HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-04-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Child Protection

The Hon. S.L. GAME (17:36): I move:

That this council—

1. Censures the Minister for Child Protection, the Honourable Katrine Hildyard MP; and

2. Calls on her to resign for her failures in managing her portfolio, in particular, her failure to deliver the government's commitments for timely legislative reform of the Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017 to address identified systemic deficiencies.

Given the complex, sensitive and significant history of child protection in this state, you would expect the current minister to endeavour to administer this portfolio with care, caution and respect for the many stakeholders who continue to collectively call for immediate reformation of a broken, self-serving bureaucracy that is no longer fit for purpose. Instead, this minister has responded by engaging the media to accuse stakeholder advocates of playing political games and then commenced to forge ahead with her agenda through unilateral executive orders rather than adhere to the democratic process of debate, scrutiny, compromise and negotiation.

The Advertiser has characterised the minister's actions as channelling US President Donald Trump, but we need to remind the minister that this place is a long way from the corridors of the White House. We exist within a parliamentary democracy, the Westminster system of responsible government, where ministers are accountable to the parliament and executive orders are contingent upon legislative delegation. Unfortunately for the minister, such declarations to the media only further confirm the need for someone else to take charge of this incredibly important portfolio that has continued to decline under what can only be described as inept leadership.

This was most evident during the recent Budget and Finance Committee session where the Chief Executive of the Department for Child Protection, Jackie Bray, failed to provide answers to multiple basic, clear, fundamental questions about understaffing, under-resourcing and deficiencies in the complaint-handling process across the department. Quite frankly, the committee session turned into an embarrassing game of cat and mouse where the obviously underprepared chief executive could only provide scripted responses, took most questions on notice and failed to identify any clear or quantifiable achievement in a department with a budget reaching close to a billion taxpayer dollars.

While the minister might like to replicate Trump's executive orders, it is clear that what is really needed is not more executive power but an Elon Musk-style Department of Government Efficiency to uncover exactly where the millions of taxpayer dollars are going, and in true Trump style those responsible for any exorbitant waste of resources should be let go.

What is most concerning, however, is the impact of this mismanagement and waste on South Australia's most vulnerable children and young people. The history of avoidable death, harm and injury is nothing sort of horrific, and it should cause all South Australians to pause and reflect on what type of community we are and what type of community we want to become. It was back in 2022 when the separate deaths of six-year-old Charlie Nowland and seven-year-old Makai Wanganeen prompted the minister to declare that the government would be relentless in efforts to improve the system.

The Premier also launched an independent review into how government intersected with these families. Initial findings of the review found that 500 children were at high risk, based on data related to the number, type and frequency of notifications made to the child protection system. The full findings of the review are still yet to be released, pending the outcome of criminal neglect charges.

However, in February 2024 the DCP released figures to the Adelaide Advertiser under an FOI request, which showed that 17 young people living in state care or known to the system had died in 2023. Disturbingly, nine of these deaths were children under the age of 10. Despite the DCP pledging to be more transparent about child deaths, the death of a three-year-old child in Whyalla in May 2024 was only revealed after a tip-off to the ABC in July. The ABC requested further details under an FOI request but only received heavily redacted documents, and the department refused to provide any public comment on the case. However, according to an Advertiser report in August of 2024, alarms were raised with authorities before the little girl's death, and since her death her younger sister has been taken into state care.

In addition, there was the case of the young Whyalla mother who was convicted for the criminal neglect of her 1½ year old daughter in 2023. In sentencing, the judge noted that a person caring for the child notified the Department for Child Protection that the girl and her sibling were both wearing dirty nappies. Five months later, a social worker attended the house and observed the children in urine-soaked pyjamas, but no action was taken to remove the child. The familiar response of the department was, 'The safety of children is the department's highest priority, and we are continually working to drive positive change and improvements.'

What this reveals is the ongoing and urgent need for immediate action to reform this dysfunctional system before any more children are put at risk. The government, the minister and her department have continuously committed to doing this in press releases and media statements. However, these statements and commitments are consistently belied by their constant stonewalling and disregard for stakeholder concerns.

When asked specific questions about staffing and resourcing at the Whyalla DCP office by the Budget and Finance Committee on Monday 24 March, chief executive Jackie Bray avoided the question and then requested to take it on notice, then finally conceded, 'I do not have the necessary information about the resource questions with me today.' Given the significant incidents at Whyalla, Ms Bray should have expected the committee to question the department about the resources and operations of the Whyalla office. Such an unprepared response shows a deliberate disregard for the committee and its functions and further highlights the immediate need for greater scrutiny of this department.

