Debate resumed from 12 March 2009.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [10.07 a.m.]: Early intervention in New South Wales has been found by the Wood inquiry to be markedly insufficient. I have been pushing for the need for greater action on early intervention for several years. It was one of the major points raised in my submission to the special commission of inquiry on behalf of the Coalition. My contacts with service providers revealed that up to 40 per cent of families assessed for Brighter Futures assistance had to go on a waiting list due to serious under-resourcing by this Government.

When the Murrumburrah Early Learning Centre closed in November 2007 it was revealed that 10 of the 49 children attending the centre were known to the Department of Community Services [DOCS] and were considered to be at risk in their home environment. Of these 10 children, six were participating in the Brighter Futures program run by the Department of Community Services and a further four were waiting placement in this program. Similarly, when I visited a preschool in Tamworth I found to my horror that up to 15 families from one school were being forced to wait for up to two months for Brighter Futures help. The New South Wales Coalition’s submission to the Wood commission stated that early intervention for families is the most appropriate way to ensure that the incidence of full-blown child abuse is reduced. It is vital to equip parents to deal with stressful situations before they escalate. [Extension of time agreed to.]

The number of preventable deaths from either child abuse or neglect, or under suspicious circumstances, will be reduced significantly by early intervention. However, another category of child deaths could be significantly improved with better early intervention. The Ombudsman has observed that a child whose death is reviewable is almost eight times more likely to have died from accidental poisoning and more than five times more likely to have died as a result of accidental death from exposure to smoke, fire or flames. The rates of death due to accidental drowning and other sudden deaths are also significantly higher than in the general community. While these deaths may be classified as accidental, it is reasonable to assume that had the normal levels of parental supervision expected by the community been in place, most of these deaths would not have occurred.

This also is where the Brighter Futures program is very important. It can teach parents good parenting skills. Leaving rat poison under the sink where a two-year-old can get to it may not fit into the categories of abuse or neglect, but it is bad parenting and has led to many deaths, as the New South Wales Ombudsman has observed. In fact, it is eight times more likely than in the normal community. This Government waxed lyrical about spending $1.2 billion over the past five years on the Department of Community Services [DOCS]. Early intervention should have been a priority, but it was not. It was not until the last year of the so-called five-year reform program that the Department of Community Services budget for early intervention was increased. How many children died in those first four years because of the failure of successive community services Ministers to prioritise early intervention?

The Coalition has raised early intervention in the Department of Community Services estimates hearings and in the one supplementary hearing that was held when I was shadow Minister for this important portfolio. I also issued many media releases and asked at least four questions on notice about this matter in this place: question numbers 4222, 3097, 1060 and 0474. Three of the four answers I received from the Minister were almost useless, as so many of us have come to expect from the Government. Both Minister Greene and Minister Burney were more intent on hiding data rather than admitting the truth of their failures.

It was not until after Commissioner Wood completed his hearings that the current Minister for Community Services provided me, in December 2008, with a reasonable reply to one of my questions. Even then, and after the reform period was over, the Minister admitted that the community service centres in Brewarrina, Cessnock, Charlestown, Cobar, Moree, Muswellbrook, Narrabri, Nyngan, Raymond Terrace and Walgett had no early intervention caseworkers. The Minister said they are being recruited. When will the Minister be able to tell us that these positions have been filled? I fear that they remain vacant. Many of these communities have large indigenous populations, and are widely recognised as having much higher rates of child abuse and domestic violence.

The Minister for Community Services should be aware of the Australian Bureau of Statistics document, the Socio-Economic Index for Areas [SEIFA]. It shows that New South Wales has an average advantage-disadvantage index of 1,011. Willoughby City Council on Sydney's North Shore has a high index of 1,174, while places like Nyngan are as low as 917; Walgett, 896; and Brewarrina, 807. These areas also have domestic violence rates up to 10 times the State average. Why has the New South Wales Labor Government ignored these areas for years? I specifically refer to recommendation 10.4 of the Wood report, which states:

NGOs and state agencies should be funded to deliver services to the children, young persons and families who fall within the groups listed in recommendations 10.1 a and b and 10.2 a and c above. These services should cover the continuum of universal, secondary and tertiary services and should target transition points for children and young persons. Such services should include:

a. home visiting, preferably by nurses, high quality child care, preferably centre based, primary health care, school readiness programs, routine screening for domestic violence, preschool services, school counsellors, breakfast programs and early learning.

Commissioner Wood mentions preschool services specifically. The availability of preschools and other early childhood services is vitally important to the delivery of early intervention programs. Given that early intervention services are to be delivered to clients by the non-government sector, it is vitally important that preschool and other childcare groups are able to survive. This is not what is happening at the moment. In its Keep Them Safe response to the Wood report the Government does not address the recommendation that preschool services be funded. The Government's response to recommendation 10.5 commits to the funding of the Preschool Investment and Reform Plan and also to the additional $21 million that has been announced. But clearly this is not enough.

It should be noted that New South Wales has the worst record in Australia for supporting preschool education. The 2008 Report on Government Services produced by the Federal Government Productivity Commission shows that New South Wales has the lowest participation rate—64.6 per cent—of four-year-old children at preschools. New South Wales also has the lowest real preschool funding per child population at $726, and at $49.20 the highest average preschool cost per child after government subsidies. This situation has built up over the life of the current State Labor Government. Obviously, the support of early childhood education is a low priority for this Government.

In the 2007-08 State Budget for the Department of Community Services, preschools and childcare services did not receive any real increase in expenditure, while child protection and out-of-home care received increases of 12.8 per cent and 18.3 per cent respectively. The 2008-09 budget provided the stopgap Preschool Investment and Reform Plan that states that it will provide places for an extra 10,500 children. But the latest Productivity Commission report stated that during 2007 some 29,650 New South Wales children missed out on preschool in the year before starting school. Clearly, the Government has no plans for the 19,150 four-year-old children that are missing out on and will continue to miss out on preschool education in the year before primary school.

As the Government is aware, the Coalition has put forward a policy that will close this gap entirely by raising the participation rate of four-year olds attending preschool two days a week to 95 per cent, adding an additional 25,000 preschool places across the State. To do this the Coalition has committed to spending $50 million a year for four years. I arranged for my colleagues in another place to raise the matter of preschool attendance in the latest estimates hearings. The Minister replied during the hearings that attendance rates in New South Wales are 88 per cent and the funding allocated will bring this up to 95 per cent by 2015. However, when questioned why the Minister disagreed with the Federal Government's Productivity Commission data showing that only 64.6 per cent of New South Wales four-year-olds attended preschool, the Minister stated that the Productivity Commission figures were incorrect.

The Minister then was asked to table the department's statistics that supported her claim, but she was loath to do that, as a perusal of the estimates Hansard makes very clear. In fact, she referred to the estimates committee's request to table the statistical documents as a trick. Clearly, the Minister is not of the same mind as the Premier when he talks about openness in government. The Minister finally agreed to take this request on notice. The Minister's subsequent response in the questions on notice was to refuse to table the department's statistics but, rather, give what I can only categorise as a back-of-a-fag-packet calculation based on figures that included an estimated number of children attending community-based preschools. The Minister is twisting in the wind on this issue, casting around to try to deflect criticism. If her statistics were to stand up to criticism, why is she so afraid of tabling them for everybody to study?

