are cared for by grandparents and other relatives. They, too, struggle to cope with what appears to be an adversarial system. We heard many cases, particularly from grandparents who had appealed to the department to intervene and save their grandchildren from parents who were dysfunctional, but their pleas went unheard as the department blindly stuck to a policy of family reunification.

On the other hand, grandparents who were carers and, in some cases, parents in crisis, who sought temporary respite or counselling, were also ignored. Drug and alcohol abuse by parents was described by one expert as the elephant in the lounge room, but there are few protocols to deal with this problem. Although manuals of practice provide appropriate methods of dealing with families in crisis, these principles are not practised. Certainly they are not applied consistently, and it would appear that many caseworkers do not know they exist. Too often, Families SA fails to recognise that support, advice, guidance and compassion would improve the long-term outcomes for children and their families.

Further, there is no consistency in the practices applied by Families SA. Some workers insist on numerous attempts at reunification and some insist that children be forced to spend weekends with their parents against their wishes, while others remove children from the care of families when it is clear that counselling would be an appropriate first method of dealing with the problem.

Perhaps of greatest concern is that, under the tier system of assessment, many tier 2 notifications are ignored until several complaints have been received. We were told that this is due to a lack of resources within regional offices yet, each time such a notification is ignored, a child or a family is put at further risk. One worker told us that the removal of administrative assistants has meant that she can handle many fewer cases than previously. Surely, this is an indication of false savings. I am left to question the appropriateness of the application of funding within Families SA.

To those of us who took part in this inquiry, Families SA appears to be top-heavy and arrogant. Children and families at risk will not be better served until the minister attacks the fundamental cultural flaws which are endemic within the department and which have existed for many years.

I thank the staff members who assisted for the duration of this committee. They include Ms Noeleen Ryan, the late Mr Trevor Blowes, Mr Guy Dickson and the research officer, Dr Pam Carroll. I also thank the members of the committee: the Hon. Ann Bressington, the Hon. Andrew Evans (who served until July 2008) and the Hon. Robert Brokenshire, who took his place. In particular, I thank my colleague the Hon. Robert Lawson, without whose expertise I do not believe we would have been able to table this report. The committee made 16 recommendations, which read as follows:

1. The minister must take steps to address the rotten culture within the department.

2. The department must adopt a more cooperative, accountable, transparent and inclusive approach to dealing with foster carers, families, non-government organisations and others.

3. An independent competency assessment and evaluation of minimum training and competency levels for child protection workers must take place.

4. An independent audit of the qualifications of workers within the child protection system to be undertaken.

5. The mandatory reporting system be improved by the establishment of independent regional panels to determine appropriate responses to all notifications of child abuse. The panels are to consist of persons such as teachers, policy officers and social workers, as well as departmental officers.

6. Administrative staff be appointed in regional offices as a matter of urgency to ease the burden on caseworkers.

7. Greater efforts be made by the department to respect the work of foster parents and carers and that appropriate training and education courses be provided and encouraged.

8. There be an independent review of the performance and methods used by the Special Investigations Unit and of the competence and qualifications of its personnel; that the review examine and report on the cases of Burgess, Easling, and others, where claims of false allegations have been made and acted upon by the SIU.

9. That family reunification practices and policies be re-examined and adjusted in the light of research findings. 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 developmental and emotional needs.

10. That all relevant practice manuals, policy guidelines and pro formas—for example, a case plan and consent to family preservation services—be published on the department's website and promoted to the public.

11. The department should be encouraged to foster new and innovative models of care and service delivery. In particular, non-service organisations should be actively encouraged to participate in the field of providing care for children at risk.

12. To encourage the required cultural change within the department, an independent professional panel be established to deal with the complaints about the conduct of individual workers.

13. An advocacy service to assist parents and carers who are aggrieved by decisions and actions of the department be established and adequately funded.

14. An online information service be established containing details of non-government organisations which provide information and support for families under pressure or in crisis.

