PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Contact us | Advanced search |   search
  1. Home
  2. Hansard
  3. Legislative Council by date
  4. 23 June 2000

Standing Committee On Social Issues

Printing Tips | Print selected text | Full Day Hansard Transcript | « Prior Item | Item 5 of 46 | Next Item »


About this Item
SpeakersChesterfield-Evans The Hon Dr Arthur; Tebbutt The Hon Carmel; Sham-Ho The Hon Helen; Forsythe The Hon Patricia
BusinessCommittee


    STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ISSUES
Page: 7602

    Reference: Department of Community Services Child and Family Services

    The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.08 a.m.]: I move:
        1. That the Standing Committee on Social Issues inquire into and report on the child and family services of the Department of Community Services, with particular reference to:
            (a) the adequacy of systems for dealing with notifications and reports of child abuse and neglect and requests for service,

            (b) the availability of appropriate out-of-home care placements for children and families at risk,

            (c) the effectiveness of departmental restructures carried out between 1988 and 2000 in attempting to improve client service delivery,
            (d) the adequacy of resources and allocations by Treasury to provide child and family services,

            (e) the staffing of the department's child and family services, including:
              (i) the impact on staff morale of recent departmental restructures,

              (ii) the level of, and reasons for, staff turnover in client service positions,

            (f) the implementation of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, and related legislation, including the level of consultation undertaken in developing and implementing the Act, and

            (g) the role of research and consultation in developing legislation relating to child and family intervention.

        2. That the Committee report in relation to paragraph 6 by the first sitting day in November 2000 and in relation to all other matters by the Thursday of the first sitting week of the Legislative Council in 2001.

    Essentially, what needs to be investigated is the fact that the Department of Community Services [DOCS] has, for many years, had serious structural problems and great difficulties in discharging its duties, particularly in the area of child protection. It is argued that this originates from severe cuts in the department that occurred about 12 years ago. However, despite numerous reorganisations, DOCS has been unable to address this issue. The problem is that cases are reported to the department but no action follows. It is clear that cases are recorded in the system.

    The cases are not necessarily allocated on the basis of one phone call. There is a category of cases which is termed "unallocated". If there are no further notifications in four weeks, the file is put to one side and no further action is taken. A number of child deaths have been related to that inaction and, despite alarm bells ringing, each one has been associated with a degree of indignation in the press. Social workers and doctors have statutory obligations to report cases of child abuse or neglect to the department. At the time there was argument about privacy considerations, but they were waived because of the importance of these issues. However, when cases are reported it appears the Department of Community Services [DOCS] is not able to respond.

    The department has undergone four reorganisations and restructures. I would like to think that they have solved the problem, but the problems continue. Calls made to the department are often not responded to. I am reminded of an analogy posed by the Community Services Commissioner, Robert Fitzgerald, who told Radio National listeners that if one calls the fire brigade, one would hope that the brigade would respond, not wait for a second call. But DOCS operates differently and often waits for a second call. It is routine for DOCS to receive a notification of child abuse and neglect and do nothing about it. If it does not receive another notification within four weeks, the file is closed. No investigation, no sighting of the child, nothing except a blip on a computer screen. That is unacceptable.

    The department should not condone such behaviour. It is a statewide practice; it is a systemwide problem. It is not merely a matter of blaming departmental workers at the lowest level who are overworked and extremely stressed. They are put in horrendous situations of taking children from dysfunctional families. On some occasions family members have committed suicide. DOCS workers have to tell the children that their parent committed suicide, and there is little support or counselling for the workers after they have done that. When DOCS workers visit families, often escorted by police, to take children from their parents they face threats of violence.

    Robert Fitzgerald has asked the department to provide numbers in respect of child abuse and neglect notifications that are not being investigated. The same questions have been asked by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 during its inquiry into the budget estimates this year and last year—answers have not yet been received. The figures must exist. The department must know the level of need and how many children remain at risk, but we cannot obtain the figures. This is an extremely unsatisfactory situation. The figures may take some trouble to compile, but that is not the point. We have to know how well the department is functioning.