Even the minister's Trump-style executive orders acknowledge the immediate need for accountability, with the minister demanding monthly reports on the progress of reforms. But, unfortunately for the minister, it is all a bit late. This should have happened at least 12 months ago, and to act now can only be seen as a last desperate attempt to avoid responsibility by frankly throwing the chief executive, Jackie Bray, under the bus, when it is the minister who has been driving this bus, the minister who is the captain of the sinking ship and the minister who has been asleep at the wheel.

It is also the minister who has consistently delayed these reforms, and the minister who has failed to consult properly with stakeholders and tried to ram this half-baked, piecemeal legislation through this place under the fog of the last sitting day of Christmas 2024, and it is now the minister who refuses to negotiate appropriately with the crossbench and would rather abandon the urgent need for reform if it is not on her terms.

We can do better. However, unlike the minister, the crossbench and opposition have listened to stakeholders, and I am certain we have all heard multiple disturbing accounts from individuals and organisations about the continued failures of this department. I have been particularly moved by the plight of carers, and the lack of recognition and reward for the valuable work they do.

A recent poll conducted by The Carer Project identified that 72 carers had paid out-of-pocket expenses for medical treatments, therapies and assessments. The poll also identified that 21 carers were currently waiting for medical or disability equipment for the children in their care, and that 19 had been denied the necessary equipment. This is unacceptable, and it is just another example of the deep-seated failure of this faceless bureaucracy, which is no longer fit for purpose. We are contacted at our office frequently by carers, who report to me that the minister will not engage appropriately with them and they are simply at wit's end and have given up on the minister.

It is increasingly clear that no meaningful reform will be achieved while the current minister remains in the driving seat. However, a new minister can be appointed who is prepared to address the problems with DCP, someone prepared to sit down and work with stakeholders to achieve meaningful reform to improve the lives of our most vulnerable children and young people, someone who genuinely supports the brave carers and workers who just want to operate in a framework that assists them, rather than prohibits them from doing their job. With that, I conclude and put this motion before the chamber.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON (17:44): I rise today to speak in support of the honourable member's motion. In doing so, I indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition. A censure motion is not something that should be treated lightly, so it is quite significant that we see this censure motion being moved today. It is even more significant that this is not the first censure motion that has been moved against this minister. I think it clearly displays a significant level of concern by members of this chamber towards the minister and her performance that we are debating this motion before us today.

Last year, we saw the Hon. Nicola Centofanti move a censure motion. During that censure motion, I clearly put on the record the many concerns of the opposition around the minister's failed budget targets, concerns from carers and the calls of thousands for a standalone child protection minister. I do not propose to relitigate those issues here today. They are on the record for all to see.

As an opposition, we have been calling for a standalone child protection minister for quite some time. It was the opposition's view that the portfolios of sport, recreation and racing and child protection went together like oil and water, that it was not sustainable for the minister to be juggling her time between the in-crisis child protection system and the bread and circuses sports agenda of this government.

We saw the Premier remove the portfolio of sport, recreation and racing from this minister's responsibilities only earlier this year. This was indeed a concession from this government that the child protection system is in crisis. Despite this clear concession, we continue to see unsatisfactory outcomes in the child protection portfolio.

It was hoped that with the removal of her sports portfolio the Minister for Child Protection could use this newly found time to listen to the child protection sector and experts, to be able to act attentively to their calls. Alas, newly found time has not amounted to a newly found attitude of listening. This government and this minister continue to bury their heads in the sand and adopt a 'We know best' approach rather than listen to the advice that is being given by the sector and by the experts.

It was only in June of last year that the Liberal opposition and members of the crossbench called for the resignation of the Minister for Child Protection for her failures in managing her portfolio, in particular her failure to deliver the government's commitments for timely legislative reform of the Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017 to address identified systemic deficiencies. At this rate, I will have grown a baby in the time that it has taken for this minister to deliver on this legislative reform.

It seems as if we are going around and around in circles but getting nowhere with this minister and with this government. We continue to see the sector ask for one thing and then the minister and this government double-down on another. It has been clear that the sector would like 'best interests' to be adopted as the paramount principle in this government's legislative reform. Yet the government has not heeded their calls and instead said that should 'best interests' be made the paramount principle they would shelve this legislative reform and retain the 2017 legislation, an outcome that I do not think anyone would like to see.

To be clear, it would not be in the best interests of a child for a decision to be made that is unsafe, so any commentary that the options are either 'best interests' or 'safety', that best interests comes at the expense of a child's safety, quite frankly is disingenuous. I find it hard to believe that you would see the vast support in the sector and calls from the experts, including the Commissioner for Children and Young People, the Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People and the Guardian for Children and Young People, if best interests came at the expense of child safety.