15. That an independent investigation be undertaken to prepare a report on the operation of section 38(1) of the Children's Protection Act 1993 regarding substance abuse, with particular reference to the extent to which the department seeks orders under that section requiring undertakings for parents and others, the nature of the undertaking sought and actions taken to enforce and monitor compliance with such undertakings.

16. The reports from recommendations 3, 4, 8 and 15 be tabled in both houses of parliament within 14 sitting days of their having been received.

Many of these recommendations address concerns similar to those raised by experts such as Robin Layton QC and Justice Mullighan in their reports. However, our terms of reference are specific to the faults within the department. I can only again express our extreme concern that the recommendations of those eminent experts and many others cannot and will not be addressed until the culture within the department is addressed—and only the minister of the day has the power to do that.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (16:23): I wish to make some brief remarks in support of the motion of the chair of the Families SA select committee, the Hon. Caroline Schaefer. I commend her for her exemplary chairmanship of the committee.

This committee was established at the initiation of the Hon. Ann Bressington and, speaking for myself, I was surprised by the number, quality and strength of submissions received from various people who come into contact with the child protection system in South Australia, in particular with Families SA, which is an agency of the Department for Families and Communities.

I do not believe the problems identified by the many witnesses who gave evidence are new. Indeed, I reached the conclusion from the evidence that these have been longstanding problems. We received evidence from families, relinquishing parents, foster carers, organisations and advocacy groups supporting foster carers and grandparent carers, workers within the field, as well as comprehensive initial evidence from Sue Vardon (then chief executive officer of the department) and Beth Dunning (then a deputy with responsibility for this area). Both those officers subsequently left the department.

The overall impression one gained from the departmental evidence was that the department talks the talk, publishes material—all of which is exemplary—that is full of manuals, training courses and requirements—all of which sounds good—but, while the department talks the talk, it appears from the evidence we received that it does not walk the walk.

One might say that when you receive a lot of evidence and submissions from people who are complaining about a system you are merely attracting those who are dissatisfied, but there may be thousands out there who are perfectly satisfied with the situation within the department. However, when the evidence of parents, families, grandparents and foster carers is unanimous and where it is was supported by not only workers in the field and employees of the department, but also independent experts, such as Professor Dorothy Scott (Director, Australian Centre for Child Protection), Emeritus Professor Freda Briggs (who may still hold the appointment of Professor of Child Development at the University of South Australia and is an international and widely acclaimed and recognised expert in the field) and a younger researcher, Associate Professor Paul Delfabbro from the School of Psychology at the University of Adelaide, you realise the people might be unlettered, untrained and perhaps not as well educated as some of the highly educated and experienced officers in the department, but you also realise that there are significant problems.

The Hon. Caroline Schaefer in her brief remarks quoted passages from the report dealing with the finding that there is an unsatisfactory culture within Families SA—a culture of bullying and overbearing behaviour towards the people with whom they deal. I must say that I was entirely convinced by the strength of that evidence.

Earlier this week, in his apology to the forgotten Australians and former child migrants, the Prime Minister referred to the fact that in Australia presently there are some 28,000 to 30,000 Australians 'in care'. We call it 'in care' because it sounds nice and comfortable, but a blunter description and a description from the other side of the coin is that the parents of 28,000 to 30,000 children have had their children removed from them.

It will not surprise me, as a result of the evidence I heard in this particular inquiry, that within the next five, 10 or maybe 20 years the prime minister of the day will be apologising not so much to the children—perhaps still to the children—but, rather, to the other people in the system who have been adversely affected by government policies and actions of departments, such as Families SA.

Like most of members of parliament (and I imagine most citizens), I have long subscribed to the view that 'the best interests of the child as paramount' is an important test. It is perhaps the best legal test and, in the absence of some better formulation, I do not resile from it. However, putting the best interests of the child first or making them paramount does not mean that you can ignore the interests of those others who might be associated with the child, that you can ignore or trash the interests of parents or of grandparents or of foster carers or that you can ignore or overbear those interests.

