 RESEARCH |
|
The
Hon. James Samios MLC, N.S.W Legislative Council
Coalition Final Dissenting Report to Social Issues Inquiry into
Child Protection Services, DOCS : "It’s a Complete Disgrace"
Introduction
This second
dissenting report to the Social Issues Inquiry into Child Protection
Services as the Coalition representative on the Committee again
expresses the Coalition’s concerns at the Committee’s
majority report and findings.
The comment by Professor
Patrick Parkinson that "It’s a complete disgrace"
that the Children’s Guardian provisions of the Children and
Young Persons’ Care and Protection Act 1998 had not been proclaimed
is equally applicable to much of the deliberations and outcomes
of this Labor dominated Committee.
Much of the conduct of
the hearings has had the effect of negating serious critical analysis
of the State Labor Government’s failed policies on child protection
and out of home care.
Some witnesses have not
been included. Others’ evidence has been minimised or disregarded.
Some witnesses who did appear had their evidence carefully guided
by pre-prepared questions taking them in particular directions and
then finding that time or guidance from the Chair precluded them
from giving their full evidence.
It is also noted that
on the issue of the Interim Majority Report by this Committee, the
Coalition was given effectively only an hour or so to respond. This
dissenting report has been also, of necessity, rushed, as the Labor
majority on the Committee supported by one Independent has again
left the Coalition Member with little time (relative to the breadth
of child protection issues considered or that require considering)
to prepare the critical dissenting report. In most instances, draft
chapters were provided the day before they were to be discussed
in committee, leaving little time for critical analysis and deliberation.
Again, these actions
by the Committee majority encapsulate the way in which the Committee
has sought to minimise existing problems within the Department of
Community Services.
It is noted that the
majority Labor Members have sought to either ignore issues raised
by the Coalition through the Shadow Minister for Community Services,
Brad Hazzard, or minimise the significance of the issues raised.
However this has been a consistent pattern of Government response
from the initial calls by the Shadow Minister for a Royal Commission
into DOCS.
This report has to be read with the clear understanding that the
Parliamentary Inquiry was the Labor Government’s way of being
seen to answer the Coalition call for a Royal Commission. It also
should be understood that when the Coalition joined with a crossbench
Member to try and establish a Parliamentary Inquiry a year before
the launching of this inquiry, the State Labor Party indicated it
would oppose the inquiry and at that time there were believed to
be insufficient crossbench Members supporting the proposal.
When the Coalition again
sought an inquiry in early 2002 the Labor Party again tried to block
the establishment of the Inquiry.
Indeed the then Director-General
Carmel Niland personally contacted a number of crossbench Members
to argue the case against any inquiry. The Labor Party heavily lobbied
crossbench Members to stop the Inquiry proceeding. It was only when
public furore arose following major exposes on "60 Minutes"
(Channel 9) and "Four Corners" (Channel 2) that the State
Labor Government moved to give the appearance of supporting the
Inquiry.
This Inquiry was and
is one that the State Labor Government never wanted but having been
forced to have it then set about manipulating both the evidence
before it and the outcomes of it.
The Coalition notes with
that background that despite criticisms in the dissenting interim
report and throughout the course of the Inquiry, the Committee failed
to take evidence from the prior Minister, The Hon Faye LoPo’
MP, who had presided over DOCS for almost four years.
As with the Interim Report,
the Committee has continued to focus on what the new Director and
Minister of the Department of Community Services have pledged to
do to improve DOCS since their appointment. Little critical analysis
of either the Minister’s or Director General’s comments
has been made.
This is a continuation
of the Committee’s blatant attempt to shift the debate from
what is wrong in DOCS.
The Committee majority’s
apparent willingness to accept that systemic structural change will
eventuate merely because of a change of management is simplistic.
It is based more on the desire for a perception of change rather
than substantiated evidence of it.
Moreover, it has not
been borne out by the overwhelming majority of evidence presented
to the Committee.
"The point we make—we
have made it before—is that this is not about the restructuring
of DOCS; it is about the complete refounding, re-engineering and
redevelopment of an entire family and child care protection system...we
are talking about the most significant re-engineering of a child
protection system in Australia. Nothing less than that will achieve
the outcomes that are required nor the principles and objects that
this Parliament passed as part of the care and protection legislation
of 1998."
A Wrong Direction
The Coalition is also deeply concerned that the Committee
majority has in effect spun the resources, both intellectual and
monetary, from evidence-based inquiry examining outcomes, to one
that has predominantly looked at future inputs.
This is confirmed by
the fact that the first stage of the Inquiry – the Interim
Report - largely replicated findings of the previous Inquiries –
notably those into Family Support and Parental Education. Regrettably
a simplistic approach has continued in the Final Report.
The scope of this Inquiry
This current Inquiry has not adhered to the Terms of Reference
as established by the Legislative Council.