Again I ask: If preschool funding has not been increased significantly and early intervention funding has been increased only by $21 million, what happened to the additional $1.2 billion that was allocated as part of the so-called five-year reform package? I did not come across one non-government service provider or industry body over the past couple of years during my time as shadow Minister for this important portfolio that believed the State Labor Government was providing enough funding to allow them to meet the demand for the services they faced. The Wood commission also found that recruiting and maintaining a skilled workforce to provide services in all parts of the State is an issue for the Department of Community Services. I have raised the issue of the department's staffing on many occasions in this place. This Government faces many other important issues in response to the Wood commission report.

The Wood commission put forward a good framework for addressing the many problems that have arisen in child protection in New South Wales as a result of the years of neglect by the current Government. The real crux of the matter is how this Government will respond. The Keep Them Safe response is nothing more than a plan as, despite passing years, no responses have been implemented. I could go on ad infinitum about this very important document, but time precludes me from doing so.

Ms SONIA HORNERY (Wallsend—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.16 a.m.]: It is no secret that the number of children and young people in out-of-home care is on the rise. That is why the Government's action plan "Keep Them Safe: A Shared Approach to Child Wellbeing" addresses the need to strengthen the early intervention and prevention programs available to families—to help families early and to keep them together. Sadly, not all parents will be able to adequately care for their children no matter how hard we try to help them. In these cases it is foster carers who bear the responsibility of supporting children and young people. So we continue to make support for foster carers, and the development of alternative care option is a major priority. This bill clarifies the different types of foster and voluntary care arrangements provided to children and young people in need in this State.

As the special commission of inquiry noted, the New South Wales out-of-home care services system is complex and involves a range of stakeholders, including children and young persons, their families and carers, and government and non-government agencies. This bill simplifies a complex system by clarifying the legislative framework for the provision of out-of-home care placement and support services in New South Wales. In particular, the bill makes clear that there are three types of out-of-home care arrangements regulated by the care Act. These are a court order scheme for out-of-home care; arrangements made by families, which are supported by the Department of Community Services known as supported out-of-home care; and voluntary care arrangements, which generally do not involve the courts or the Department of Community Services.

The new revised scheme for voluntary out-of-home care requiring registration of carers and the development of care plans will be particularly important for those children and young people in long-term respite care due to physical or intellectual disabilities. The new scheme, which essentially takes a light-handed regulatory approach, will ensure, via the Children's Guardian having an oversight role, that agencies and carers are appropriately addressing the needs of those children and young people in their care.

Let me take a brief moment to put a face on these foster carers, who are making an immeasurable difference to the lives of children and young people in out-of-home care placements. Over the last 30 years David and Carolyn Stedman have welcomed more than 60 foster children into their home, as well as having six children of their own and a growing number of grandchildren. Now in their 60s, David and Carolyn still spend sleepless nights giving doses of morphine to newborn babies addicted to heroin, rocking to sleep little ones whose bodies spasm as they crave to feed their unrequited addiction. In a recent book written by Simon Stuart called Bright Lights, Dark Nights Carolyn Stedman shares what drives her. Quite simply yet powerfully she says:

How do you love someone just a little bit? For me it is all or nothing.

I suggest that this House listens to Carolyn Stedman. How can this Government care for kids suffering abuse and trauma just a little bit? For us, it is most definitely all or nothing. Keep them Safe and the Children Legislation Amendment (Wood Inquiry Recommendations) Bill 2009 is an expression of this commitment, which will take a fuller shape as implementation occurs over the following years. Shared responsibility, interagency cooperation and building the capacity of non-government organisations are very important. Keep them Safe acknowledges what non-government organisations in the community services sector have been telling government: the culture of the sector needs to change and they need to play a bigger role in delivering services into communities.

Culture change is about fundamentally changing the way we deliver services—just better—rather than doing things the same way. It will include systems change, but it should never be limited to this. The real marker of culture change will be the extent to which non-government organisations and government partners together, in a spirit of trust and willingness, share knowledge and expertise to make our services stronger. We are very much aware that government agencies need to lead by example. Initiatives such as joint training for government and non-government workers are just one example of how we will work to develop a much more positive and collaborative culture.

The Government has also heard from Aboriginal non-government organisations that they want to be empowered to be stronger voices and service providers, rather than being seen as niche organisations. Non-Aboriginal organisations have also heard this. Together we will work to implement better frameworks for caring for Aboriginal children and young people. As part of this, we will work to give local Aboriginal communities a greater say in deciding how to care for their kids. We have clearly expressed a commitment to engaging non-government organisations through workforce development and capacity-building initiatives, both of which underpin the Government's belief that care and protection of children, young people and their families is a shared responsibility between government and the community.

It must also be acknowledged that the Children Legislation Amendment (Wood Inquiry Recommendations) Bill 2009 will contribute to broad interagency cooperation. It sets the groundwork for the non-government sector to play a greater role in delivering out-of-home care and is an integral part in the referral and provision of services in the child protection system. It is vitally important that the bill receives the full support of Parliament, for without it how can we keep our children safe? I commend the bill to the House and wish it a speedy passage.

Mrs DAWN FARDELL (Dubbo) [10.23 a.m.]: I support the Children Legislation Amendment (Wood Inquiry Recommendations) Bill 2009. One of the most harrowing and emotional things a member can come across in their day-to-day routine as a local member is dealing with young people in care or children who are at risk of harm and need to be in care. We may sleep well at night but when something has happened in the life of a child, it affects us all, and sleepless nights follow. Therefore, this bill has my full support.

I was pleased to have the opportunity to provide a written submission to the Wood inquiry and also to speak to Justice James Wood when he visited my electorate. The inquiry was well attended by people right across the spectrum. Witnesses included foster carers, people who have lost their child and people who were imprisoned because they were a danger but they have been rehabilitated and want their child back. The inquiry also heard from grandparents who in their golden years should have been playing bowls, bungy jumping or being grey nomads but instead they are looking after their grandchildren. There is a great need for report and inquiry and it is essential that it be done now. The Government has adopted all but five of the Wood recommendations. Indeed, whichever party comes to office in 2011, whether the Labor Government is re-elected or it is a Coalition government, it must ensure delivery of the five-year plan, and that changes are not made. I believe Minister Burney is the right person for the position. She is very intuitive, particularly with the indigenous community in my electorate.

It was disturbing to read that 300,000 reports were made to the Department of Community Services in 2008, four times the number made in 2000. That is a matter of grave concern. Indeed, many people cannot get through to the department because the telephone lines are busy. That there are more people in need than available caseworkers must be addressed. I must acknowledge the excellent work of foster carers and workers from Burnside, a non-government agency. Those people provide safe and secure out-of-home care. Reg Humphries, a marvellous fellow based in Dubbo, told me about the hands of safety. When children are assessed with respect to the type of care in which they should be placed, children are asked to trace their hand on a piece of paper and are told to write on each finger on the paper the names of five people with whom they would feel comfortable being placed by the department.

