HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-05-21 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Families SA

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. R.L. Brokenshire:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be established into statutory child protection and care in South Australia, including a review of Families SA management of foster care with particular reference to—

(a) how foster carers are recruited, managed and supported; and

(b) the provision of information and support to foster parents regarding the history and needs of a foster child; and

(c) any other relevant matters.

2. That standing order 389 be so far suspended as to enable the chairperson of the committee to have a deliberative vote only.

3. That this council permits the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it sees fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to such evidence being presented to the council.

4. That standing order 396 be suspended to enable strangers to be admitted when the select committee is examining witnesses unless the committee otherwise resolves, but they shall be excluded when the committee is deliberating.

(Continued from 7 May 2014.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (17:47): I rise on behalf of the Liberal team to support this motion. I acknowledge the ongoing interest of the Hon. Robert Brokenshire from Family First in relation to child protection. My most acute awareness of his commitment to this area was gleaned from working with him on the select committee on the independent education inquiry, otherwise known as the Debelle inquiry. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire was the chair of that committee, which did valuable work in making sure that we properly understood the issues coming out of the Debelle inquiry so that we could maximise the enhancements to our child protection system.

The Liberal Party supports the establishment of a broad parliamentary committee on Families SA. Shortly before the election, the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, on behalf of Family First, called for a standing parliamentary committee to examine child protection issues. While this motion does not propose a standing committee, I think that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, in his speech, indicated this may well be a forerunner of a full parliamentary standing committee, and certainly I agree that it does give us the opportunity to assess the level of work that such a committee might have to do.

The focus of the motion is on foster care, and the Liberal Party is aware of a range of concerns in relation to foster care, issues such as an apparent general belief amongst foster carers that the department does not offer them the respect they deserve, the feeling amongst foster carers that there is a lack of adequate information. The motion itself, in paragraph 1(b), particularly refers to the provision of information and support to foster-parents regarding the history and needs of a foster-child.

Also, in relation to foster care, the opposition is well aware of concerns in relation to the processes used with regard to the removal of children from foster care placements, but the motion is broader than foster care. The committee that is proposed is to 'be established to inquire into and report on statutory child protection and care in South Australia' and it goes on to refer to foster care.

Some of the other issues which I believe are worthy of potential consideration by this committee and which would come within those broader terms of reference are issues such as the departmental structure itself. Certainly the Liberal Party is of the view that the integration of child development, education and child protection within one agency, the Department for Education and Child Development, has not been a success, but this committee may well be able to consider that further.

There have certainly been concerns in relation to the training provided to staff within the department, particularly those who are commonly engaged in child protection or working with children. Certainly there has been discussion recently about the internal review of decisions, such as decisions to try to preserve a family, decisions to remove a child and decisions to place a child, and people have raised questions as to whether the department is ready, willing and able to properly review decisions that it makes.

Another issue that would come within the potential gambit of the committee is the consideration of the effectiveness of current reviews of adverse events. I have had the privilege of meeting with the chair of the Child Death and Serious Injury Review Committee and I believe the work of that committee is extremely valuable—interestingly, another initiative out of the recommendations of the Layton review. It is a very valuable review, but it is also limited. The review is fundamentally a review on the papers.

I think one of the issues which this parliament has considered in the past and which may well benefit from further consideration by a committee such as this is the risk of substance abuse. Certainly the 2007 Select Committee on Families SA expressed concern that the department was not properly assessing the risk to children and young people from the substance abuse of their parents and carers. Another aspect which I believe would come within the terms of reference and which would be a potential issue that this committee might choose to look at would be, in fact, the review of the progress and the impediments to progress in the implementations of the reviews. I know that there is scholarly consideration in the child protection area as to the impact of reviews and in what circumstances they are positive and in what circumstances they are negative.

Certainly, the state has had in the last 11 years a series of reviews. I am sure that there are many others, but the ones that I am particularly aware of are the Child Protection Review (commonly referred to as the Layton Review of 2003), the Commission of Inquiry Into Children in State Care (commonly known as the Mullighan inquiry of 2004), the Children on APY Lands Commission of Inquiry in 2007 (again under Commissioner Mullighan), the select committee of this house into Families SA in 2007 and only last year the Independent Education Inquiry (commonly called the Debelle inquiry).

I think this committee might consider reviewing the progress in the implementation of those reviews and, as I was intimating earlier, I think we need to be careful that we do not merely take a quantitative approach to implementation, but rather that we reflect on the net impact. We need to make sure that efforts towards continuous improvement do not lead to processes and a culture that focuses on compliance, rather than real outcomes—real protection for children and young people.

With those comments, I certainly believe that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire has made a strong case for the benefit of a select committee into statutory child protection and care in South Australia, and on behalf of the Liberal Party I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the motion.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (17:54): The care and welfare of South Australia's children is without a doubt the highest priority not only for government but for the whole community. As a father of three young children, I understand the community's absolute determination to ensure that these matters are being addressed appropriately and that everything that can be done to guarantee the safety and wellbeing of our most vulnerable children is being done.