It was argued that the
short time frame for this Committee to report, and the complexities
of the issues led the Committee to determine that
- Individual stories
would not be referred to directly
- The focus would be
on current rather than past practices in child protection and
out of home care
The effect of the arbitrary
decision to exclude the experiences of those who have previously
been through the system means that past failure is ignored. Significantly
for this Inquiry, it also means that past successes are unfortunately
likewise ignored.
The NSW Coalition believes
that in the field of child welfare and protection in particular,
looking back at previous practices must inform current debate and
direction.
DOCS 101
The Coalition is also extremely concerned that so much
time and energy has been spent on discussion of what should be the
basic building blocks of a Department. In evidence to the Committee
the new Director General Dr Neil Shepherd (he has now been in the
position almost six months and there has been no substantive improvement
in child protection or out of home care) took considerable pains
to point out what is needed to build a "Rolls Royce" child
protection system.
"The first thing
we need is to do is to get the supporting platform right so that
the field services can operate with maximum efficiency.
The second thing we need
to do is research the business. We need to understand the components
of demand and the drivers…We need to research and understand
the other cost drivers, both external and internal…We need
to probe these external and internal cost drivers to see where there
are possibilities for change and the likely yield of any such changes
in terms of efficiency and effectiveness.
The third thing we need
to do is to get a capacity to develop and analyse proposals for
change in our core functions. The core functions part, of course,
early intervention and prevention, child protection and out-of-home
care. We need to seek out world's best practice in these areas.
We need to screen rigorously those proposals and the world's best
practice for their match with the New South Wales context, their
costs versus their benefits, their implementability in the field
and their resource implications"
The Department of Community
Services or its antecedent bodies have been operating for almost
200 years. All of the Director General’s comments, while valid,
sadly are nothing new. To have operated without an acceptance of
these principles is, itself, a damning indictment of DOCS and its
management.
Chapter 5 –
Intake and Assessment
The Helpline
As with the Interim Report, the commentary in relation
to Helpline understates the continuing role of Helpline as a major
problem within the Department of Community Services.
Committee comments such
as "The Helpline has generally been successful in its objective
to improve consistency of intake" and "the standardised
processes used at the Helpline have introduced consistency and greater
transparency" cannot be supported by the evidence.
The Committee has also
failed to question some of the Department’s claims, namely
that faxes are to be phased out because they are inefficient. No
evidence was cited in support of this claim and there is no reflection
of the suggestion put to Director General Dr Shepherd by Committee
members that this may be seen to be a way of reducing scrutiny through
the elimination of paperwork.
The Coalition is also
concerned that once again, DOCS systems are so inefficient and data
so difficult to come by that the Committee was unable to come to
any firm conclusions regarding the Helpline’s operations,
fax backlog (reported in November 2002 to be over 3000 and not denied
by the Labor Government but minimised as "only level 3 and
4") and staffing levels, and the reasons behind the "unallocation’
of client files.
The Coalition believes
that Helpline should be dismantled in its present form. It also
believes that the Carr Government has come to the same conclusion
but is delaying the inevitable until after the 2003 State Election
Campaign – an unfortunate delay which will continue the problems
created by Helpline and which will continue to put children’s
lives at risk.
Mandatory Reporting
The Report claims that mandatory reporting is "overwhelmingly
supported in New South Wales", citing one submission in support
while noting that the Department’s submission that mandatory
reporting is now an essential feature of child protection in NSW.
However, while expanding
on its discussion of mandatory reporting compared to its analysis
in the Interim Report, the Committee majority has once again failed
to acknowledge the large numbers of submissions and evidence pointing
out the policy’s limitations.
Again, the report has
failed to address the substantive issues of mandatory reporting
and the problems that have arisen as a result of broad scale lack
of professional discretion in determining which cases should be
reported and which should not be reported.
For example, once again
there was no discussion of
- The individual professional
reasons why teachers and others working with children may feel
it necessary to report all possible child at risk situations notwithstanding
that their professional judgement may be set to the lowest hurdle
for reasons of exposure to professional discipline/criticism and
or $22,000 fines
- The incapacity of
individual DoCS officers to refer families for support because
of the lack of appropriate resources and support by the Department
- The impact of the
introduction of Helpline and the failure to sift out, through
local relationships, the reporting of children who should never
have been reported as being at risk or the multiple reporting
of the same children from different sources
- Frequent failure by
DOCS to respond to notifications made to the Helpline, by either
the general community or mandatory notifiers, so that reporters
felt children remained at risk
Unallocated Cases
As the Women’s Refuge Movement noted,
"Child protection
is breaking down at the local office area because, even when reports
get sent through to the local office—and quite often they
do not, or as far as we know they do not—in our case study,
the reports, the response back to us is, "We have a lot of
unallocated cases. It is likely that nothing will happen about
this"
The Coalition notes with
interest that the Committee majority’s interim report findings
that
"Due to the
workloads in CSC’s level 3 or 4’s may not be allocated
to a caseworker and may be closed without further investigation".