Any claims by the government for the opposition to, 'stop playing political games, back children's safety, and back these important reforms,' is, quite frankly, the government playing political games, considering that they should know that 'best interests' includes safety, considering that they should know that the experts are calling for 'best interests', and that we are not standing alone in our calls. That is political spin, if you want to talk about political spin, Mr President.

The government's approach is frankly perplexing to see, to have the minister so out of step with the expectations of her own sector. Despite knowing that the child protection system is in crisis, the government has advised this place that should 'best interests' be made the paramount principle, they would retain the existing 2017 legislation—and I do query whether this decision is being made on advice from the chief executive or whether this is a decision of the minister herself. This is legislation that has seen this child protection system reach breaking point, an outcome I do not think anyone would like to see, but this government and this minister's pride is getting in the way of compromise and getting in the way of achieving better outcomes for vulnerable South Australian children.

The parliament has the opportunity to address key issues that are vital to ensuring the safety of vulnerable children, including ensuring consistency in the application of the harm thresholds, expansion of active efforts, early intervention and prevention, and the prioritisation of reunifying families where it is safe to do so—just to name a few. Without these key legislative changes, children remain at risk of being lost in the widening cracks of this broken child protection system.

Katrine Hildyard has shown that she is not listening to the experts. It is time that she resign and that a new minister be appointed. The Premier can no longer sit on his hands as we watch the system fall into further disrepair. He must take action and replace Minister Hildyard with a competent minister who is willing to listen to the experts and get the job done. We need a show of leadership from this Premier, and the ball is squarely in his court.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (17:52): I rise to speak on this, and note that they are pulling the vote on this tonight in the knowledge that it was destined to fail with my vote and that of the Hon. Mr Simms. However, I will speak to it now.

I have never supported a censure motion or a move for one in my time in this place, and it is not going to change now. The reason for that is that I firmly believe this extreme step should only be reserved for the most egregious conduct by a minister of the Crown, like misleading parliament or gross misconduct. I am a backbencher, and I never supported calls for the resignation of the minister last year.

This motion does not meet any threshold to justify the removal of the minister, except that the mover and those who support the motion are clearly trying to character assassinate Minister Hildyard for political gain—nothing new, because it has happened with previous ministers. This agenda has been evident long before the child protection bill was tabled in this place.

There have been constant attacks in this place, and in the media, on Minister Hildyard's competence in the portfolio, and they will not stop until they get their scalp. I am not going to participate in this shameful, petty show of petulant politics when there is more significant work to be done in this area of child protection in the parliament.

I sit and watch in dismay the glacial progress this bill is making in the Legislative Council, and note that there are nearly 100 more amendments that have been put up today. I dare say, at the pace it is going, the Hon. Laura Henderson will be a mother of three before it goes through. This is a deliberate stalling tactic again to derail the bill and reflect poorly on the minister.

I fully support the minister and her commitment to make child protection and child safety a priority and make it in the best interests of children and their families. We have been bamboozled by all these amendments by movers who have not even had the courtesy to give me or my office any respectable notice about what they are up to and what they are about. This is having the effect of holding up the many good measures in the bill while denying children the additional care and consideration they deserve.

For the record, my dealings with Minister Hildyard have always been informative and productive. She impresses me as a hardworking minister committed to her portfolios. As we all know in this place, child protection has long been perceived as a poisoned chalice for any politician who has the misfortune of inheriting it, such is the nature of the topic of that portfolio. They are under greater scrutiny and attract criticism from all sides of the political spectrum.

This happened under the Rann, Weatherill and Marshall governments and now the Malinauskas government. I imagine it will happen under future governments as well, such a problematic area is this. It is difficult to find effective solutions in such a challenging area. There have been royal commissions, inquiries and reviews and, as I have said, it still remains a complex and challenging area by its very nature. You can talk about the way that this department is being managed or mismanaged, but we know that almost every government department has issues of management in itself, and this is no different.

In closing, I would like to ask the mover why she is yet to bring to a vote one of her priority bills to repeal one of this government's cornerstone pieces of legislation: the Voice? I ask if there has been any pressure applied to her by the government to keep it on the backburner a year or less from a state election? With that, I give my indication that there is no way I am going to support this censure motion, unless there is evidence presented to the chamber of egregious misconduct by the minister.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (17:58): Can I start at the outset by placing on the record and reminding the government and anybody who is listening to this debate that the Hon. Sarah Game is not alone in moving this motion. It is identical to the motion that was moved by the Hon. Ms Centofanti, it is identical to the motion moved by the Hon. Tammy Franks and it is identical to the motion moved by me, and that should be indicative of why we are standing here today.