This government welcomes such public scrutiny, but we also recognise under the Children's Protection Act the interests of vulnerable children must be put first. What we do in terms of child protection must be in the best interests of the children at risk. Any politically motivated witch-hunts do little to advance child protection. They might be useful to provide a steady stream of media coverage but should never be undertaken where there are any risks that the best interests of children will not be put first.

With this in mind I encourage those honourable members who seek to sit on this committee to make sure it does not repeat some of the flaws of the 2009 select committee of which the Hon. Mr Brokenshire was a member. In particular, it would be dangerous and counterproductive to re-examine some of the matters that have already been exhaustively dealt with in previous investigations.

The previous select committee used some factually incorrect data and information in coming to its conclusions. For instance, that select committee report stated, 'attempts by Families SA to recruit foster carers have failed.' This is not founded. At the time of the report's tabling, the number of foster carers had actually risen; in fact, the number of foster carers is still above what they were when the Hon. Mr Brokenshire was last a minister. That former select committee report stated:

In recent years, there has been a steady decline in the proportion of children in foster care. Seventy-three per cent of the children were placed with foster carers in 2003-04 compared with 49.5 per cent in 2007-08...Despite the large increase in the children needing care, the number of foster carers in South Australia has remained static.

The report went on:

According to the evidence, the family based foster care system is in crisis, with severe consequences for children…

That statement from the previous report demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the data. It is true that there had been a decline in the proportion of children placed with foster carers; however, Families SA places a high priority on children being placed in family-based care and has continued to support the recruitment and retention of foster carers and at the same time has increased its focus on placing children with relative and kin carers.

There is evidence that children's development and wellbeing is enhanced through the placement with family-based care. Placement with relatives also enhances children's identity and security. The number of children being cared for by relatives has gone from 341 in 2004-05 to 767 in 2008-09—an increase of 124 per cent. Frequently the evidence provided of the alleged inadequacies of the department's performance is not situated in the context of the challenges faced and has not been constructed.

An inquiry must also be conducted in a manner that protects the identity of the children and the families who are subject to orders of the Youth Court and statutory child protection processes. These are requirements of the Children's Protection Act and there are limits to the information that can be provided. Over and above this, if we are to shed light on the issues that need attention, I implore members to address them with the best interests of families involved in the processes. Equally every foster care situation is unique and the families and children involved and broadbrush claims and conclusions may do a disservice to many.

The government will not oppose the establishment of this committee. We do not oppose it on the basis that the inquiry has the potential to offer constructive outcomes and hopefully it will be driven by more than politics and will always seek to do what is in the best interests of the children in the system. Inevitably this select committee will hear from adults, foster carers and biological parents. It will not hear from children themselves. It is important to remember that the wishes of those adults may not always coincide with the best interests of the children in question. I think the Guardian for Children and Young People's recent newsletter summed it up perfectly when it said:

There is nothing wrong with adults in a child's life presenting their views and interests but at times it may be difficult to differentiate between what is the child's voice and what is being filtered through the adult's interests.

What we ask on behalf of the child is that adults who have different opinions about what decisions should be made or what actions should be taken, acknowledge their different views and agree to work collaboratively and cooperatively to achieve the positive outcomes that the child deserves. It is not easy to leave self-interest, fixed position, personal rivalries and ambition at the door, and a good dose of bravery is what is needed.

If such an inquiry is to be set up into statutory care and protection in this state, I would suggest it is important, like was suggested in the newsletter that I quoted from, that self-interest, fixed position and political rivalries are left at the door, and I sincerely hope the report can produce higher quality recommendations than the 11 pages produced by the last committee.

[Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 19:45]

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (19:45): I rise to voice conditional support for the motion before us. As been noted by my colleague the Hon. Kyam Maher, this government welcomes public scrutiny into child protection, one of the most sensitive, confronting and complex areas of government. In fact, the care and protection of young children and young people is arguably the most scrutinised area of government. Indeed, it is this government that has initiated much of the public examination of child protection in South Australia through the comprehensive review of South Australia's child protection system via the 2003 Layton report, the Mullighan Children in State Care Commission of Inquiry, and the Debelle royal commission.

This government has well and truly shone a spotlight on child protection, making it a priority in the whole community. The importance this government places on child protection is evidenced by significant progress we have made. The Leyton review identified in 2002 that there were 283 care and protection social workers working in Families SA when the Hon. Robert Brokenshire was a minister in the Liberal government. Since that time, we have more than doubled the workforce.

The budget for Families SA in 2002, when the Hon. Robert Brokenshire was a member of government, was around $90 million. The total budget for Families SA in 2012-13 was $325 million. Since 2002, we have introduced a Guardian for Children and Young People to cast an independent eye over matters involving children in care. We have established an independent special investigation unit to examine allegations of abuse and neglect in care.

We have introduced a Child Deaths and Serious Injury Review Committee to independently examine child deaths and serious cases of harm and recommend ways to prevent similar events occurring. We have set up the Council for the Care of Children, which includes leaders from the community who advocate for South Australian children and young people. None of these protections was in place when the Hon. Mr Brokenshire was a minister in the Liberal government.