I think the evidence that we received established that, in the culture of Families SA, whilst it might subscribe to the statutory requirement to consider the best interests of the child, it so often overbears, overlooks or bullies parents, foster carers and others or overlooks their interests or ignores them. I think that is something that ought be placed on the record.

The fact is that, despite all the reports from Layton and Mullighan and the reports that have occurred elsewhere in Australia, such as Commissioner Woods in New South Wales, who looked into its notorious Department of Community Services (DoCS), this is a major issue and one that we are not satisfied has been appropriately addressed by Families SA.

It is a pity that the government did not cooperate with our inquiry. As I mentioned, the Chief Executive Officer and Ms Dunning did attend and presented material to the committee, but rather under sufferance. However, they certainly did not have the encouragement or support of the minister. They saw it as an irritation, and they were not going to cooperate. They thought it would be a witch-hunt. They thought that we would provide a forum for people to make public accusations against officers of the department and denigrate them in public under parliamentary privilege. None of that happened. The committee observed procedural fairness, but procedural fairness is something that in many cases is foreign to the culture of Families SA.

We made a number of recommendations. I do not suggest for a moment that the recommendations are comprehensive or all encompassing. We could have spent a great deal longer. We could have commissioned more research and come up with more comprehensive recommendations. However, time did not allow that, and I do not believe that we would have improved much on the report that we have presented. The report is primarily an account of the evidence that we received. The evidence will be tabled, but it is very widely summarised in the report. I commend the report to members and I hope that it will mark a new beginning for Families SA.

However, I want to say this. The committee did not find, and I certainly personally do not believe, that those in Families SA, either in executive positions or elsewhere, are not as individuals conscientiously pursuing their duties as they see them. However, I do see that there are many who are of a bullying type; that type of officer who believes that they know best in every situation and who may not be flexible. There are many who are young, enthusiastic and idealistic but, unfortunately, they are not appropriately trained and do not have the necessary qualifications or experience in matters such as child development. Many lack diplomatic skills. Many lack the sort of experience and training that a better system would provide for them. I hope that both the department and the government will hear the message about the training and qualifications required for this difficult task.

I do not for a moment suggest, nor does the committee, that the task that faces Families SA is an easy one. It is not. It is a highly difficult and complex task and it requires skill. However, the ingrained culture of the department seems to be rather closed and defensive and one that is resistant to change and outside support.

In the nature of things, the government produced a new guardian for children: Ms Pam Simmons has been appointed. That was as a result of a recommendation of the Layton report. We have a guardian for children who is looking after children's interests, but it seems to me there is no advocate or support for the interests of others in the system. So, for example, people who are foster parents can be accused of improper behaviour, accused quite wrongly often of quite serious offences and have children removed from them, as can natural parents have children removed from them, in circumstances where their side of the story is not appropriately heard and they have no redress.

I think we have gone perhaps too far, and the appointment of the guardian for children is an example of where you go in one direction to support one particular group but you overlook others with an equal interest in the system. I think one of the important recommendations of the report is that there be an appeal mechanism which enables people to have quick redress.

A number of cases were cited to the committee where the Ombudsman had been involved and, after long and protracted hearings, some lasting many years, the Ombudsman came up with a report that completely absolved the complainant, in the case of perhaps a parent or a foster carer. However, what use is that in real terms? We need better mechanisms.

I commend the report and commend members of the committee. The Hon. Ann Bressington was tireless in her pursuit of the truth in relation to many matters. I commend also Guy Dickson, the most recent secretary of the committee. This may have been the first committee concerning which Guy conducted a great deal of the secretarial duties, which was no mean task. He followed Noelene Ryan, who retired earlier, and Trevor Blowes who sadly died during the course of the inquiry. I commend also research officer Dr Pam Carroll.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:39): I rise to speak briefly to this important report on the activities of Families SA. Understandably, the operation of Families SA is something of interest to our own party. I had the privilege of continuing on from my predecessor, the Hon. Andrew Evans, who I acknowledge had a role on this important committee, although I was not involved on it for as long as he was. I commend the Hon. Ann Bressington for moving the motion on 21 February 2007 to establish the select committee, and I also commend the opposition and crossbenches for supporting the select committee, which now brings down its report some 2½ years later.