    The Hon. J. F. Ryan: Particularly in relation to an issue like this.

    The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: As my colleagues said, particularly in relation to an issue as important as this. There is widespread community outrage. Who could forget the disturbing reports in the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph of baby Sheyanne, who was stabbed in the chest and possibly sexually abused. Police were reported as having notified DOCS on several occasions. On 5 February, the Illawarra Mercury reported that DOCS took a year to check a case of incest. An article in that newspaper stated that a woman who rang the Department of Community Services to report that her son had been sexually abused was told to wait for a phone call. She was told she would receive a call to arrange for a medical examination and interviews. For two weeks she stayed at home, in case the department called back. The boy's mother and grandmother said that the youngster was finally interviewed by police and DOCS staff, a year after the assault was reported.

    These systemwide problems require systemwide reform; there is no point in blaming the people at the bottom of the ladder, they need our support. Minister Lo Po' has talked about reform, and has introduced legislation in the lower House that even the department has not seen. Under the guise of permanency planning the State is going back to a time when children from socially marginalised families were subject to adoption. We are now imposing new legislation on a fragile structure, propped up by front-line staff who urgently require regular supervision. The non-government sector requires a building-up to prepare it for the imposition of the new Act.

    The Minister has encircled herself with a void of information. The lack of independent information going to the Minister is of great concern and the ministerial task force no longer exists. Children at risk are continuing to suffer. The EnAct Committee, which was jointly chaired by the director-general of the department and Judy Cashmore, a member of the Social Policy Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, have not seen the draft exposure bill. There has been no consultation with the sector, the Minister is just laying legislation on the table. On 23 February, Judy Cashmore used the editorial opinion section of the Sydney Morning Herald to air her concerns, which, perhaps was the only option left to her. She wrote:
        The laudable aim is to give these children a secure and loving home and to prevent the psychological damage that results from abuse and neglect and from being bounced between home and foster placements.

        However well-intentioned it may be, this policy needs to be assessed in light of history, overseas experience and implementation of the new Act, later this year.

        History provides a number of examples where apparently well-intentioned policies of removing children from their families have had disastrous consequences for children. This is especially true for indigenous children.
    The Standing Committee on Social Issues has revealed a shocking history of past practices in adoption and I would hate to see the department follow that paradigm. I have received a sheath of stories about problems in the department, but I will not burden the House by reading them. I am sure that many honourable members would have read them in the newspapers a long period. Unfortunately, DOCS continues to be mind-numbingly disappointing. In eight years there have been for ministers, four directors-general, four restructures and yet it has not got to the core of the problem. When it says that its history does not matter because a new restructuring is coming and it will be okay—

    The Hon. J. F. Ryan: It is being transformed, not restructured.

    The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: Or, as my colleague said, there will be a transformation, not a restructure or reform. But we are really playing with words here. In the amended motion I have asked the House to look at the current situation. Members have said that that is a negative approach, we should look at where the department is going and what the reforms will achieve. We should have a base line, we should deal with facts. In this Chamber there is too much rhetoric, too much high-flying talk. Policy needs to be based on solid facts and solid research. In my amended motion I have insisted on the concept of a cohort study. I have been told that no-one knows what a cohort study is, so I will define it.

    In the Roman legions, a cohort was a group of soldiers. A cohort study would mean that a group of people would be studied for as long a time as possible. We will start with children at risk and treat them according to certain policies, study them and document their progress over 20 years. At the end of that time it will be seen how successful the policies were. A database will be required to log their history, they will have to agree to their privacy being invaded, but basically solid facts are required. This is what has been lacking in policy—in other words, the keeping of records and the drawing of conclusions from good data. We do not want a mere crisis review.

    At the moment the department is a crisis management department. It is working like the intensive care unit of a hospital. The prevention side has fallen off. The non-acute aspects are not being addressed. Not until there is an absolute emergency does the department seek to intervene or have the resources to intervene. As anyone who has a worked in the medical field would be aware, that is an extremely cost-ineffective way of doing things. It is very expensive, it is very time-consuming, and basically it is not very successful because one cannot turn back the clock. That is why I have asked that cohort studies and good research be included as an important element, and that the outcomes be measured.