We have established the Health and Community Services Complaints Commission to provide an independent complaints body regarding concerns raised about public, private and non-government health or community services, or providers, including concerns about child protection and alternative care. We have provided funding for advocacy organisations, such as CREATE, to enable non-government and community organisations to continue to support young children and young people under guardianship and those who care for them.

This extensive list of achievements is evidence not only of the government's commitment to child protection but also of the number of avenues that exist already for public scrutiny on how the system operates. I reiterate: the government welcomes public scrutiny into child protection, one of the most sensitive, confronting and complex areas of government. A further inquiry must seek to add something constructive to the challenges we collectively face. It must not be a simple political pointscoring exercise.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (19:49): I rise briefly on behalf of the Greens to indicate that we will support this motion to set up this select committee. Certainly foster carers play an incredibly valuable role in our society, a role that is often tough enough without systematic dysfunctional processes around them. So, if we can expose that and see better ways to support foster carers and the children they care for in this state, we certainly think it is worthy of support.

I note that, although we have heard a lot of words from our two Labor members tonight about how much they have done for child protection, I would hardly think that anyone could ever argue that we have done everything we can for child protection, and there is always further to go. I note that the commissioner for children and young people, as put forward in a bill by the Hon. Stephen Wade, the shadow Attorney-General, this evening is yet another step forward in that process. With those few words, I commend the motion.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (19:51): I will also be very brief. I take the floor to support the motion on behalf of Dignity for Disability. As I think is very evident by the contributions tonight, this is a very complex area, and for that reason, as well as many others, it requires a multipartisan approach. Unfortunately, recent cases that came to light prior to the Debelle inquiry and after that would indicate that we already know what happens when there is not an avenue for public disclosure and public scrutiny when it comes to these matters. With those few words, Dignity for Disability will continue its proud record on child protection issues by supporting the motion.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (19:51): I thank the members who contributed to the debate, with a particular thank you to the Hon. Kyam Maher. It is customary sometimes, when minor parties, cross benches or the opposition put up motions for select committees, for the government to be somewhat scathing and cynical, but I thought his contribution was well balanced and fair, and I thank him for that. I thank other members. The Hon. Mr Wade made a sensible contribution, as he often does, as did the Hon. Ms Franks, the Hon. Ms Vincent, etc. So, thank you to all members who spoke.

I rise on behalf of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire in this instance, who had his surgery yesterday. Members will be pleased to hear that he is faring well, obviously in a fair bit of pain, after a hip replacement. He will be back fighting fit and firing in this chamber in a matter of a few short weeks.

Family First is in our name, but nothing is more important to us than protecting our children in South Australia. We have a track record on that issue over a number of years, with the then Hon. Andrew Evans moving the change to the statute of limitations for sexual offences prior to 1982, which to the credit of the parliament was supported by every member of parliament at the time. That then started our long history of credibility on this issue.

This motion is quite wide ranging, and deliberately so, dealing with the subject. Its first purpose is to look at the issue of foster carers, as the Hon. Mr Wade outlined in his contribution. Many other things can be looked at—the terms of reference are deliberately broad. Family First does not think there can be much else more worthy of our regular and careful attention than child protection.

The Productivity Commission's report on government services shows that in 2011-12 some $3 billion was spent on nationwide child protection and out-of-home care services. Foster care, as this inquiry proposes to review, is a large part of those out-of-home care services, which cost about 65 per cent or $1.8 billion of the national child protection cost. The Australian Institute of Family Studies projected that for 2011-12 South Australia spent in total $201 million on child protection-related expenditure.

You could say that we will always have that cost with us, but Family First does not accept that. The economic cost is only one metric to consider when it comes to child abuse and neglect, and there are of course many other significant issues, including the emotional, mental, physical and spiritual harm that come with failure in child protection. Political commentary in employment context talks about direct and indirect jobs, which are relevant, of course, but the costs that I have mentioned—that is, over $200 million in South Australia for child protection—are very real direct costs as well.

The indirect costs of the personal, family and community breakdown resulting from all the other harm I have just described would compound far higher to the true cost of South Australia of not getting child protection right, and that is what this committee aims to assist. I choose to highlight the economics today as it is the language that governments of any persuasion would understand and, indeed, many people understand. Investing in child protection and strong families will make this not only an economic issue but will make sense in all the other ways that I have outlined.

This is a very important committee and we are pleased that it will pass this chamber. The government has said they will not support it but they will not oppose it, which is effectively the same thing, and I would like to thank the opposition for their support, the government and the crossbenchers who have indicated support. With that, I commend the motion to the chamber.

Motion carried.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (19:55): On behalf of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, obviously, I move:

That the select committee consist of the Hon. Jing Lee, the Hon. Stephen Wade, the Hon. John Gazzola, the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars and the mover.

Motion carried.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I move:

That the select committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to adjourn from place to place and to report on 19 December 2014.

Motion carried.

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