I commend the chairperson for her patience and tolerance, bearing in mind that this matter could have gone on for much longer, had we taken time to go into the details of every case brought before the committee by the people concerned. I commend all committee members and Legislative Council staff who assisted in the difficult process of sifting through the witnesses' evidence to discern some common threads of allegation and concern about the operations of the department.

I know that our officers had conversations with the late Trevor Blowes about witnesses who wanted to give evidence, and it was a difficult task to manage witnesses wanting to share very personal, emotive experiences when they felt that nobody wanted to listen to them. I put on record early in my contribution that as individuals I have the utmost respect for the absolute majority of the staff and management of Families SA, whose job is a difficult one and under-resourced. Recently I met with a couple of Families SA officers when staying in a country region where they were training some Families SA personnel, and they told me in no uncertain terms just how under-resourced and under-funded they were. The two dedicated officers concerned described the pressure they were under and the difficulties they had in coping.

I hope that our support for this motion is not seen by the staff or the Public Service generally as being an overall personal attack on them, but there are important matters that have to be raised, and some of my colleagues have raised certain issues. Sadly, under the pressure of an under-resourced budget, decisions are made on the basis of necessity rather than on the basis of what is right, and mistakes are made. We only need to think about what the Prime Minister and the federal opposition leader said earlier in the week regarding forgotten Australians, which included a commitment to do everything possible to prevent abuse in state care today, to be reminded of how important it is to scrutinise the activities of Families SA.

Family First has, with others, been consistent in calling for more funding for the investigation of child abuse complaints. Right back on 14 March 2007, when the Hon. Ann Bressington moved for this committee to be established, the Hon. Andrew Evans moved for a bill to improve the way investigations into allegations of child abuse are handled. My colleague the Hon. Dennis Hood has also been on the public record about this matter, and we have also been on the record saying we believe that far better liaison needs to occur between, on the one hand, the Family Court and the federal Magistrates Court exercising family law jurisdiction and, on the other hand, Families SA.

Often the Family Court does not have before it any information on the child abuse allegations or history of the family in question and relies upon the 'he said, she said' approach to the case, which lacks input from social workers who have been working with the family. That is not to say that consultation never occurs. Often lawyers will subpoena Families SA if they have a hint of abuse but if, for instance, one parent has never known that the other parent had a previous history of abuse allegations, it would be more useful for Families SA to take a proactive role in family law cases, as I see it, after reading and listening to some of the evidence, albeit that I was a late starter on this committee.

It is also true that false allegations to Families SA are made for strategic family law purposes, and that is a great shame. Were the department better resourced, I am sure that such allegations could be better filtered out of the system and some sanctions brought to bear on people who made them. Even though it is a sensitive area, it might well be worth looking at the regime that exists for prosecuting false reports to police, to serve as some incentive to prevent the tying up of limited departmental resources investigating allegations that end up being false.

I have heard stories from the coalface involving the issue of drug-addicted mothers carrying a child. We need to give that child every chance at life, but I am advised that the child is not a child until it is born, so the matter does not come under state jurisdiction to intervene until that time. I do not think for a moment that we want to extend jurisdiction to the womb, as there is a risk of unintended consequences. However, it is concerning to hear about a lack of programs and means of helping a mother become involved in getting clean of drugs while carrying a child. I would have thought, with all the talk about human rights in other fields that we hear today, the government should be setting up the strongest possible interventions for pregnant, drug-addicted mothers to respect the human rights of the unborn child, who gets no say in whether he or she has physical and/or psychological deficiencies because of the drug addiction of their mother.

I turn now to the recommendations. I do not think that my statements about the staff and management of Families SA contradict recommendation No. 1, which says that the culture in the department is rotten. That is the natural order of things. If you think of an apple on a tree, when a crop has outlasted its value it begins to rot. There is a need for new management, a new approach to families in the system and more resources. To say something is rotten does not mean it is beyond hope, as a healthy new crop could well be would be on the horizon if the recommendations of this committee are adopted. That is the challenge for the minister, the chief executive and the government, and I hope that they look at the recommendations closely.