    The Minister must examine the new legislation and address the lack of consultation on it. The motion I have moved defines the current situation with regard to notifications, policy and procedures, and the results of notifications. Those matters were raised during the budget estimates hearing conducted by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 and were referred to by the Community Services Commissioner. However, to date no response has been received. We seek that response by the first sitting day in November. We also ask the Minister to urgently examine the legislation with regard to the consultation process that has taken place.

    The other matters referred to in the motion are more wide ranging. The motion seeks a broader inquiry into the department's functions and its future directions. We want to see how bad this problem is. We do not want the response, "Yes, we know there are problems, but this reorganisation will fix those problems." That is the usual admission that something is wrong but there is no need to examine what is happening or to invite public discussion. The response, "We know it is bad, and we are going to fix it" is the same old talk—the idea that it will all be fixed by the department and the Minister without people actually understanding what is going on, analysing it and talking about it. I am committed to open government, and this is part of that philosophy. This is an action motion related to that philosophy.

    Open government will, in the end, produce a better result than something worked out in a ministerial office. That is a fundamental lesson which I do not think this Government understands. That is why I have moved the motion. I have put this to the Standing Committee on Social Issues, which has, in a sense, asked the Government—which has the numbers on that committee—to look at the matter. I have worked with the Hon. Jan Burnswoods on the committee, and I trust that her integrity will come through to get to the bottom of this matter. I am not into political point scoring, but I am into solving this problem. I am fighting for the kids of New South Wales. That is what I am here for. That is why I have sought to refer the matter to the social issues committee and not to a committee dominated by the crossbench and the Opposition. I believe that that is fair under the circumstances.

    The department has operated under a system of crisis management, at the expense of good casework and good outcomes for our most marginalised families and children. These are systemwide problems; it is a fractured and fragmented system. There is a lack of knowledge and experience in the top levels of DOCS; the top management is not talking to field workers or to clients. There is a need for reform, and the only answer the department can come up with is further restructuring. A good community service sector is based on good relationships and the building of social capital, but DOCS is a throughput system. I believe it has a lack of critical thinking for performance changes and measures, and a lack of strategic direction.

    Another problem that must be addressed is that DOCS is now being funded by the Ageing and Disability Department [ADD]. This means that in the end we will have a provider-funder split, as there is in the health system. ADD will be able to give money to the private sector, non-government organisations and DOCS. There is a danger that DOCS might not be given the job. I believe that the tendering out process with regard to DOCS group homes and the private sector has been designed to save money. I do not think anyone would disagree. Obviously, if that continues on a wider front DOCS will become a rump. Once DOCS workers have that hanging over their heads, naturally they will be concerned about their career paths in DOCS and if they have good prospects they will move out of DOCS because of that threat.

    I have, therefore, asked that the role of the private sector also be defined as part of this inquiry. It is better that we be honest about what we intend to do. In conclusion, this inquiry needs to take place so that front-line workers in DOCS and the non-government sector can be informed of the core business and strategic direction of the department. Children at risk and families in need deserve prompt and appropriate services from an innovative and informed department. In the words of Carmel Niland, as reported in the Sydney morning Herald:
        There is a perception in the bureaucracy that DOCS is the department for leftovers, the department for the marginalised. This means that DOCS is marginalised and comes to believe that it, like its clients, is powerless and fails to assert itself.
    This will provide an opportunity to find answers to the constant and ongoing system-wide problems of the Department of Community Services with regard to child and family services. I commend the motion to the House and look forward to the inquiry.

    The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [11.27 a.m.]: The Government opposes the motion moved by the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans. The rationale for holding such an inquiry must be challenged. The motives of the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans may well be honourable, but it must be acknowledged that the inquiry he requests is a waste of taxpayers' money. Such an inquiry would look backwards instead of forwards; the administrative costs it would impose on the Department of Community Services would be enormous; and it would no doubt prevent the department from focusing on its primary objective—that is, to protect children.