The Brighter Futures program must be extended. Early intervention is the key and I acknowledge that significant government funding is being directed towards preschool programs. Indeed, considerable funding is allocated on the birth of a child to encourage people on the right path towards raising their child. The vast majority of complaints come from family members and it is not common to have that contact in the electoral office. I welcome the fact that government departments are now coming on board. The Government, under former Premier Bob Carr, introduced a whole-of-government approach with Gordon Estate in Dubbo and families are case managed individually. This approach involves police, education, health, housing and community services and has made a significant difference in the area.

In many instances if schools have concerns they ring the Department of Community Services and the child is taken away. Grandparents may not see them for many months or even know where they are. I remember growing up in the days when if someone's mother did not feel well, Auntie Enid or Auntie Joyce would look after the children. They were not real aunties but perhaps were someone's next-door neighbour; they were just called "auntie" out of respect, in the same way that indigenous people refer to their elders as aunties. We need to revert to that approach. Many children who are referred to the Department of Community Services do not need to be referred. They can go to family members who are willing to raise them in a secure environment.

Two years ago I raised in Parliament the case of a constituent who had taken on the unofficial care of her two young grandchildren because her daughter, who suffers a drug and alcohol addiction, was a victim and perpetrator of domestic violence and on one occasion violently attacked her own mother. When the daughter was arrested, police took her children to their grandmother. But the woman knew she had the right to refuse acceptance of the children unless officials from the Department of Community Services [DOCS] were present. When acceptance occurred, all she received were two napkins—that was it.

I note that the Department of Community Services has made representations relating to this particular case. I understand that the children are receiving good care, but again the grandmother has had to step in. Many years ago I knew the daughter from my association with a sporting club. She was a lovely young girl, but she fell by the wayside due to substance abuse and she has wrecked her life completely. She needs rehabilitation, but had the signs been picked up when she had her first child and had more care been given, her life would have been better.

A lot of things are needed to help people, and I have not seen them provided. Perhaps the Department of Community Services is addressing that now with the compilation of a one-stop advice pack. In many cases carers, foster carers and grandparents know where to go, what they are entitled to and what is available for the child only when they talk to others who have learned the hard way. When the police or Department of Community Services officers knock on the door, we really need the grandparents to take the child; and when grandparents are asked to take care of a child, we really need to deliver something at the same time. If that happens in the middle of the night we need to be able to say to them, "Here is what is available for you, and we will be around tomorrow to go through those issues with you."

I am also very pleased to hear about the separate homes that will be made available to keep siblings together. I think that is a great initiative. I included in my submission the suggestion of providing facilities that are similar to those available for people with special needs, such as group homes—and there are three of those in Dubbo—and respite care. Carinya is one respite centre that comes to mind. It is very well attended and run, and caters for people with special needs for 24-hour periods. We need similar homes, and not just for siblings, to accommodate no more than four children. Children with higher care needs deserve more attention. We need small places where such children are able to go to receive care, and these places should be in the same area in which their birth parents are living so that they can continue to have familial access. In that way, the children could be placed in a safe haven, away from their normal environment, while at the same time mum or dad, or whoever their carer may be, could be put back on the road to recovery.

The children could benefit from a safe house where they could be raised and enjoy a cooked breakfast before going to school. We have witnessed the success of many breakfast programs in my electorate. One formerly run by the Police and Community Youth Club [PCYC] has been continued by other people in the community, and it is great. Children who have been identified as truants by the school are taken to the club, where they are given basic information and instruction on hygiene and how to make their breakfast. I was very pleased to be part of that program before I was elected to Parliament.

Another matter that should be examined is parental contributions. The cost of a child receiving out-of-home care is absolutely enormous. I have become aware of that through the many times I have left Sydney and returned to the Dubbo electorate by plane. Some people from my electorate have taken on the care of a special needs indigenous child who is no more than two years of age. The child is badly brain damaged as a result of substance abuse by her mother during pregnancy. Foster parents have taken her into their care, and they are lovely people. I often see them on the plane, either when they or another foster carer are taking the child to Sydney to visit the child's natural mother, or when they are returning to the Dubbo electorate. On some occasions, the foster carers from the Dubbo electorate are accessing respite so the child is taken to another foster carer in another place—either a grandparent or someone else who is known to the Department of Community Services. There is enormous cost associated with that.

The Government should examine the issue of who is receiving funding that is allocated for care. Are the parents still receiving the money, and not the carer? I know of some cases involving that horribly difficult period for young people from 12 to 16 years, or in some cases 12 to 14 years. Boys, in particular, in my electorate know their rights. They are leaving foster care when, for example, their dad comes back from jail and tells them that, as he is their father, they should be with him—although the father wants them only for the funds they bring in. How long does someone have to take care of a child in a household before Centrelink acknowledges that they, and not the natural parents, should rightly receive payment?

In the particular example I have in mind, a father left town and his child went to live with the father's former partner, who already had five boys aged 12 to 13 years. Although not an official carer, the woman knew that if the boys stayed with her for three months, she would be able to fill in a form and Centrelink would pay the funds to her for their care. In the meantime, the boy was not attending school, and the boy's foster mother was fined by the education department for the boy's non-attendance. Those issues still need to be cleared up.

I do not wish to take up the time of the House unduly. I thank very much Justice Wood and all the people throughout New South Wales who contributed to this worthy inquiry. The recommendations are very appropriate. We must oversee the implementation of the recommendations over the next five years, and I am sure that their complete implementation will take the whole of that period. However, I am convinced that once the recommendations are adopted, within two years we should see a remarkable difference.

Ms NOREEN HAY (Wollongong) [10.34 a.m.]: I am honoured to add my support to the Children Legislation Amendment (Wood Inquiry Recommendations) Bill 2009. I cannot imagine a more important task for government than providing for the care and protection of the children of the State. But protecting children, providing for their safety, welfare and wellbeing is not the responsibility of the Department of Community Services, or indeed of government, alone. The very clear message of the bill is that child protection is everybody's business.

The outcomes we seek as a community and the level of care we expect can be achieved only through the joint effort of the government and non-government agencies and the community working together to achieve a common goal. As the Minister outlined, the bill provides the legislative framework for the implementation of the recommendations of the report of Justice James Wood. Those recommendations signal a new era in child protection in New South Wales—a renewed commitment and a new approach to how we ensure that our most precious assets, our children and young people, are protected.

No-one in this Chamber would ever suggest that protecting children and supporting families in need is easy. We are all aware that some families face a multitude of difficulties of an ever-increasing magnitude that are outside the experience of most Australians. For families, the odds against being able to provide a stable, safe environment for their children sometimes must seem insurmountable. It is to those families that so many of the recommendations of the commission's report and the provisions of the bill before the House are directed. In supporting the bill, I draw the attention of the Chamber to a number of the bill's most critical and progressive amendments that will facilitate collaboration and cooperation between agencies that have a stake in the New South Wales child protection system.

