HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-10-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Social Workers

The Hon. C. BONAROS (12:22): I move:

That this council acknowledges the critical role social workers play in supporting and protecting vulnerable South Australians.

In 2015, the then Coroner, Mark Johns, published his report and recommendations in respect of the heartbreaking death of four-year-old Chloe Lee Valentine. The story of Chloe's consistent neglect from birth and ultimate death is one that will live in the consciousness and nightmares of many South Australians. She and her family were undoubtedly let down by the state in myriad ways and continue to be let down in myriad ways.

The Coroner's report was extensive and harrowing, and his 22 recommendations were thoughtful. The government of the day fully accepted 19 of those recommendations and gave in-principle support to another. One recommendation that was aimed at the parliament was for the establishment of a scheme for the registration of social workers. Almost everyone I have spoken to before and since have been shocked to learn that such a scheme for the registration and regulation of social workers was not already in place—in fact, not in place anywhere in this country.

But the people in this place took action and, in September 2018, thanks to the Hon. Tammy Franks, the Social Workers Registration Bill 2018 was introduced into the Legislative Council. The bill made provisions for the registration of social workers and for the establishment of a Social Workers Registration Board which would perform a regulatory role. Although other states were now looking to establish their own regulatory schemes, South Australia was proudly leading the way.

In November of that year, the bill was referred to a joint committee for further examination. That committee, which I sat on, made 20 recommendations for considerations and amendments to the bill. The amended bill passed into law in December 2021 and a date for the scheme to commence was set for July this year, a reasonable and, some might say, generous amount of time to get this up and running.

The office of the Social Workers Registration Board was established in mid-2023, including the appointment of its director, Professor Sarah Wendt, in September to prepare the scheme for its go-live date. As I understand it, a staff of approximately 12 to 14 people had been engaged and were busily preparing communications and the policies and procedures that would govern the work of the body. A seven-person board was publicly announced in March 2024 and since then four people have been appointed to their Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People's Committee to assist and collaborate with the board in the performance of its functions. In March of this year, Professor Wendt told the Budget and Finance Committee that the commencement date of 1 July was achievable and on track.

This is where the story starts to get intriguing. In June this year, I was paid a visit by the Minister for Child Protection, the Hon. Katrine Hildyard. The minister told me the office was not quite ready and there was a need to postpone the commencement date. I am not an unreasonable person. If you need more time to ensure everything operates at an optimal level, I can understand and support that. So how much time did the minister need? It turns out she needed an indefinite amount of time to implement a piece of legislation that was passed four years ago.

In mid-June, an amendment bill was introduced in this place to postpone the commencement of this scheme indefinitely. I spoke about my frustration at the time and declared that I would be supporting a further amendment by the original mover of this bill, the Hon. Tammy Franks, that would in fact require the scheme to go live on 1 December this year. We were not successful in those efforts to amend the bill.

The government's efforts to indefinitely mothball the scheme were successful, interestingly enough with the full support of the opposition, and let me remind you that the Liberal Party had as part of its 2018 election policy platform the establishment of a scheme such as this. The Liberal minister at the time broke protocol in this place and actually served as a member of that committee because she wanted to ensure that we landed on a model that could be supported across the political divide. But the Liberal Party have obviously moved on from this to other priorities, which they might one day tell us about.

So here we are, almost 14 years after Chloe's death, 10 years after the Coroner made recommendations for such a scheme to be implemented, seven years after the bill was introduced into the parliament and four years after it was passed into law and millions of dollars of public money has been spent on the establishment of an office, the engagement of staff and the appointment of the board and committee for the largest professional group of workers in this state who remain unregistered and unregulated.

You could just dismiss this as wheels of government turning slowly, and earlier today was certainly a reflection of that, but we know that the wheels of government can turn very quickly when it is a priority for government. We know that the wheels turned very quickly when we gutted ICAC within 24 hours and when Gather Round in South Australia took no time at all to get up and running. What an insult to the memory and family of Chloe Valentine and other children and families who have been thoroughly let down by the state.