    The Department of Community Services would be the most scrutinised, inquired into and reviewed human services agency in the State of New South Wales. We hear a lot from the Opposition. However, we will hear about the former Coalition Government's record and what it did to the Department of Community Services. The department's actions with regard to child and family services are constantly monitored, reviewed and made transparent by a number of external independent monitoring bodies, the principal ones being the Community Services Commission, the Ombudsman's Office, the Administrative Decisions Tribunal, the Child Death Review Team, the Children's Commission and the Auditor-General's Office.

    The Community Services Commission and the Child Death Review Team focus their investigative energies on reviews about the policy and practice of the department specifically with regard to its child protection responsibilities. Every year since 1997 the Child Death Review Team has released a detailed report of all child deaths in New South Wales, with particular focus on the deaths of children who were known to DOCS, whatever the cause of death. The purpose of these reports is to improve child protection practice and identify systemic casework issues and interagency problems.

    These reviews also examine the policies, procedures, practice and outcomes of the way in which the department deals with notifications of reports of child abuse and neglect, and requests for service and case management. The Community Services Commission considers these issues when it undertakes an investigation. At the same time this inquiry is being called for, the Community Services Commissioner is undertaking a very intensive, wide-ranging review of the out of home-substitute care in New South Wales. This includes the Department of Community Services [DOCS] and the non-government sector. The Commissioner only in the last week released a first draft of the report. The final report is due to be given to the Minister later this year.

    The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans said that a number of reviews of DOCS have not achieved results. It must be acknowledged that the structure and work force of every modern organisation is in a constant state of renewal. No organisation in the twenty-first century can afford to remain static. Information technology changes at a rapid pace, and staff require reskilling. That has been recognised in the current transformation in the Department of Community Services. It is not possible to justify yet another review of DOCS, given the public scrutiny that DOCS is already subject to and held accountable for through the Minister to the Parliament. The political posturing on this issue is completely unacceptable. I will talk a little about the Opposition's record when it was in government, because it does not come to this issue with clean hands.

    This Government has acted swiftly to remove children from destructive environments. Since 1995 the number of New South Wales children placed in foster care has increased by 30 per cent. The results are occurring on the ground because there are enough personnel to identify the problems and to take remedial measures. Funding for foster care has increased by 60 per cent to $127 million. Not only has the Government deliberately set out to establish the real extent of child abuse and neglect, it has acted and will continue to act decisively. Under this Government the budget allocation for this area has increased by 91 per cent, a huge amount. Some people might ask why. The reason why such a huge budget increase was allocated by this Government is that a succession of Coalition governments ripped the guts out of child protection in this State.

    The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: No, we did not.

    The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The Hon. Patricia Forsythe knows that it is true. She knows what the Coalition did when it was in government. The heartlessness started with the Greiner Government and ended after the negligence of the Fahey administration. In a devastating move, the Fahey Coalition Government sacked scores of child protection case workers. Those who were left to pick up the pieces were buried under paperwork, as hundreds of administrative workers were given their marching orders. Not only was the number of on-the-ground workers reduced, the Coalition also increased the administrative burden on those people and did not give them the opportunity to get out in the field. The Opposition has approached this whole debate with a level of hypocrisy that is extraordinary. The Carr Government, when it was elected in 1995, was left to deal with the wreckage.

    It was clear that the issues of child abuse and neglect had been totally abandoned by our predecessors. Until the Carr Government announced the formation of the Child Death Review Team, the story of the real toll of the Coalition neglect could not be told. That story needs to be told. It took the election of this Government to put in place the systems to identify the needs. Now the Opposition chooses to run politically on this issue, when it knows that it was responsible for neglect and cover-up. Once again, we have to waste the time of Parliament to expose the hypocrisy and actions of the Coalition when it was in government. The issue of child abuse in our society has challenged this Parliament and previous Parliaments. It is an issue of great importance to the community. I have no doubt that in the mind of the public the Minister is committed to doing something about this issue of deep concern. The Minister has demonstrated that commitment to the whole community.