There is a reference to the Easling and Burgess cases, and others might want to say more about that. It appears to Family First that there are real questions to be explored, and we support the recommended review. The recommendations are essential to improve the number of people willing to take up foster care and improve the lives of frazzled case workers whose workloads bury them: theirs is a difficult job at the coalface.

We support the statements in relation to reunification. Parents who are drug addicted must be compelled to get clean of drugs because, if they are not free of drugs, they are not safe for their children. They must choose between the drugs and the kids, and the government should resource them for proper rehabilitation so that they can get clean. I do not believe that any drug addicted person deep down genuinely wants to stay that way. They want to get off the drugs but, clearly, they need help to do it.

With those comments, I look forward to the recommendations being adopted and the tabling of the independent audit on competency and qualifications and the independent review by the Special Investigations Unit in relation to further scrutiny of an important department that affects families.

In conclusion, I again congratulate the Hon. Ann Bressington, who put up the motion, and Caroline Schaefer and the committee. I had only little to do with the committee, but I know Andrew Evans was actively involved. As hard it was, I commend my colleagues on the committee for doing a damn good job. I hope we get some positive results from government as a result of their efforts. I commend the report to the council.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (16:46): First, I again thank the members of the committee; that is, the Hon. Caroline Schaefer, who chaired the committee; the Hon. Rob Lawson; the Hon. Andrew Evans and, after his departure, the Hon. Robert Brokenshire; Mr Guy Dickson, the committee secretary; Pam Carroll, the research officer; and, of course, prior to that, Noelene Ryan and the late Trevor Blowes.

I believe that this was a cooperative and respectful committee. We tried to produce a report that adequately demonstrated the problems facing families and children. I believe that we took time to hear the relevant stories to do with the complaints that I believe so many of us in this place have received over the course of our time in this place.

I recall clearly the night this committee was supported by the Liberal Party, the Greens, the Democrats, Family First and the Hon. Nick Xenophon (now Senator Xenophon). It was clear that the majority of members in this place had received complaints about Families SA and the agencies prior to that. We heard about the level of frustration at poor performance and the apparent lack of accountability, and we were all in agreement that it needed immediate attention. I also recall clearly the government deciding to boycott this inquiry, describing it as a political ploy. The gallery was packed with individuals that night—individuals with many sad tales to tell—and they were outraged that the government seemed to dismiss their despair and turn its back on a legitimate forum to deal with public dissatisfaction.

This has been a difficult inquiry because of the stories we heard. What was even more difficult to comprehend was the obvious lack of consistency in the application of policy and procedures, as well as the often loose interpretation of the legislation by social workers, who had come to the conclusion that they were above the law. That is not just a flippant statement or a guess on my part because, during the course of the investigation, I was in a position where I had to interact with some of these social workers who believe that accountability is not for them.

I can tell members straight up that the comments they were making to constituents about members of parliament interfering in their work not only were disturbing but showed the high rebellion that exists. It is no wonder that neither this minister nor any other minister has been able to put a dent into that pervasive and rotten culture, as it has been described in the report.

It is also clear that there were very few people prepared to come to the defence of this department. We received submissions from professionals, current workers, family members, foster parents, grandparents complaining that their grandchildren had not been removed when they should have been, and parents who have lost their children. In fact, the only people prepared to stand up for the department was the then CEO, Ms Sue Vardon, and her sidekick, Ms Beth Dunning. They tried desperately to convince the committee that the operations of Families SA were tight, well supervised and conducted via clear and strict guidelines. There was no other evidence that supported those statements, by the way.

There are obviously communication issues between workers at the grassroots level and those at the top of the food chain within Families SA. This was made very clear when evidence was received from both past and current workers within the department. This was one of the beneficial effects, I guess, of the government boycotting this inquiry. Professionals and workers stated that they felt comfortable in coming forward to tell the committee what actually happens when decisions are made about the future of children brought to the attention of this agency. The Families SA manual states:

Placement with relatives or significant others is a major priority in placement planning for children who need to be separated from their family of origin.