How is it possible that I could be given assurances in March that everything was on track and by June be told that an indefinite amount of time, additional time, was required? Either Professor Wendt—and I am not suggesting this—gave false assurances of the office's preparedness, which again I am in no way suggesting, or the government is up to something in its usual backroom deal kind of way. I do not know what it is, but I just wish, I really wish we could be honest for once. What is actually going on here? Do we have something else planned? Does the government have something else planned or have they simply lost interest?

Of course, the most important and pressing issue at play here is that children, who are at the heart of everything that this board stands for, remain vulnerable, and the government seems content to roll the dice on that whilst the opposition remains silent.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Let's all hope and pray that no child is let down by the state in a way that could have been avoided. If there are any children who are let down, then I sincerely hope you all enjoy the insomnia that will no doubt haunt you. I only need to mention one name in terms of the harrowing and unimaginable outcomes, and that is Chloe Valentine. We all know Chloe's story in this place. We just had a child protection debate that spanned over six months where we spoke about Chloe Valentine and the things that we needed to do to ensure that no other child ends up having the same fate as Chloe Valentine.

This recommendation came directly from the Coroner's inquest into Chloe's death. From a public administration perspective, it does feel like complete incompetence, if not maladministration. In the 2022-23 state budget papers $4.7 million was allocated to establish the board and its office over four years. It was always intended that from its go-live date the board would be self-funded from registration fees. I can only assume now that that has not happened, that the government is continuing to fund this non-operational board, and it intends to do so for the period of what can only be described as indefinite delay.

What might the cost be to the public purse? The seven-person board is entitled to remuneration, allowances, expenses and the office remains tenanted in a city building. The website is hosted and live. A skeleton staff, including Professor Wendt, remain employed, and I assume they continue to have access to necessary licensed systems. Surely just that cannot be less than about $60,000 a month. So $4.7 million to get to 1 July, an estimated $60,000 a month for a non-operational scheme, a scheme which we have no idea or assurances as to whether it will ever go live.

Let me be very clear, again, none of what I am saying is pointing the finger at, or a reflection on, the Social Workers Registration Board, Professor Wendt or her staff. I have nothing before me to suggest that they have been anything but diligent, and perhaps patient, and perhaps are, I am sure, as confused as the rest of us as to when it is that they will finally become operational in full.

The frustrating thing is that, even if the government had an epiphany on this today and decided to get the scheme operational before the end of the year, that would now be near impossible given the office had to let go almost three-quarters of its staff when the rug was pulled from under them. The time and money that will need to be invested to re-recruit staff, get them up to speed in a very important and complex policy area, as was provided in evidence by Professor Wendt before the Budget and Finance Committee, will be significant. I think they are scratching their heads as much as I and others in this place are as to why and how this has come to be.

This government has form in establishing public authorities that never become fully operational. Right now, I am asking the government for some transparency and honesty about their intentions with regard to the Social Workers Registration Board. Do you intend to become operational and, if you do, when? It is a simple question: when? If you do not, for how long are you prepared to waste public money in funding this charade? For how long are you prepared to keep social workers waiting for a scheme that they thought by now would be up and running? For how long are you willing to ignore the will of this parliament, the findings of the inquiry into the Social Workers Registration Board and the Coroner's recommendations into the death of Chloe Valentine?

If another child—and we know it is never a question of 'if' but 'when'—dies in this state because we do not have systems in place to ensure that they are looked after, that is entirely on the government and nobody else. The least this government can do on this issue is be truthful for once. Be truthful to social workers, be truthful to vulnerable families and be truthful to the public about what it is you actually intend to do.

If I am wrong in any of the information that has been given to me—including the fact that we now have a skeleton staff at the board, including the fact that they had to let go a number of people because they were not doing anything—if this has not been put on ice by the government then come in here and tell us. Tell us when it is that we can expect that the board can go out and rehire staff and get on with the job that they thought they were signing up for when that office was established.

Explain to me, if that is the case, why when you go to the website of the board and you click on 'About us', you get a nice message about what they do—fantastic—and you can see all the work that has gone into this area by the board. The contact information is there; everything is there. On the face of it, it looks like it is a scheme that is operating. Then you click on 'Registration', and do you know what you get? You get a blank screen. That is all that is there.

This government owes it to this parliament, but more importantly it owes it to the public and to Chloe Valentine's family, to be truthful and honest and tell us what their agenda is when it comes to the establishment of the Social Workers Registration Board in this state.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

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