    The Government has made a continuing and real commitment to this area. Since the Minister took over the portfolio, the Department of Community Services has been reorganised. As all honourable members know, making these changes has been difficult. But the Minister has made a commitment to implement the changes. The Carr Government is determined to continue to deliver on its commitment to abused and neglected children in New South Wales. The Minister for Community Services has often said that no-one can convince her or any other reasonable person that the rights of abusive, neglectful and drug-dependent parents are more important than the rights of their children. Child protection agencies must regard the rights of the children as being paramount.

    It is instructive to look at government funding in this area. The amount of funding allocated to child protection under this Government has increased 125 per cent in six years, from $49 million in 1994-95 to $110.5 million in 2000-01. The child protection funding increase is part of a 16.3 per cent increase to child and family services. The budget allocation for child and family services has increased $54 million, from $334.8 million to $389.3 million. These figures speak for themselves. They clearly show the Carr Government's determination to support its vision for child protection with an unprecedented amount of resources—something that Opposition members can never claim they did when they were in government. This dedication applies to raw dollar figures and our resolve to identify at risk children and place them in long-term protective environments.

    This debate cannot conclude without some discussion of unallocated cases because there has been misleading information about the term "unallocated cases". All organisations have to prioritise their work, and DOCS is no exception. Every notification that comes into DOCS is reviewed by a district officer and an assistant manager before being prioritised. Priorities can be and are reshuffled on a regular basis, based on workload and any new information which may come to light. Unallocated cases are those determined to be of lower risk. New risk assessment tools are being developed which will allow even better assessments of risks to children. DOCS has been actively seeking ways to reduce the administrative workload of district officers to enable them to spend more face-to-face time with clients.

    That is what the Government is doing—not cutting district officers, like the Opposition did when it was in government. Some of these initiatives include: replacing antiquated and slow computers with about 2,000 new computers and 450 laptops to boost workplace efficiencies; developing a new client information system, which will give quick and easy access to vital case information; exploring ways to boost administrative support at the front line under transformation initiatives; and setting up a teleservice centre, which will employ 100 more staff and free up front-line staff for more face-to-face work.

    As I have outlined, the Government opposes this motion. I also flag that the Hon. Patricia Forsythe is proposing to move an amendment on behalf of the Opposition. The Government will oppose that amendment as well. The Government believes that the terms of reference of this inquiry are ill-advised—they are looking backwards, not forwards. There is no question that the Minister has acknowledged that there were problems in the Department of Community Services in the past. Change is under way, and that is reflected in the record budget for this year for the Department of Community Services. This reference does not make any acknowledgment of that change. Rather, it is an attempt to delve into ancient history. An inquiry of this magnitude will have an enormous administrative cost. There are eight different aspects to the motion and a reporting time line that stretches way over to next year.

    This inquiry will take millions of dollars in staff time and resources. As I have outlined, a number of independent bodies already have responsibility for the oversight of the Department of Community Services. Senior staff time will be taken up with this inquiry, and it is debilitating to field staff to have yet another inquiry into DOCS. I believe that it will detract even more from the current improvements that are under way and will divert vital resources away from the department's core business of protecting children. It does not serve any purpose. It will not assist in the care and protection of the State's abused and neglected children. The Government seeks the support of honourable members to allow the changes that are now in place time to work, to let the new Act be proclaimed and the additional funding bedded down and to give the new front-line positions a chance to have an impact. The Government opposes this motion.

    The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [11.38 a.m.]: Initially I supported the motion of the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans. However, having seen the proposed amendment, which I believe improves the motion, I will support the motion proposed by the Opposition. As I come from a social work background, I have a great deal of interest in this motion. However, before debating the motion, I want to be fair and say that this is a very difficult portfolio. Whether it is a Coalition or Labor government, the Minister with this portfolio faces difficulties. That is why I unhesitatingly compliment the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Women, Faye Lo Po', who, although not new to the portfolio, has not been in charge of the portfolio long enough to test it. She was also very impressive as the Minister for Fair Trading, which was the previous portfolio she held. I am prepared to allow the Minister time to exert full control because in my dealings with her I have to say that I have found her to be one of the better Ministers—Coalition or Labor—with whom I have had to deal during my term in Parliament.