A current worker said:

The first thing we wonder about when we decide whether or not we pursue an order on a child is how much more funding we would get if an order is placed on a child—

that is an 18 year order—

not how we protect that child most effectively, not what kind of impact that will have on the child. If we place a child under the guardianship 18 order, the funding arrangements for that child are huge compared with taking the risk on [maybe, say,] an aunty who is safe but who is getting on in years.

The amount of scrabbling for money we have to do to keep that child out of court is huge compared with getting a guardianship 18 order, which means weeks and weeks of paperwork and about 40 seconds in court. However, that child's life is changed for ever in quite a significant way, all because we can get more money [for that child].

This statement to the committee and to me personally was a bombshell and went a long way towards my understanding evidence that came before and after this particular statement. According to this and other workers, decisions are not made in the best interests of the child; decisions are made to bring in more money. It also cannot be argued that this money is put to good use, because foster carers do not see that money converted into services and support for the kids placed in their care, and grandparents do not see that money converted in to services and support. So where does it go?

Could it be that these children are taken away from the care of a willing family member or from parents and accommodated in motels and bed and breakfast establishments? That exercise sucked over $16 million from the budget for the year ended June 2008, during which time a small number of children were placed in this style of accommodation at an annual cost of $270,000 per child, as mentioned by the Hon. Caroline Schaefer. The $16 million spent for motel-type accommodation was almost double that of non-government organisation funding of $8.913 million.

The committee heard further evidence that residential care units accommodate both males and females, that underage sexual activities occur, and that residential staff have allowed girls on 18-year orders in their care to have a male visitor stay overnight. As a result, pregnancies have occurred. One departmental worker reported as follows:

It does not work for these children. Once they step into the residential unit structure, they usually end up in the youth justice system. If they were not before they certainly do after. They usually end up using drugs, or trying drugs once they are in that particular system.

Dr Delfabbro, associate professor in the School of Psychology at the University of Adelaide, stated:

That is one of the things we noticed. Adolescents would tend to go into residential care, they would stay there, but you could see them getting worse and worse because they are all hanging out with other kids with similar problems, learning bad habits, often being placed with the correctional kids.

We should be viewing what we are currently doing with a high level of investigation, because we seem to be creating instability and dysfunction. Rather than actually preventing harm, we are causing harm.

Is this because the minister does not care? I am absolutely positive that that is not the case, but at the end of the day the buck will stop with the minister, whoever it is on the day. The change needed cannot be, and is not, purely legislative: the change needed must come down to a change in a culture that believes, but would never state openly, that the family is the cause of all dysfunction. Like it or not, believe it or not, there are those within this department, this agency, who believe that the state is the best parent.

I believe this change in culture can occur only when those working for the state are prepared to know and understand their place in the greater scheme of society. Professor Dorothy Scott was quoted as saying:

The state can be the legal guardian, the state can financially provide for children, but the state cannot be an emotional in loco parentis: it can only find people who will love and care for children if they are available.

She also said:

The most current child protection systems in Australia are unsustainable and potentially harmful. I think people are fairly united on the diagnosis that this is completely unsustainable. We will differ in our solutions, but the statement that it is unsustainable and that it could be harming children, as well as helping children, is now not disputed.

Considering this evidence, we have to wonder why some child protection workers seem to treat family and foster carers with nothing less than contempt. This is at a time when the child protection system is in crisis. In response to complaints, we also discovered that there is no satisfactory pathway for people to complain about their treatment or the attitude of those workers who appear to believe that they are a law unto themselves. One grandparent stated:

Caseworkers see their role as the major role; they are in complete control and don't you dare try to tell them that they are going down the wrong road. The worker is correct: we have come across some wonderful caseworkers who really work hard. Unfortunately we tend to come across those who don't more often, and their attitude is, 'Grandparents, why do you want to look after the grandchildren? You should be out enjoying yourselves.' I think that permeates through their thoughts. We have been told by some senior members of Families SA that the caseworkers are the sole arbiters.

