HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-06-30 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Children's Protection (Implementation of Coroner's Recommendations) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 June 2015.)

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:58): I rise to speak on the Children's Protection (Implementation of Coroner's Recommendations) Amendment Bill. The bill has as its impetus the most tragic of circumstances, as members will be familiar with: the failure of the system which allowed more than 20 notifications of abuse against little Chloe Valentine to essentially go seemingly unpunished was shocking to all who followed the matter.

It is estimated that one report is made for every four children in South Australia which, in itself, is a shocking statistic when you think about it; one in four made reports to the Child Abuse Report Line (CARL). The government has reported that last financial year, some 44,000 reports were made to CARL, and a staggering 37,500 of these reports were not investigated. It is anticipated the number of calls will increase to 60,000 in this coming year. Thankfully, there have been seven additional full-time staff added to the CARL roster. However, it is unlikely this increase will make a significant difference in the number of calls that are actually successfully navigated and, ultimately, investigated.

It is estimated that up to 70 per cent of calls to CARL are made by mandatory reporters about situations which do not amount to abuse or neglect, which is indicative of a system whereby people are so concerned that they not miss a case of child abuse that they can report almost anything. The system certainly appears to be clogged which, of course, increases the potential that serious abuse can go unnoticed. This was highlighted in the evidence given by Ms Benyk during the recent coronial inquest into the Valentine matter. When asked why she did not report a particular incident of child abuse, she responded that she had given up on CARL and, 'It was 4½ years of reporting and they did nothing so you, like, lose faith in that system.'

I know of an instance where a mother would repeatedly kick her child in the stomach and, on advice by police, the matter was reported to CARL. Sadly, the answer given to CARL was that they did not consider the matter significant enough to warrant investigation, not because the abuse was not concerning but because the person involved was 14 and they could leave home if they wanted to, sir. It is a true story. If the abuse was directed toward a baby or small child, the matter would have been investigated, one presumes.

This, we were informed, was due to resourcing levels. It was not until Centrelink reported the abuse that the police were prepared to get involved to investigate the matter. By that time, the child was out of the house and no longer prepared to further the matter with police. It does beg the question as to how many serious issues of abuse are not addressed as well. So, there are several problems—one of over-reporting in some cases; one of under reporting, if you like, in some cases; and one where there simply are not the resources to investigate when matters are reported.

We have also heard of allegations of people not having the appropriate training for taking calls at CARL, that is, that they are not trained social workers or do not have the appropriate skills and, therefore, are unable to properly identify matters that are raised and how serious they may or may not be. Clearly, there is an accumulation of issues within CARL that has created the situation we have now.

It has been reported that as many as 20,000 potentially serious notifications are received each year by Families SA and are filed away without any action at all. Again, I know of another instance which occurred recently where a young child alleged that someone touched him in the most inappropriate manner. That young boy, whilst highly intelligent, now struggles with communication and wishes to deal with strangers only on an infrequent basis, if at all. He was presented to a hospital where the allegations came to light in order to explain some of the symptoms which caused his carer to request treatment.

Within one day, the case was closed. No explanation was given to his parents, and that was it as far as the department was concerned in this instance. It was not so much that this matter was no longer worthy of investigation—any allegation of sexual abuse against a very small child should be investigated—but, in the scheme of things, the child presented a lesser degree of concern than did other children. This system itself is struggling with resourcing levels, appropriate training, staffing levels and, I am told, morale as well.

Family First has had representations from former Families SA workers and constituents who are caught up in the system. Those representations, in many cases, are beyond disturbing. Whilst we acknowledge that not all representations give a clear and accurate picture of the workings of the department or the successes they may or may not have, the issues that are raised are of great concern.

One constituent, a former social worker, noted that ongoing training was meant to be provided but rarely occurred, as resources were stretched, requiring workers to undertake workloads greater than their capacity. The situation by which social workers were allowed to have contact with Chloe Valentine and attend to her matter certainly gives weight to this allegation. Similarly, complaints have been raised about unqualified staff working in roles that they simply do not have the knowledge to fulfil. However, due to budget and other restrictions, they are the cheapest alternative and somehow have to be put into that position on occasion.

There were many significant and horrifying issues raised in the coronial inquest into Chloe's death and, given the media frenzy regarding that matter, it is not necessary to outline those here. It is heartening to see the department and government taking the coronial report seriously and implementing change in both the legislation and operations of this department. The government reported that work had been completed on all recommendations, and I would welcome the minister updating the chamber on the progress of work conducted to date on the recommendations in this second reading.

That being said, the bill before us presents the opportunity for significant change as we further implement the remaining coronial recommendations. Family First remains hopeful, although not yet confident, that we will not see another case like Chloe's again, as appropriate and ongoing training provided to caseworkers in conjunction with legislative change would, ideally, prevent a reoccurrence.

There are two comments I would like to make regarding the recommendations the government has not accepted today. We encourage the government to look at adoptions, where appropriate of course, and after a sufficient period to allow parents to prove their capability of looking after their child or children. There are numerous foster carers, relatives and genuine people who desperately want the honour and responsibility if being the legal guardian of a child. There are people who are willing to love and nurture a child in a stable environment where the child can grow and develop. This is something our system currently almost ignores, but at Family First we strongly advocate adoption as a means of developing relational ties and fostering greater outcomes for children in care.