    The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: She is very sweet.

    The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: No, she is very effective. But I have to say that a lack of resources is the main problem.

    The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: That is absolutely right.

    The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: Personality aside, where credit is due, it should be given. The Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Women is under a lot of stress and strain. Much of today's rally outside Parliament House concerns welfare workers' low pay. Having been a welfare worker, I can say that the salaries are shocking. They are very low rates of pay. Even before today's rally, I wrote to the Minister to request that the pay scales be reviewed.

    The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I wrote to the Premier about it.

    The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I, too, wrote to the Premier many months ago about that, but, as I said, to date I have not received a reply. Returning to the substance of the motion, I point out that because of a lack of resources, community service staff work hard. There can be no doubt about that. Moreover, the burnout rate is very, very high. The Hon. Patricia Forsythe will recall that during recent hearings on juvenile justice the evidence was that because of the heavy load carried by these workers they burn out very quickly. Honourable members must understand that point. Before commenting negatively on the role of the Department of Community Services, I make the point that the fault lies not with the Minister personally. In making comments during debate on this motion, I am not trying to be party political.

    I am endeavouring to be impartial and give the issue a fair go. If the Minister has not handled well some part of her portfolio, it is not her fault per se but, rather, is more likely to be a fault that lies within the system. That is why I agree with the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans who suggested that it might be necessary to re-fund the system after the inquiry completes its deliberations. I do not know. I believe it is good idea, however, that the Standing Committee on Social Issues, of which I was a member for a number of years, examine the issues because, for one thing, the committee is not party political. Moreover, the majority of members constituting the committee are Government members of Parliament. Even if an honourable member attempted to be party political, Government members would have the advantage because they comprise the majority of the committee.

    The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: And the Government has received a lot of help from the committee.

    The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: There can be no doubt that the contribution made by the Standing Committee on Social Issues has been very positive in relation to all the issues it has examined over the years and that it has certainly been non-party political in its recommendations. In the past, the committee has been chaired by the late Marlene Goldsmith and Max Willis, and is now chaired by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods.

    The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: And Ann Symonds.

    The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: Definitely. I give credit where it is due and state that, personalities aside, all the chairpersons of the committee have been very good. Having been a social worker for a number of years—

    The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Years?

    The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: If I may say so, my experience dates from 20 or 30 years ago. Throughout that period, the Department of Community Services always had problems because people did not think that the work of the department was important enough, and this is the problem that exists currently. People should focus on the fact that children and families are very much the backbone of our society. For a change, there should be a thorough examination of the system. I hope that when the committee examines issues such as child protection, it will concentrate on the issues associated with the provision of sufficient resources. If I may claim the credit, in the 1970s I was the very person who took up the issue of child abuse with the Children's Hospital when I was a social worker at the general hospital at Ryde. At that stage, there was no such thing as child abuse symptom identification yet the system has evolved to the extent that it is now much improved. I have absolutely no doubt that the system can be improved again.

    Perhaps the committee's inquiry will be able to improve the system in much the same way as it was improved 20 years ago. I have no doubt that case management and home placements will provide different input to the committee and become a part of its recommendations to the department. The Minister should not take the committee's recommendations personally but, rather, should accept them with open arms. If there is nothing to hide, the committee should have free rein to examine the issues. If something is being mismanaged, perhaps there will be an opportunity to change it. That has been the spirit of the committee's recommendations to date, and I am sure that will continue in the future. Recently I commented to the shadow spokesman, the honourable member for Wakehurst, that I believe that an inquiry should receive the support of this House. I believe that it will receive support because the crossbench will support it. I voice my support for the motion because children and families are a very important part of our society.