Another grandparent, qualified as a 'young person specialist', stated that the department takes the view that if one family member is dysfunctional then the whole family—grandparents and other relatives—are also dysfunctional. Another grandfather who had custody of his grandson said:

The workers to whom we were first assigned were abusive, unprofessional and not at all concerned with the children's welfare. Their attitude was that they were in charge and we would accede to their demands or else. This opinion was borne out by threats made directly to us and innuendo during our presence at meetings, etc. The upshot of all this is that the department's workers see themselves as beyond question. They are effectively self-regulating and they are asked to report on themselves should concerns be raised. It's a nonsense.

A foster mother stated:

Families SA have no accountability and each individual that you deal with has a different set of rules and the goalposts keep shifting.

Others stated that Families SA workers appear not to wish anyone else to have any view or opinion or rights to a decision, that the department can do anything because it is the guardian of the children and there is no mechanism in place to be accountable. The government could well claim that these comments were made by persons who feel aggrieved by decisions they did not agree with, so I will again quote Dr Delfabbro, who said:

You get some workers who can be very stubborn about seeing themselves as the one 'in charge'; you are the one who receives information from them and you are kept on a need to know basis. In some cases it can be due simply to the pettiness of the workers—they believe that they have their role, and are not going to allow you to traverse territory they see to be their responsibility.

Let me just say that it is workers with this attitude who create a toxic culture. I could probably stand here all day giving example after example of similar comments, but I can assure the government that, as more and more families are devastated by the decisions of social workers of this ilk, a tipping point is getting closer and closer. I also do not believe that these particular social workers are the majority of workers in this agency, but it is not always the majority who cause the most harm.

It is also only fair to acknowledge that Families SA has not become like this overnight. In fact, inquiries and reports date as far back as 1984. It just seems incomprehensible to me that report after report basically says the same thing and, over decades, our child protection agency has been allowed to decline by way of professional conduct to the point we find ourselves at now, spending millions of dollars and appearing to go backwards at an alarming rate. The question is: can this ship be turned around to the point where the value of the family unit, once again, is seen as a necessity rather than a nuisance?

Of course, there are families who do not deserve to have the care of their children and there is a need to ensure that those children are kept safe. However, as I have said before in this place, the state has not proven to be the best and safest option for many of these children. There are alternative approaches that have shown success overseas and interstate, but it seems that globally and nationally we are either unable or unwilling to take what works and apply those programs without change or without modification. We know that one size does not fit all. We know that kids removed from their families will suffer in the long term and yet we are reluctant to move outside of the square and act in the best interests of the child.

The SOS Village mentioned in our interim report is a perfect example of the resistance of Families SA to consider anything that would be different from the system that it has or remove its level of control over children that, in the view of some, are the property of the state.

I could stand here, as I said, for hours giving examples (both within this report and cases that have come across my desk during the course of the inquiry and since its conclusion), but I will not. What I will say is that not even a parliamentary inquiry was enough for some of those responsible for making critical decisions about the future of families and children to have them make an effort to improve their practices.

I have said on numerous occasions that child protection is a very difficult and often tragic area of service, and I sincerely thank those people who commit themselves to ensuring the safety and well-being of our vulnerable children. Those who perform their responsibilities and go above and beyond the call of duty are, in my mind, heroes.

As I have said many times, it is best to remove a child if there is a suspicion that the child is at risk. No-one wants to see children hurt by abuse of any kind or neglected and it is always best to be more careful, but what I cannot understand is that when an investigation shows nothing of concern there are those who will move heaven and earth to stand by their decision, regardless of medical reports, psychological reports, etc.

Professor Freda Briggs gave evidence stating that it was not unusual for documents to be missing when FOI requests were produced. Surely claims of file tampering are of a serious nature and that should have our minister's ears pricking—but it seems not. Surely disregarding medical records that show that parents accused of abuse and neglect are innocent would be a point of concern. Most times it is all put down to the citizen being over-zealous. However, I ask: would we not be agitated, angry, frustrated and zealous when being threatened with the loss of our own children?

