Page 2567 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 5 June 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
terms of reference, which included reviewing the emergency residential placement of children with Northern Bridging Support Services, the engagement and subsequent suspension of the agency, compliance with the Children and Young People Act 2008 in relation to the above matters and a review of the authorities and arrangements of children and young people currently in out-of-home care and for whom the director-general has parental responsibility—and that the Auditor-General should also conduct an investigation.
There was discussion with the Public Advocate who, in fact, increased those terms of reference. There was a further discussion between the Public Advocate and the Auditor-General. It was agreed that the Public Advocate would do this review and the Auditor-General would also conduct a performance review. Following the release of the interim report, the Public Advocate was then given the task of randomly selecting 100 children and young people who were placed in out-of-home care following statutory intervention by way of an emergency response and had experienced an unplanned change to an out-of-home care placement. The findings of this second stage report last week were indeed disappointing. However, they confirmed what we already knew about the system’s failings.
The Public Advocate has acknowledged that change is being made within care and protection services and comments that there were positive findings. There were no further instances found where children had been placed with an agency that was not considered a suitable entity. Of the files reviewed, there was no evidence that any child or young person is lost in the out-of-home care system. Every child and young person had a file and a children and young person’s service record. The foster care agency files focused on the child and provided a real picture of what was happening for that child. There was also real evidence of contact between the child and their family and parents. The child protection case conference process is working well, with evidence of case planning. There was evidence of good casework in parts. It said that this was at times inconsistent and, of course, there needed to be further improvement.
The Greens want real change in this area. It is not enough to raise this in the parliament and through the media. There has to be real and ongoing monitoring and questioning along the way that ensures real change is occurring and that better outcomes are being achieved for our vulnerable children. This is a critical area of government and we need significant change in parts of the approach we have to this area. For instance, the Public Advocate report clearly says that we need to have significant improvements in the way we train and support workers. We need to make sure that basic elements like supervision are provided to all workers on a regular and ongoing basis.
We also need to have significant changes to the way we interact with carers, children, families and parents. These changes need to be conducted with the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration. This means that there must be a system in place to ensure that children in need of emergency care, which is not a rare occurrence, can be cared for as well as we possibly can. We do not want to be here again in 12 months or two years time talking about these concerns. The Greens are pleased that there will
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video