    The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [11.45 a.m.]: I join in this debate to indicate that the Opposition supports the motion and that, at the conclusion of my speech, I will move an amendment. At the outset I state that nothing is more important than the care and protection of children who, because of family circumstances, are at risk. Families support services are the most fundamental of all the services that government can deliver because, by any stretch of imagination, children are the most vulnerable group in our community. They cannot speak up for themselves and, indeed, any examination of children at risk must begin with babies who are at risk. Nothing is more important than having appropriate services, adequate resources and a strong, functioning department with appropriate legislation. Those safeguards will ensure delivery of services that are necessary to protect children and support families. The motion is not merely about protection of children but relates to more than that. It concerns supporting families. Indeed, the motion states that this House is focusing on the child and family services section of the Department of Community Services.

    The motion and my foreshadowed amendment are intended to refer matters to the Standing Committee on Social Issues. I endorse the comments made by the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho who preceded me in this debate. The Standing Committee on Social Issues has an outstanding reputation in this State for thorough investigative research and for reports that have been important to governments. Even though in some cases it takes some years for the committee's recommendations to be implemented, the committee has an outstanding record of giving advice and support to governments. I acknowledge that the committee has a majority of Government members and point out that this motion does not seek to hijack the system or seek to refer the matter to the General Purpose Standing Committees on which the Government does not have a majority. The motion reflects a reasonable approach and calls on the committee—a committee on which the Government has a majority of members—to examine these matters and undertake a review.

    This motion does not represent an intention to hijack the process. Rather, it reflects a desire of this House to draw on a committee that has expertise and a very strong administrative support unit to ask that committee to examine one of the fundamental and important responsibilities of government. The care and protection of children and support of families is what this motion is about. The Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Women referred to an inquiry by the committee as a waste of resources and said that it would cost millions. If the committee's inquiry does anything to improve the outcomes of the Department of Community Services, it could never be a waste of resources. If at the end of the day the committee's recommendations can assist in establishing better systems for the department so that more children are saved and the department more effectively delivers its services, it could never be seen as a waste of resources—never.

    The history of the Standing Committee on Social Issues is so strong that its recommendations are patently good value. While it must be said that inquiries are never cheap, it must also be said that the work of this committee has added to the benefits and work of government. The work of the committee should never be measured in dollars. Its work should be measured by outcomes, and in that regard it has an incredibly strong record. It must be said that the Government, in resorting to criticism in the context of a waste of resources, will not convince this House at all. Any attempt to measure the lives of children in the context of resources devalues the importance of the work of not only the committee but also the Legislative Council.
        The Government is saying it knows it all, it has got it right, it knows that the department can do well. We are not convinced, because of the history of the department. But it may be possible, through an inquiry that involves a review of resources, procedures and staffing numbers, to do it better. The Minister said that an inquiry would be like going back rather than going forward. But this is not about raking over past cases or going through a long history of this department, rather it is about learning from mistakes, and reviewing policies, procedures and resources. The Minister referred to the establishment of the Child Death Review Team as one of the Government's achievements, and we have had regard to the important work undertaken by that team, but its most recent report revealed that among the children who have died in this State, 177 were known to the Department of Community Services—177 children who, because of inappropriate intervention or support, because of inadequate decisions or because of a whole variety of reasons, died. Those children might have been saved if different decisions had been made or if more resources had been available to the Department of Community Services.

    The proposed inquiry is about a more effective response from the Department of Community Services. It is pointless highlighting the Government's establishment of the Child Death Review Team if the Government does not take on board the problems highlighted in the report of the review team. If the amendments are supported today the adequacy of the department's child and family services will be thoroughly reviewed. The review may be based on an analysis of the unallocated cases, an analysis of the children who have died who have been well known to the department, or an analysis of loss of staff from the department. Advice received a couple of years ago indicated that among new staff, particularly young university graduates, the average length of stay was nine months, notwithstanding that they had successfully completed a degree, and that they were young and enthusiastic. Such a turnover is indicative of the low morale in the department.