I do not take censure motions lightly. In fact, I have not supported any censure motions previously. That in and of itself should speak to the seriousness of the topic that we are debating today. We may not have all agreed on all of the detail when we moved those motions, but there are two things that we were fundamentally in absolute universal agreement on, and they go to the heart of the sentiments that have been expressed by the mover of this motion today, and I share the sentiments that have been expressed by the mover of this motion today. As I said, we do not make these decisions lightly. They go beyond that to the heart of everything that those who have been involved in these negotiations have been frustrated by since last year. To suggest that this is personal, to suggest that we are after somebody's scalp is objectionable, because nothing could be further from the truth.

This has nothing to do with making it personal or politicking, which is what we know has been happening every time the minister has commented publicly, but everything to do with the frustration of the MPs who have tried in genuine good faith to negotiate with the government and the minister on this issue and of the stakeholders and experts who have bent over backwards and pleaded and begged to be heard.

It goes to the heart of everything that was at the centre of the inquiry that took place over Christmas, the submissions that were made, the open letter to every member of this place by the three commissioners who are responsible for vulnerable kids in our state. All three of them penned an open letter saying, 'Please do not proceed with this bill.' The Youth Court said, 'Please do not proceed with this bill in its current state.' Over 50 submissions to the inquiry said, 'Please do not proceed with this bill in this state.' It has taken this censure motion today for the government to finally extend an olive branch and say, 'Let's sit down and talk about this bill.' That is indicative of the attitude that we have had from the minister in response to this debate.

I do not have to repeat everything I have said publicly, because it is all on the record. I have not been harsh without good reason, because it has been like pulling teeth to get some common sense to prevail. So if there is any question, any doubt, as to whether I am behind the Hon. Ms Game in terms of moving this motion, then that should be removed from people's minds now, because unless and until—and the government has been on notice—the government and the minister show a genuine effort and intent to get this bill right then the only thing left to us is this censure motion. That is a sad state of affairs not for us as politicians and not for us as a parliament but for every vulnerable kid who we are letting down in the system and who we have consistently let down in the system and for every expert who has provided evidence who has said we have consistently let down or we will let down those kids further if we do not get this right.

We know that this legislation has been an opportunity for generational reform, and what we have heard is a minister who has said over and over again that the rest of us are politicking and that she will not resile from her position. I have responded to that by saying, 'Well, I will dig my heels in just as deep as you.' But it is not because I am taking this personally. Everything we have tried to date has failed, so it is little wonder then that we find ourselves in a position where we are considering and where we are voting on a censure motion. I remind members again, regardless of the outcome, it is a pretty good indication of where members sit on this issue, and it is a pretty good indication of where stakeholders sit on this issue. I remind honourable members again that it is not the only one: there are two more censure motions sitting on the table.

They are there for a reason. We should never have got to this point. We should never have got to the point where we actually say, 'Minister, resign, because you have failed to negotiate.' We should not have got to a point where we say, 'Minister, you have failed in your duties and obligations to every vulnerable kid in the state, who is looking to us to provide them with the level of protection that they deserve.'

It is a generational reform. We are not going to get the opportunity to think about whether we can change this again in a year. We have spent so many years reviewing this legislation and if anyone suggests that between last year and now the aim of those MPs who have supported this legislation is to politic, to play personal politics, or to hold up a bill, then they are very sorely mistaken. The reason we are here now in April is because up until now, up until the last 24 hours, there has been no opportunity to negotiate on those key fundamental reforms that everybody who has had input into this process has said are absolutely critical to this piece of legislation if it is to go forward.

The Hon. Laura Henderson, in the last sitting week, talked about whether or not this bill would be dumped if we did not move from our positions—yes, it would, setting kids back even further from that generational reform that we need in order to finally get a handle on child protection. Child protection is not an easy portfolio; we all know that. You do not take it on lightly; we all know that. Just like health, it is vexed and it is difficult, but what you do not do if you are the minister is dig your heels in and say, 'It's my way or the highway.' That is what you do not do, and that is why we are here today.

It is my genuine hope that the discussions that are now underway will address those issues and will see some genuine attempt at addressing the fundamental flaws—as the Hon. Tammy Franks has said, you could drive a truck through the holes in this legislation. If we do not address those, it is kids who pay the price, nobody else. We do not pay the price, kids do. Vulnerable kids, the most vulnerable kids in our society, pay the price.

So of course I am going to stand here and speak on this motion today. Of course I am going to join my colleagues and put up an identical motion to the one that is being discussed today, because that is the only tool we have left available to us to get the attention of government and the minister. That is a sad state of affairs in and of itself, and I find it objectionable that anybody would suggest that we are playing politics with something as important as the future of our vulnerable kids. On that note, I seek leave to conclude my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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