As members may be aware, currently in New South Wales when an agency—for example, the Department of Education and Training—has concerns about the safety, welfare or wellbeing of a child, it reports those concerns to the Department of Community Services. The report is then processed with the many hundreds of thousands of other reports received by the department each year. It may well be that the child or young person or their family is in need of particular services: perhaps parents are struggling with finances or illness or perhaps they are very young and inexperienced, or have little by way of family support. Such a family may, in reality, need one or more services—perhaps a referral to a parenting program, access to childcare services, or counselling. Currently such a family may be swept up with many other cases reported to the Department of Community Services helpline, and oftentimes prioritised after families in more apparent and/or dire need.

The new proposed referral pathways will enable families to be immediately referred to the regional intake and referral services and/or to the appropriate support services by the government agency that is already involved with the child or the family. The potential benefits of the new pathways are significant: Children and young people receive the help they need to stay out of the child protection system and stay safe, and families have the best chance of becoming stronger and remaining together. Moreover, this will of course allow child protection services to get on with the task of addressing the most serious cases in which a child has been identified as being at significant risk of harm.

Other measures that will assist in facilitating a whole-of-government approach to child protection include the establishment of child wellbeing units in the relevant human service agencies. The units will build child protection expertise across government and ensure that vulnerable children and young people receive the best possible response to the issues they face, such as a statutory child protection response or a referral to appropriate services. Furthermore, the information-sharing provisions that were outlined in detail by the Minister in her agreement in principle speech will enable the relevant human services and justice agencies to work together to develop strategies to assist children, young people and their families, without the Department of Community Services acting as an intermediary. These enable a more comprehensive assessment of need and the possibility of an immediate response by agencies to concerns about a child or young person.

I look forward to the passing and implementation of this bill and the report's recommendations. I congratulate the Government on its foresight, courage and commitment to a renewed approach to child protection and the provision of support services to children, families and communities. I also congratulate Minister Burney on her clear dedication and commitment to these changes. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [10.40 a.m.]: In speaking to the Children Legislation Amendment (Wood Inquiry Recommendations) Bill 2009 I recognise that there is enormous community concern about the wellbeing of children in this State. I am pleased to see the Minister for Community Services, the Hon. Linda Burney, in the Chamber, and I pay tribute to her. I also pay tribute to our shadow Minister for Community Services, who led for the Opposition in the agreement in principle debate and delivered a very detailed speech.

The bill seeks to amend various Acts and other legislation in line with certain recommendations in the report of the Special Commission of Inquiry into Child Protection Services in New South Wales, known as the Wood report. It amends the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 to raise the risk of harm reporting threshold to "significant". This aims to reduce the number of reports to the Director General of the Department of Community Services [DOCS] unless the circumstances causing concern for the safety, welfare or wellbeing of the child are thought to be significant. The bill extends the circumstances for reporting to include a situation where a child is not receiving an education as required under the Education Act. It also extends the circumstances to include a series of reports in addition to a single report.

The bill authorises the exchange of information between certain agencies and the coordination of the services provided by those agencies. We all realise that there is an increasing demand on policing resulting from social dysfunction within families. Such dysfunction is also placing increased demands on other human service agencies, such as the Department of Community Services, the Department of Juvenile Justice, the Department of Health, the Department of Education and Training, and so on. An analysis of these issues often identifies a client base that is common to the majority of human service agencies. In other words, a dysfunctional family with issues such as domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse, and mental health issues impacts on all human service agencies.

Currently there are no consistent front-line strategies that encompass a coordinated approach to deal with these problems in a holistic manner. It is true that some pilot programs are occurring across the State under which human service agencies representatives meet on a monthly basis, and those programs have had some success. I pay tribute to the superintendent of the Richmond Local Area Command, Bruce Lyons, who has been a driving force in trying to pull human service agencies together within that local area command. For example, an agency may have a problem with a family through the week. On Friday night the agency staff go home and that night neighbours bring a problem to the attention of the police. Over the weekend they find that it has been an ongoing problem all week. However, if agencies had worked together the problem could have been nipped in the bud on day one. I pay tribute to the people involved in the program in Lismore. Superintendent Bruce Lyons has certainly been a driving force and believes the program should be implemented across the State.

The cost of each agency going its own way is placing increasing pressure on agency budgets. But the main problem being experienced—and hopefully the bill will address this—is that privacy restrictions still exist between key agencies and this continues to inhibit the flow of information and intelligence between agencies, which in turn restricts the opportunities for agencies to work together effectively. I hope the Minister will address my concern in this regard. We need to implement social justice teams at the district level that will comprise representatives from each of the human service agencies who can work together from the one office, day in and day out. These teams will be able to identify at-risk clients who are common to the agencies, and develop and implement both tactical and strategic plans.

The teams will provide a much greater cost-effective response to identify and address the issues of at-risk families, as well as a coordinated and functional response that will reduce the impact on and workload of government agencies. They will also provide better outcomes for families, and particularly for children at risk. I strongly believe that the resources required for these teams could be sourced from the resources available within the various agencies. As I said, our shadow Minister for Community Services and member for Goulburn, Pru Goward, delivered a very comprehensive speech in leading for the Opposition on the bill. I will refer to a few of her comments. The member said:

I will make some observations about the work of NGOs and Opposition concerns that the great partnership might never eventuate unless there is capacity building in the NGOs and within DOCS. I am certain that the culture of DOCS needs to change to fit in with this brave new world, and I am sure that it will not be easy. DOCS will spend ever-increasing time managing contracts, and that too demands capacity building. The NGOs in my electorate do amazing work.

The non-government organisations [NGOs] in my electorate also do a tremendous job. I do not think one of them has not corresponded with me to express their concerns in relation to the changes. They are the unsung heroes for everything from family relationships and domestic violence to low-interest loans and tax advice. Each and every member in this Chamber would realise the work that non-government organisations do within their electorates and the community generally. I am not sure how the Government will ensure that the smaller and extremely valuable non-government organisations scattered around New South Wales will remain viable when faced with the additional pressures to be placed on them. We must ensure that the non-government organisations are in a position to continue to do their work. Other speakers in this debate have addressed at length the various provisions in the bill. As Opposition members and the shadow Minister have indicated, it is with pleasure that we will not oppose the bill.

Mr PAUL PEARCE (Coogee) [10.48 a.m.]: I speak in support of the Children Legislation Amendment (Wood Inquiry Recommendations) Bill 2009, which was introduced by the Minister for Community Services, the Hon. Linda Burney. The Government's approach to the recommendations of the Wood inquiry is set out in the Keep Them Safe action plan. The objective of this five-year plan is to improve the safety and wellbeing of children and young people. The plan includes a response to each of the inquiry's 111 recommendations. The essence of the plan is to recognise that caring and supporting children is first and foremost the responsibility of parents, families and communities. The emphasis is on a collective responsibility. The action plan seeks to address the underlying factors leading to the abuse and neglect of children. These factors include poverty, isolation, domestic violence, mental illness and substance abuse.

The action plan contains key measures, including raising the threshold for reporting children at risk. The persons designated as mandatory reporters, including police, teachers, health workers and others, have at present a requirement to report when they have reasonable grounds to suspect that children are at risk of harm. As has been mentioned previously in this debate, this has resulted in the helpline being swamped. It is now recognised that whilst the standard of care received by a number of those children was not ideal, it did not require intervention by the State. The threshold will be adjusted to a serious risk of harm. This will allow a more targeted response of a statutory nature. The delivery of services model will be changed to ensure the establishment of child wellbeing units in area health services, the New South Wales Police Force, the Department of Education and Training, the Department of Housing, the Department of Juvenile Justice, and other government agencies. The objective is to help identify at-risk children, and respond locally and earlier. The model will also ensure that a number of less serious matters are dealt with by a partnership of community organisations.