As members may have heard in the past, my own wife and my father are both the product of adoption, many years ago of course, and were brought up in terrific, loving homes where they have had the opportunity to flourish into contributing, positive members of the community. It is a model that works and a model that I think we ignore at our peril.

The other recommendation is preventing children from being in chauffeured or taxi driven cars without appropriate supervision. The government advises that this is a recommendation that the committee reporting to cabinet consider the best way in which to address the matter. It is our belief that, regardless of staffing or budgetary measures, the government should immediately do whatever it can to prevent this practice from occurring, or at least monitor it in a sufficient way. The potential consequences for an unsupervised minor in these circumstances is just too high. We would urge the government to consider these recommendations more thoroughly as a matter of urgency.

Although, ideally, having an extra person in their presence would be the best solution, it is not always possible—we accept that. Maybe the fact is that the funds simply do not stretch to that, but could we not have a system in place that resulted in recording, for example, of individuals in this situation whereby, perhaps, a recording of each particular journey was undertaken that could be reviewed at any time? This in itself, I think, would make a significant difference and might actually be a step in the right direction. At the very least, it would provide a strong disincentive for people to do the wrong thing on those journeys and provide an extra level of protection for the children. This would be something that would be relatively inexpensive to put in place and would also, at the very least, provide, as I said, some additional protection for the children involved.

Family First would also like to take this moment to ask the government to revisit the numerous recommendations made previously in child protection inquiries and the parliamentary inquiry on Families SA that remain unimplemented. We have a raft of reports that have been handed down, with corresponding recommendations. If we are not going to implement those recommendations, one may well suspect that this child protection problem will be ongoing, and we all certainly hope that is not the case.

That being said, we certainly welcome this bill and commend the government for bringing it before the parliament in such a timely manner. The government is addressing three of the Coroner's recommendations in this bill: recommendations 22.2, 22.11 and 22.12. This bill amends the objects of the act to make it clear that the paramount consideration of this child protection legislation is to keep children safe, and in some instances that means removing a child from their parents. If that has to be done, so be it.

Family First recognises that there are times when it is important to remove a child and will continue to support measures that are appropriately administered. Under this bill, section 4 of the act is removed for clarity. The Law Society opposes this move and has concerns about the potential impacts removing this provision will have on a child in general and, more specifically, children of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent.

I raised this issue with the government and the advice received is that it does not agree with the entirety of the Law Society's views. The government has, however, addressed specific issues via amendment relating to the views of the child being recognised and then a requirement for expediency in matters of child protection. This is certainly not an issue that we would want to overlook as the issues raised in section 4 provide rights to a child or young person which should be observed.

Family First strongly supports the provisions regarding cumulative harm being a relevant factor in decision-making. There are certainly situations where the parent or carer of a child is not faring as well as they could and Families SA intervenes, provides the appropriate support and then the parent or carer is able to continue looking after the child without further need of support. It is always fantastic to hear of those cases; however, sadly, many situations do not resolve in such a manner.

We strongly support consideration given to both the current and historic care of the child and any potential for serious harm, abuse or neglect. Whilst there are natural instances when the past behaviour of a parent or carer with appropriate interventions and support may not be indicative of future behaviour, there is of course a need to consider the matter as a whole. Therefore, considering the current and historic care of the child when assessing the potential for serious harm, abuse or neglect is the most logical approach.

While I would hope that the obvious nature of these provisions would have already been a consideration in child care and protection, we fully support the implementation of these legislative provisions. We further support the provisions which create a qualifying offence. Whilst this is controversial in some quarters, the argument of course being that a blanket approach is dangerous and ignores the fact that behaviour can change, we find merit in the recommendation of the Coroner and lend our support to the implementation thereof.

Any person who has a conviction that has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to have been guilty of criminal neglect, endangering life, causing or creating a risk of serious harm, manslaughter, murder or an attempt to commit these offences, will have met the criteria for a qualifying offence and the child or children living with them will be subject to an instrument of guardianship. We note that these provisions are deliberately wide to create instances where someone lives with the child but is not the parent. We consider that is an important consideration in these amendments and support them.

We look forward to the implementation of these three recommendations and any update the government can provide regarding the furtherance of the remaining recommendations. It is also relevant at this point to add a comment about what seems to be an acceptance by some quarters within Families SA of the use of illicit drugs. In interviews I have had with staff members of Families SA, even with senior members of the department, there is a lack of clarity in how to handle parents who are what you might call abusers of illicit drugs and that is deemed to be affecting the relationship with their children.

I venture to say that sometimes these addictions become very overpowering and, when it comes to choosing between anything and further substance abuse, it is very hard for people not to choose the substance. When that becomes the case, children simply have to be removed; it is as simple as that. We are too slow to act, and there are many cases all of us could point to that provide proof of that. Family First looks forward to seeing positive change in this area so that our vulnerable children are afforded the care and protection they deserve.

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

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