    We owe it to the staff of the department and the community to understand the problems and help the staff to better carry out their work. The Minister referred to reviews and new structures within the department but we are not convinced, and the evidence does not support significant change. There is certainly more money within the department today, but we want to know whether it is being well spent. We want to know the adequacy of resources. We want to find out whether the resources are being used efficiently. We cannot do that unless an inquiry is able to carry out a proper comparison with departments in other States. Many groups in the community will be able to assist us because non-government sector agencies that have a role in the care and protection of children, such as those involved in foster care, are vital to the process. Some agencies will talk about improvements, changes and initiatives, but are they satisfied with the adequacy of resources, are they satisfied with their interaction with the department, and are they treated appropriately?

    I suspect that the evidence presented to the social issues committee in this regard will come from the non-government sector, which plays a vital role in the care and protection of children and the support of families. The non-government sector will reflect the enormous concern about the Department of Community Services and about its interaction, consultation on contracts, and adequacy of resources because quite often one of the non-government agencies is asked to provide the care for a young child who is difficult to handle. In some cases multiple resources might be required and staff might be required for up to 24 hours a day, particularly if the child cannot be appropriately fostered out. In such a case resources from the Department of Committee Services are required, yet time and time again non-government agencies have reported that such resources are not forthcoming. We are not saying that the Government has not made attempts, that it merely put its head in the sand and did nothing about the problem.

    But what we are saying is that on any criteria, whether it is children who have died, unallocated cases, support for families, or the number of times the Minister has had to renounce her Families First initiative because enough money has never been available to properly get it off the ground and it remains as a narrow pilot project, for all of the good words and good intentions the department is not delivering services effectively. The proposed inquiry will endeavour to give an overview and work with the department and the non-government agencies to determine whether we can deliver services more effectively. This is all about the children and young people in this State who are at risk and families who are at risk. It is about the most vital service that any government can deliver because at the end of the day it is the fundamental responsibility of the Government to ensure the safety and wellbeing of our children and their families, many of whom are extremely vulnerable.

    They require the best that we can offer, and that requires a buoyant enthusiastic staff with high morale, not one with a high turnover and constant reallocation of cases. We want a strong, vibrant, positive department. If the House votes for the motion and gives the Standing Committee on Social Issues the time to carry out a proper analysis of the department and work through these issues it will become part of the go-forward process. The Minister said that she wants to look forward. We want to be able to look forward with confidence in the department for the interests of all of the children and families at risk. I move:
        That the question be amended by omitting all words after "That" at the commencement and inserting instead:

        1. That the Standing Committee on Social Issues inquire into and report on the child and family services of the Department of Community Services, with particular reference to:
            (a) the current policies, procedures, practice and results of the department in dealing with notifications and reports of child abuse and neglect and requests for service, and case management thereof,

            (b) the state of information and review systems monitoring out of home placements.

            (c) the suitability of the proposed amendments to the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, and related legislation, including the level of consultation undertaken by the Minister in developing those proposed amendments and related legislation,

            (d) the current and proposed role for the non-government sector in child and family services,

            (e) the effectiveness of relevant departmental restructures,

            (f) the adequacy of resources and budget allocation to provide child and family services,

            (g) the staffing of the department's child and family services, including:
              (i) staff morale and staff turnover in client service positions,

              (ii) the capacity of the work force to perform this role,

            (h) the role of research, including cohort studies, consultation and monitoring in developing policy and legislation relating to child and family services,

            (i) the extent to which the current reforms to child and family services are having an effect on departmental clients, including outcomes of children in the care of the State, and

            (j) the provision and quality of services and outcomes to children in the care of the State, with special reference to Article 39 of the United Nations Convention On the Rights of The Child.

        2. That the Committee report in relation to paragraphs 1(a), (b) and (c) by the first sitting day in November 2000, and in relation to all other matters by the Thursday of the first sitting week in 2001.

    I am delighted to have moved this amendment. I urge honourable members to support the amendment and the motion in the interests of community services in New South Wales.

    Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

         Contact us | Job opportunities | RSS feeds | Site help
Copyright & conditions of use | Privacy | Authorised user login