There will be extended services and a focus on prevention and early intervention. A new partnership with the non-government sector will be created. Funding will be provided to establish regional intake and referral services. This will necessitate a reform of funding arrangements. It is recognised that there is a need to work with Aboriginal communities to address the over-representation of Aboriginal children in the child protection system. There is a need to work with Aboriginal organisations to build capacity in this area. It is recognised that implementing these reforms will of necessity need, and result in, a cultural change.

The bill before the House seeks to provide the legislative framework for this ambitious and necessary program to succeed. The bill seeks to raise the risk of harm threshold so that a child or young person will not be reported to the Director General of the Department of Community Services [DOCS] unless the circumstances that are causing concern for the safety, welfare or wellbeing of the child or young person are present to a significant extent. To provide for alternative mandatory reporting, arrangements under which matters relating to children being at risk of significant harm may be initially assessed within the reporter's agency instead of being reported directly to the Department of Community Services. There are also provisions modifying the framework for the provision of out-of-home care. Significantly, there are changes that seek to authorise certain agencies to exchange information concerning the safety, welfare and wellbeing of children and young people and to coordinate the services that those agencies provide.

I will deal briefly with the important elements of the bill. As the Minister said in her agreement in principle speech, the Wood inquiry found that New South Wales had the lowest threshold for reporting. Whilst this low threshold was instigated initially for the best of motives, the effect has been to overwhelm the system. As the Minister said, too many of the reports that are made do not warrant the exercise of the considerable statutory powers that exist. The objective of the changed threshold is to ensure that those powers are used where they are most needed—namely, where there is a child or children who need statutory intervention. The needs of other children who are not at risk of significant harm will be met through the changes in the child protection system, especially through expanded early intervention programs and the new referral structure through agencies such as Health, Police and Education. The objective is to refer those children directly to the services they need. This streamlined system will link families more quickly with the appropriate services.

In line with the findings of the inquiry, the penalty regime for mandatory reporters has been removed. However, all other penalties arising from disciplinary, professional or civil liability arising from breaches of statutory duty remain. These changes are reflected in items [6] to [8] in schedule 1.1 to the bill. Schedule 1.5 to the bill establishes a scheme for the sharing of information between certain agencies, primarily human services and justice or law enforcement agencies. The bill also puts an obligation on these agencies to take reasonable steps to coordinate decision-making and service delivery. The bill will authorise agencies to provide and receive information that will assist decision-making in relation to the provision of services or the management of risks to children or young people. There will be an obligation on those agencies that are requested to supply information to do so. It should be noted that information supplied under the scheme will be safeguarded to ensure rights to privacy. Further, persons so supplying the information will be protected in terms of liability.

As has already been mentioned in this debate, the role of the Ombudsman remains significantly unchanged. Item [12] in schedule 2.2 identifies changes in the access to justice provisions. As is noted, the change superficially would seem more complex. However, the effect is to raise the standing of the Children's Court within the court structure. This will have the impact of providing a greater pool of expertise in children's appeal matters within the District Court. The reforms have been welcomed by agencies working in the field of child protection, including bodies such as the Benevolent Society, the Australian Association of Social Workers, the Association for Children's Welfare Agencies, and the Aboriginal Child, Family and Community Care State Secretariat. As members will be aware, the Legislation Review Committee, in digest No. 2 of l0 March 2009, after a detailed analysis of the bill concluded that there were no matters arising from it that required the specific attention of Parliament. I compliment the Minister on bringing this bill before the House, and I commend the bill to the House.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [10.54 a.m.]: I shall make a brief contribution to debate on the Children Legislation Amendment (Wood Inquiry Recommendations) Bill 2009 in my capacity as the shadow Minister for Disability Services. At the outset I fully endorse and echo the remarks made by the shadow Minister for Community Services, who led for the Coalition in this debate. However, it is important to recognise that throughout the special commission of inquiry ongoing concern was expressed about children with a disability and the child protection system in New South Wales. In particular, many concerns related to the current state of play of the memorandum of understanding [MOU] between the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care [DADHC] and the Department of Community Services [DOCS]. I still believe that the MOU is not well understood among many caseworkers and support workers throughout the agencies and, as a result, children are falling through the cracks in many instances.

When I spoke to the NSW Ombudsman following his report on child deaths it was brought home to me that about 26 of the 166 cases that were known to the Department of Community Services involved children with a disability. My concern—this is echoed by disability rights advocates in this city and the cause is championed by people such as Marylou Carter—is that children with a disability are put in the too-hard basket by the department. I am concerned that siblings have been removed from vulnerable situations but the child with a disability has been left in harm's way. We must ensure that there is greater synergy across the two agencies in terms of ensuring that children do not fall through the cracks. I am also concerned that the number of placements available through the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care was cited as an issue in the Wood report. We all know that there is currently a crisis in that department in terms of accommodation services, but there seems to be a major issue in relation to the availability of placements should a child be placed at risk.

The response to date from the disability services Minister in this regard has been hopelessly inadequate. I have not seen a statement from the Minister in relation to the Wood inquiry. It is high time he made a statement, and made it very clear. He will need to ensure that greater resources are available for children with a disability who are exposed to the children protection system in New South Wales, and that means more placements being available. To that end, the Minister must indicate what additional resources will be made available. Another concern relates to the resourcing of the welfare units within the departments. I am concerned that the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care will not be resourced properly to deal with this issue. I hope that in due course the Government and the Minister see fit to ensure that resources are available to the department to ensure that it can administer a well-resourced and functioning welfare unit.

I hope that the review of the memorandum of understanding between the departments is finalised as quickly as possible. Part of that review must include an education campaign among caseworkers to ensure that they have a full appreciation of what that memorandum of understanding means, given that throughout the inquiry it was cited as a significant problem. In some instances the Department of Community Services has not been able to manage the issues around disabilities. No greater example of that was Jessie Neal, who was relocated by the Department of Community Services [DOCS] to Newcastle, well away from her family. That presented a whole raft of challenges and pain and suffering to the family who, through no fault of their own, had to deal with the difficulties associated with Jessie's disability.

Hopefully sensible resourcing of the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care [DADHC] and DOCS to deal with these issues will result, as a significant proportion of the children who died, and were known to DOCS, were children with a disability. I am disappointed that the Minister for Disability Services did not see fit to contribute to the debate. Greater coordination will be required between the departments, given the recognition in the inquiry of the fact that DOCS workers are not particularly skilled in dealing with issues pertaining to disabilities. In the same way it can be said that some DADHC workers are not skilled in child protection issues. It is an area that requires enormous tension and I hope to see a greater focus on that in the future.

Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [11.01 a.m.]: I wish to make a brief contribution to the Children Legislation Amendment (Wood Inquiry Recommendations) Bill 2009, a bill to amend the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 and other legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Special Commission of Inquiry into Child Protection Services in New South Wales. The object of the bill is to amend various Acts and other legislation. The bill:

(a) amends the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection Act 1998

(i) to raise the "risk of harm" reporting threshold so that a child or young person will not be reported to the Director-General of the Department of Community Services [DoCS] unless the circumstances that are causing concern for the safety, welfare or well-being of the child or young person are present to a significant extent,

(ii) to extend the circumstances when a child or young person is at risk of significant harm to include the situation when the child or young person is not receiving an education as required by the Education Act 1990,

(iii) to provide for alternative mandatory reporting arrangements under which matters relating to children being at risk of significant harm may initially be assessed within the reporter's agency instead of being reported directly to DoCS,

(iv) to modify the legislative framework for the provision of out-of-home care,

(v) to authorise certain agencies to exchange information concerning the safety, welfare and well-being of children and young person's and to coordinate the services those agencies provide, and

(vi) to make a number of changes in relation to care proceedings in or before the Children's Court and the making of care orders by the court.

(b) amends the Children's Court Act 1987 to provide for the appointment of a District Court Judge as the senior judicial officer of the Children's Court (to be known as the President of the Children's Court),

(c) amends the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998 to extend the child related employment provisions under that Act (including the requirement for background checking) to a wider class of people, and

(d) makes a number of other agreements in response to the recommendations of the Wood Report.

I support the points made by the shadow Minister in her speech. The Opposition does not oppose the bill but recognises the enormous community concern about the wellbeing of children in New South Wales. Since 2002, DOCS has supposedly undergone a period of significant reform during which it received a healthy funding boost that brought the organisation's annual budget to more than $1.2 billion for 2007-08. As part of this reform DOCS was supposed to review its approach to incoming child protection reports—initial risk assessment—to investigate how to make the process more comprehensive. Yet here we are in 2009 and the Government is talking about introducing an amendment that will make the reporting process less comprehensive.

The amendment proposed in schedule 1 raises the "risk of harm" reporting threshold so that a child or young person will not be reported to DOCS unless they are deemed to be "at risk of significant harm". The purpose of that reform is to reduce the number of calls to the helpline. I believe the reform will cause confusion as to the definition of "significant harm" as opposed to just "harm" and will therefore deter members of the community from making reports to DOCS when they should do so. Raising the threshold of mandatory reports of child abuse will clearly increase the likelihood that children and young people at risk of harm will go unreported and, sadly, the inevitable result will be more deaths such as those in 2007 that sparked the Wood inquiry. In 2002 DOCS boasted about the introduction of a new client and case management system, yet the Wood inquiry has revealed that the organisation has not yet installed a comprehensive electronic record-keeping framework. Recommendation 9.3 of the report of Justice Wood is:

Develop a strategy to move to electronic record-keeping and abolish the use of paper records.

The public should be rightly astonished to be told that, in 2009, an organisation charged with screening phone calls regarding children and young people at risk, tracking developments in the complex relationships between caseworkers, families and non-government organisations, and liaising with health, police, juvenile justice and other service providers, does not have a comprehensive electronic record-keeping system. The public would be further shocked to hear that e-reporting has not even yet been properly trialled to encompass NSW Health, area health services, Westmead Children's Hospital, the Department of Juvenile Justice or the New South Wales Police Force.

The Government gloated in 2002 about its review of the approach taken by DOCS to incoming child protection reports. Yet it has taken a recent inquiry for the Government to acknowledge that DOCS needs to develop guidelines for clarifying “risk of harm” reports made and information given to the helpline. It has taken this inquiry for the Government to admit that DOCS needs a systematic process of dealing with reports that keeps reporters and key agencies informed of their progress. The number of children suffering from abuse and neglect is growing in New South Wales and we urgently need to reverse this trend. The damage from abuse and neglect can last a lifetime. Of course, the cost of this damage is both human and economic, through an increase in the amount of services required, including housing, health, education and juvenile justice.

Investing in the safety and wellbeing of children is not only a moral imperative; it makes fiscal commonsense. The Wood inquiry was set up after two-year-old Dean Shillingsworth's body was found in a suitcase floating in a Sydney duck pond in October 2007. A month later, a seven-year-old girl, weighing just nine kilograms, was found dead in her home. The Wood report was handed to the State Government after new figures revealed that the number of women and children killed in domestic violence incidents in New South Wales was at its highest level in almost a decade.

While the Opposition is glad the Government is planning on implementing the majority of Justice Wood's sensible recommendations, I note that this Government has had seven years to make prudent reforms to the workings of DOCS. However, it has taken Justice Wood's report for the Government to even acknowledge that DOCS needs to incorporate structured reporting framework, comprehensive communications systems within the organisation and with other stakeholders, and to ensure caseworker managers are adequately qualified. I shudder to think how long it will take, and how many more children and young people in the present system will fail, before this Government has properly converted Justice Wood's recommendations into action.

Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [11.08 a.m.]: Last week in a private member's statement I referred to the employment of DOCS employees in Coffs Harbour. All members are aware of the recommendations contained in the Wood report. I have noted with great interest that on a number of occasions, including her second reading speech, the Minister for Community Services has said:

the Government has developed its action plan—Keep Them Safe: A shared approach to child wellbeing. That action plan radically changes the way the Government and community address child safety and wellbeing.

this bill will raise the reporting threshold to risk of significant harm. This will allow the department to focus on its core responsibility—that is, those children who require statutory intervention.

such as expanding early intervention programs and the new referral structure in organisations such as Health, Police and Education introduced by this bill.

I could go on quoting from the Minister's speech but the reality is that the Public Service Association [PSA] in Coffs Harbour has informed me that three positions in the DOCS office at Coffs Harbour are going to be axed. Those positions were basically permanent casual workers who had been filling in for long-term workers on stress leave. I am told by the PSA that those workers will not be returning to work. Two of the people who have been given notice are currently working as caseworkers on child protection matters and field operations.

Another is working on the intake and assessment of the information from Helpline. I have been told that because that person is leaving no new cases will be allocated, which will severely limit the ability of the Department of Community Services [DOCS] to assess reports. A further caseworker position, a long-term sick leave position, has not been filled. It is of great concern to me. Coffs Harbour has a very high level of reports of child abuse. These are our most vulnerable kids. I have to take the word of the Public Service Association, which has indicated to me its concerns. It took the issue to a regional level and was told that the four positions would not be filled. I ask the Minister to give an assurance that the positions will be filled urgently. That will bring some solace to the community and to those children in danger.

As the Minister has said on a number of occasions, we all have to take responsibility for the vulnerable children within our community. Given the low socioeconomic base on the north coast, for regional management to basically give those four Department of Community Services officers, who have been working there between two and three years as permanent casuals because of stress leave, their marching orders and not to replace them is a retrograde step. It does not fit with the intent of the legislation or the Minister's stated intention in this House on a number of occasions. I ask the Minister to address this issue in her reply or to take action and ensure that those positions are filled. If that happens, I would be very pleased, as would the many people in Coffs Harbour who are directly affected, not only workers but people who make referrals.

Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury—Minister for Community Services) [11.11 a.m.], in reply: I thank the members who contributed to this debate. Before going to the body of my speech in reply, I will address the issue raised by the member for Coffs Harbour. I am advised—and I will clarify the advice, if necessary—that at times the department employs staff on a temporary contract. That was the case for the four individuals the member has referred to. These temporary contracts may not be renewed. As I understand it, none of the four people is being fired. The first temporary contract will not be renewed because the position will be filled by a permanent employee. I am advised that the second contract involved the temporary backfill of a position while the permanent position holder was on leave. This permanent employee will return to work. That deals with the second position. In the case of the third position, it was also a temporary backfill and the permanent employee was on secondment. This employee will also return to work. That deals with three positions. As to the fourth position, I will seek advice and get back to the member.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Will there be any break in the service?

Ms LINDA BURNEY: There will not be a break in the service. I have advised the member about three of the four positions and will get back to him on the fourth position. I hope that allays his community's concerns. I am pleased to note that the Opposition has welcomed this bill as a comprehensive response to the Hon. James Wood's special commission of inquiry. The only negative thing the Opposition could find to say in response to the bill and the Government's overall response is that we should have undertaken the reforms sooner. I note that amendments will be moved in the upper House. I am disappointed that it could not be a bipartisan approach, particularly as it relates to the protection of children. I echo the words of the Opposition spokeswoman and remind all members that what we decide as a Parliament today can make a difference.

In his report the commissioner acknowledged the significant reform undertaken in community services since 2002 when child protection received a substantial injection of funds. Justice Wood found that enormous gains had been made, despite an increasingly complex client base and a spiralling number of reports. He found the contemporary challenge facing the child protection system in New South Wales is no different to that facing all child protection systems across Australia and overseas. The Government has studied the research undertaken by the special commission into directions being taken in other jurisdictions and has carefully considered all the evidence. Members should note that, despite the comments of the shadow Minister to the contrary, there is no universally acknowledged single way ahead.

Despite the overall support for the bill, I will respond to a number of specific comments. The first is the Opposition's lack of support for the hardworking front-line staff of the Department of Community Services. The shadow Minister claims that her heart bleeds for the good people who work for the department. Yet she goes out of her way to malign their competency and work practices. She patronises them by implying that only non-government workers are capable of empathising with children. She implies that Community Services caseworkers do not live and breathe children. I have met hundreds of caseworkers, and they are deeply dedicated to their work and to the children in their care. It is an insult to suggest the staff of Community Services turn away children and turn on the answering machine at 4.45 p.m. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is an outrageous slur on both the compassion and the professionalism of our caseworkers, who are often called upon to work for hours into the evening to find a foster carer for a child. The member for Lismore reinforced that point.

I turn to the changes relating to external review within child protection. Let no-one doubt that the Government supports vigorous external review. Scrutiny by external, independent bodies is an important part of the child protection system. The Ombudsman currently has responsibility for the review of seven different categories of child deaths. These are called "reviewable deaths" under the Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993. The categories of reviewable deaths are: one, children in care; two, children reported to Community Services in the previous three years; three, the siblings of children reported to Community Services in the previous three years; four, children whose deaths are or may be due to abuse or neglect or that occur in suspicious circumstances; five, children who are inmates of a detention centre, correctional centre or lockup; six, persons living in or temporarily absent from certain residential care; and, seven, persons who receive certain disability services.

The special commission recommended removing the categories of children reported to Community Services in the previous three years and the siblings of children reported in the previous three years. The special commission's view, which the Government supports, was that the automatic review of a child death by the Ombudsman simply because the child or the child's sibling was reported to Community Services within the previous three years does not improve our understanding of the relationship between child fatalities and the child protection system. For example, there is little to gain from an Ombudsman's review of the death of a child from leukaemia just because his or her sibling happened to have been notified to Community Services for a minor matter two years earlier.

The bill implements the special commission's recommendation 23.2 by removing the two categories of reviewable deaths relating to children reported to Community Services in the past three years from the definition of "reviewable death". This means that those deaths that fall solely within those categories will no longer be reviewed by the Ombudsman. If, however, the death also falls within one of the other remaining categories within the definition it would still be reviewed by the Ombudsman. I emphasise that the Ombudsman will continue to review the deaths of children that are or may be due to abuse or neglect or that occur in suspicious circumstances. This is a critically important point. Contrary to assertions made by the Leader of the Opposition in question time on 5 March 2009, the tragic death of Dean Shillingsworth would certainly have been a reviewable death under an amended Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993.

Reviewable deaths that are investigated by the Ombudsman will continue to include children in care and children whose death is or may be due to abuse or neglect or that occurs in suspicious circumstances. This amendment was supported by the Children's Guardian and the Coroner. As the Opposition would be aware, where a child is reported to the Department of Community Services, the report may or may not be substantiated. The role of the Ombudsman in reviewing child deaths is to identify systemic issues that, if addressed, might prevent future deaths. Automatically including the death of every child "known to DOCS" as reviewable, does not necessarily add to our understanding of these systemic issues.

The Opposition has made comments also about the Government's decision to retain the Child Death Review Team in the Commission for Children and Young People. This decision was made after very careful and serious deliberation. The Opposition's suggestion that the Government is somehow seeking to reduce or avoid scrutiny of child deaths is false and I find it obscene. The decision to leave the team in its current location was based on the view, reached after careful consideration, that the team would be better able to carry out its function by retaining the existing arrangements.

I also point out that the Child Death Review Team has a more general research role in relation to the deaths of children. The member for Wakehurst was wrong when he said that the Child Death Review Team just does statistical analysis. It also closely examines individual child deaths. The Child Death Review Team will continue to carry out its role in relation to the review of child deaths other than those that fall within the Ombudsman's reviewable deaths jurisdiction. This would include deaths that fall within the categories that will no longer be reviewable by the Ombudsman. The Government reviewed Justice Wood's recommendation and has come to the conclusion that the Child Death Review Team's broad research role is better suited to the Commission for Children and Young People, with the Ombudsman focusing on reviewable deaths. The Child Death Review Team has a broad role that is not focused specifically on abuse or neglect, or performance of public sector agencies.

As to the matter of the Ombudsman's annual report into child deaths, the Government is implementing the special commission's recommendation that the report now be delivered every two years. The special commission was of the belief that biennial rather than annual reporting would provide a better overview of trends in child death data and result in a more meaningful discourse about what these trends mean in relation to the operation of the child protection system. It would also enable more meaningful comment about progress by agencies in implementing changes recommended by the Ombudsman.

I come now to comments made by the shadow Minister in her speech about changing the threshold to "risk of significant harm". This is a fundamental change recommended by the special commission and it is central to this package of reforms. The Department of Community Services receives around 300,000 reports a year. We need more of these dealt with by other agencies so community services can focus on the most serious cases. The shadow Minister correctly understands that a large proportion of reports to the Helpline come from police. I wish that it were so simple as to say that changing police procedures will overcome the issues that the Department of Community Services is facing. The problem is bigger than that. For example, 25 per cent of all reports in 2006-07 were non-mandatory. A way to deal with these other large categories of reports also needs to be implemented. I believe that Justice Wood's proposals provide New South Wales with a model for ensuring that reports of children at risk of harm are managed by the agency best placed to assist them and their families.