Training and development of child protection workers was also raised on numerous occasions. The College of Learning and Development has done little to provide the training needed and, according to evidence, has focused more on how to obtain court orders than assisting young and inexperienced workers to identify the difference between normal childhood behaviour and behaviour that could be a red flag for abuse or neglect. As Professor Freda Briggs stated:

If you are training kindergarten teachers, they have four years of child development and they do not have to make life-affecting decisions about children that social workers have to make.

Professor Dorothy Scott agreed that training and development of staff is essential. She stated:

In-service education can go so far but that is done within the silo of one service and, I think, ideally you would want to broaden that.

Departmental policy outlined in its manual states:

All professionals working with children, young people, need particular skills to enable them to relate to them. They must have an understanding of child development and to know how children function when distressed.

An expert witness stated that one of the worst things about the department is that social workers are not trained in child development. I know that one lecture is given during their program and that the department has set up a little course which was written by social workers. One departmental worker stated:

The department established the College for Learning and Development in December 2006 to address concerns about newly-employed child protection workers.

He stated further:

There was a real concern that workers starting in child protection did not have the necessary understanding of what that means, both in terms of legal responsibilities and in terms of protecting children. That was why it was established. It was part of a drive from that particular review, the Layton Review, to have risk management taking place in people's homes with frontline workers such as us, not risk management strategies taking place on the 7th floor of the EDS building when things have gone awry. The idea is to avoid making the mistake, not come up with new reasons for making it go away.

He went on to say:

Part of my Diploma in Child Protection included a topic about pursuing guardianship orders in the Youth Court and about how to operate in a legal context. I did that unit eight months after I started, after I had already two of my children placed under guardianship orders, so I had really walked a long way down that path professionally despite the training.

As I said earlier, evidence stated clearly that the child protection system is in crisis. We have more children being placed in care, we have fewer foster parents being recruited, family members are not the first consideration as carers in many cases, training and development is not only of poor quality but it is almost non-existent, mandatory reporting was stated as being responsible for the overload as well as the ever-narrowing definition of abuse.

It was Professor Dorothy Scott who brought to our attention the difficulty with mandatory reporting.

She has made it very clear that the ever expanding definition of abuse is now catching children in the net of the child protection agency who should never be in that net; that we are taking kids away from families where perhaps a little support, a little guidance, perhaps some counselling, as the Hon. Caroline Schaefer mentioned, would pull them through that situation and allow them to move forward and remain intact as a family. However, in her words, she said that trying to find and sort through those cases is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. She made the point somewhere through the inquiry that we have become obsessed with protecting our children from any injury at all, that under the child protection system now every little bump and graze has mandatory notification and that the number of reports is overwhelming the system and, as a result of that, the most serious cases of abuse and neglect are not being investigated.

I could stand here and go on for hours about this, but I will not. I hope the government reads this report and the recommendations, and I hope there is an understanding that at no time was this committee taking evidence to be political. This is a deadly serious problem that we and other states share. This is not unique to South Australia, as we all know, but someone—God; anyone—has to stand up and say that we actually have to start doing things differently, because our children's lives depend on this.

I know during the course of the inquiry five cases that came across my desk of children who were removed on no evidence at all. I commend the minister for this: the minister and her chief adviser Angela Duigan worked closely with me on some of those cases, and those children were returned to their families, but we cannot assume that for all the complaints we got those three cases where the children were returned were the only ones where there has been a fault—a misdiagnosis, if you like—of the family's circumstances.

One of the most important recommendations I believe is that those independent panels be set up to review decisions to remove children and, by all means, if there is a suspicion where a child is being removed, have a 42 day order. Allow plenty of time for a thorough investigation to take place but, if we find that it was a snapshot of a bad day and there is no abuse or neglect, at least have the processes in place to return those children to their family with as little harm done to them as possible. I commend the report to the council and again thank the members of the committee for their time and effort.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. David Winderlich.

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