The special commission made some very pertinent points about our current threshold for mandatory reporting. Justice Wood stated that around 30 per cent of reports currently made to the Department of Community Services did not warrant statutory intervention; that New South Wales has the lowest reporting threshold of anywhere in Australia; and that the level of cooperative response to the needs of children was low. In response to these legitimate concerns, the changed definition is about getting all relevant government agencies involved in working with children and families who need additional support. It is not about lessening accountability. It is about getting services to families who currently have little or no assistance. It is not about lessening the workload of the Department of Community Services.

Under these proposals the Department of Community Services will have the same level of statutory child protection work as it has now. A change in definition will not alter the reality of when the Department of Community Services has to intervene and take a matter before the Children's Court. What will change is the additional support available to those children and families who have been identified by child wellbeing units as needing help but who do not require statutory intervention. What will change is that the Department of Community Services will have better information coming to it from the child wellbeing units about those families needing statutory intervention.

I come now to comments made by the shadow Minister regarding the presentation to this House of a full range of template documents. I must admit that she and I have different understandings of the role of Parliament. She says that templates, procedures and information technology all need to be resolved prior to coming to Parliament to gain approval for supporting legislation. I say that Parliament is in control: Parliament is to lead and Parliament is to lay down the framework for what is to occur. Only then, when Parliament has done its job, do others have the opportunity to understand the parameters of what they are being asked to do and thus the capability of producing the material described by the shadow Minister.

By allowing for a later commencement of the legislation, Parliament is both taking the lead on directing what needs to be done while at the same time permitting time for the arrangements and common intake templates to be prepared. This will be particularly important for working out the innovative approaches to be adopted for resolving disputes about contact between children in care and their families. The special commission identified that a court is not the best place to work out local, flexible and responsive ways to deal with disputes over contact. The Government supports that conclusion. However, the Government further believes that an alternative dispute resolution process should be devised to assist here. The exact nature of this process needs further work, and an expert advisory group appointed by the Attorney General is a starting point for that work.

The shadow Minister was concerned that the legislation permits the Department of Community Services to shirk its duty in dealing with requests for assistance. The Opposition proposes a limit on the department's power to manage its own workload. It is as important for the Department of Community Services as it is for any agency to have the capacity to set its own priorities—within the limits permitted by the legislation—for the use of the resources at its disposal. The provision in the bill simply clarifies the existing section 22 so as to take into account the recommendation of the special commission to amend section 21 to permit a non-government organisation to apply for assistance on behalf of a child or young person. The reference to the Department of Community Services being able to manage its workload has existed, without objection, as a note to section 22 since 2000.

The member for Goulburn and the member for Barwon are concerned that this bill makes no provision for foster carers. In saying this, they have ignored the significant changes to out-of-home care. The special commission considered the needs of foster carers. No-one can doubt the important work that they do, but this does not mean that it was necessary to recommend specifically targeted legislative changes just to demonstrate their importance. The member for Goulburn referred to the need to look at care allowances. I would be pleased to do so. The shadow Minister must have forgotten that New South Wales carer allowances are the highest in the country. They are based on research published by the Social Policy Research Centre and they are indexed in line with inflation.

The member for Barwon was concerned about the lack of powers held by carers when children were removed from their care. These powers already exist in section 245, which renders a decision to remove a child from a carer as a decision reviewable by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. That review also carries with it the obligation to explain to the carer the reason for the removal and provides a mechanism for internal review of that decision. I am unclear about the position being adopted by the Opposition. One the one hand, the member for Barwon is saying that the Department of Community Services restores children to their families too frequently. On the other hand, the member for Wakehurst is saying that there are too many children in out-of-home care, that an insufficient number have been restored to their families and that this is a failure on the part of the department.

The member for Wakehurst complained that the bill does nothing to ensure service delivery to Aboriginal children who receive a care allowance. Clearly, the member must have overlooked the provisions in proposed sections 153 and 155, which call for care plans and reviewing of these very situations where the department provides support for family arrangements. The member for Goulburn and the member for Wakehurst suggested that there is not enough in the Government's response for Aboriginal children. I am offended at this suggestion because of my deep commitment to redressing the overrepresentation of Aboriginal children in the child protection system. While providing significant initiatives, the Government's response recognises that legislation is not needed to introduce them. Rather, the Government will work with Aboriginal organisations to build their capacity to provide services earlier to Aboriginal children and families, and to play a bigger role in the provision of out-of-home care.

The special commission emphasised the many reasons for the overrepresentation of Aboriginal children in the system and the need to tackle systemic disadvantage to improve outcomes for Aboriginal children. The Government's action plan Keep Them Safe outlines a comprehensive set of special measures to work towards reversing the current intolerable trends and a commitment to consider how all actions in the plan will contribute to improving outcomes for Aboriginal children. Further confusion amongst the Opposition can be seen in the member for Wakehurst calling for the dismantling of the Helpline because it removes local response, but the shadow Minister saying there is a need for even greater centralisation to collect data and establish trends. Both views cannot be right. The member for Barwon says that the Helpline has reduced contact between Department of Community Services staff and local services. The Helpline was introduced as a result of a police royal commission to get greater consistency in the way that reports are considered, and it has achieved that.

It is now time to move to the next stage to get greater action to support families who do not need the full weight of a statutory child protection process response. Mandatory reporters will be encouraged to refer families where children do not meet the new threshold for support and services that can assist them. As well, the department and other services will be working to provide better responses to frequently encountered families—that is, families that every agency knows well but whose problems none on their own can resolve. The member for Barwon would have all agencies and families going to the department directly for help. It did not work in the past, and it will not work now. The new system creates multiple pathways for families and children to have their needs met.

The shadow Minister was concerned that there was not more in the bill for non-government organisations. That is because the special commission's recommendations about an enhanced role for non-government organisations does not require legislative change to be implemented. The Government values the contribution of non-government organisations in providing services and supports an expansion of their role. The Government has committed more than $100 million in the stage one funding package to the non-government sector. It is claimed that the previous $1.2 billion budget enhancement provides little additional support to the non-government sector. That is totally wrong. More than $200 million of that funding was spent in the non-government sector in providing early intervention and out-of-home care services. As a result, expenditure on non-government services increased by 27 per cent between 2002-03 and 2008-09. Justice Wood acknowledged the significant progress achieved with the 2002-03 package.

The member for Barwon said that we should not hire more staff at Bourke and that we should instead use local non-government organisations. I make no apologies for the level of resources that are being provided to Bourke and other places where the community has asked that the Department of Community Services have a stronger presence. However, more is needed than can be provided by the department. Non-government organisations are now playing a greater role in providing services to more remote parts of New South Wales where they have not traditionally had a presence. In the past few years, contracts for early intervention services have been signed with a range of organisations and we are now doing the same with agencies providing out-of-home care. Together with local services such as safe houses and Aboriginal services, they are building a system that protects children and supports families so that the department can concentrate on meeting the needs of children who are at significant risk. In fact, I was at the Wilcannia safe house just last week. I have sought to respond comprehensively to the issues raised by an Opposition, which has acknowledged the general merit of this bill. I have done so in detail and set out sound reasons for the amendments. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.