The Coalition has previously
stated with absolute certainty based on information made public
by the Public Service Association that in some CSCs up to 90% of
all reports of children at risk of harm including levels 1 and 2
are not being investigated.
This Committee’s
report has been revised and the majority now accepts the Coalition’s
view that evidence to the Committee clearly stated that levels 1
and 2 - more serious allegations of child abuse or neglect - are
not addressed.
The Coalition notes however
that the Director Generals’ initial advice, corrected in a
subsequent submission in evidence in November 2002, has not been
the subject of adverse comment by the Committee despite the very
different picture it provides of DOCS capacity to do the job it
is charged with – that of protecting children in NSW.
Chapter 6: Out
Of Home Care
A primary term of reference for this Inquiry was to examine
the outcomes for those children and young people in out of home
care.
Notably, this was also
the term of reference that posed the greatest difficulty for the
Labor Government in having the Inquiry Reference adopted when the
motion was debated in the Legislative Council in April 2002.
Significantly, it was
also the term of reference that was the focus of considerable attention
by various non-government agencies in determining the formulation
of the sector’s submissions to the Inquiry.
The Coalition is of the
view that this term of reference was crucial to the success or otherwise
of this Committee. In addressing this aspect of child protection
in NSW, the Committee has failed.
The totality of the Committee’s
findings in regard to the negative experiences of out of home care
are found at 6.14, as follows –
"…one
year after leaving care, most participants had unstable living
arrangements and around half were unemployed and had financial
troubles. Almost one in three of the young women had been pregnant
or had a child, and over half the group reported thinking about
or attempting suicide. Subsequent interviews with the young people
four years after leaving care found the following problems were
common: drug and alcohol misuse, domestic violence, turbulent
relationships, mental health issues, including depression and
suicide ideation, poor support networks, unresolved family issues
and a lack of plans for the future"
However, the Committee
majority report makes almost no comment on these appalling statistics.
No evidence was taken
or submissions cited on the extent of youth homelessness amongst
the out of home care population, despite evidence that DOCS uses
Commonwealth funded homelessness services as a ‘dumping ground’
for children it is directly responsible for.
No evidence was taken
on the over-representation of children and young people in out of
home care in prostitution, nor was any evidence taken or submissions
cited in respect of abuse suffered in out of home care.
This last is particularly
important, for it indicates the reality of the out of home care
experience for too many young people, and strongly shows why care
plans for those in care are so desperately needed. The failure to
ensure the implementation of care plans are in place emphasises
the appalling negligence of the Carr Labor Government in failing
to proclaim the powers of a children’s guardian which would
enable the guardian to review the care plans of all children in
out of home care.
Little attention was
paid to the over-representation of young people in out of home care
in criminal activity, and there was no examination of the path to
juvenile justice and onto adult gaols. Despite a footnote that cites
the Corrections Health Service as finding that 19.4% of the adult
gaol population had been placed in care by age 16, no evidence was
drawn from the Corrective Services, Corrections Health or criminal
justice experts on this aspect. Again, submissions’ authors
were not called.
This is notwithstanding
that similar evidence was presented to previous Parliamentary Committees
on the over-representation of care-leavers in the criminal justice
system and recommendations made on the need for further inquiry
into this phenomenon.
The Coalition notes that
some ‘consumer’ representation from people in out of
home care was provided by the members of Create and notes further
that the Committee cites the evidence of several young people given
in camera. This is to be commended.
However, the Committee’s
steadfast refusal to hear verbal evidence from parents of removed
children or adult careleavers - so-called ‘consumer representatives’
– and in particular, the decision to exclude such representatives
from the roundtable of expert stakeholders and the holding of that
roundtable in secret, is to be deplored.
In apparently preferring
to take and cite evidence from agencies who are and have traditionally
been responsible for the direct provision of services to children
and young people in care, while steadfastly failing to explore the
experiences of those once in ‘care’, the Committee majority
has failed to seize the opportunity presented to it to fully understand
the reality of care from those who have lived it.
The Committee has therefore
missed much valuable information on not just the causes, but also
how to mitigate against those factors giving rise to poor outcomes.
For example, the Special
Needs section in relation to children most at risk makes no mention
of the inter-generational effects of being in care. Having been
a State ward is a major risk factor for having one’s children
enter care. Yet there is no consideration of this factor despite
submissions from careleavers to this effect and warnings of the
lost opportunity for far-reaching reform if this was not acknowledged.
The exclusion of adult
careleavers is especially ironic given the Committee majority’s
comments at Chapter 6 at 6.41, acknowledging the importance to people
in care of ‘participation’ in decisions and events affecting
them. Regrettably, the Committee majority report failed to pay more
than lip service to that concept.
Transitional
Care
The Committee’s majority report also fails to address
the issues of reform needed for those who have been through the
care system but who are currently not are provided for by any services.
While limited counselling,
support and ‘transitioning’ services exist for young
people leaving care, these do not cater for those aged 25 or older.
Currently, no services are provided to careleavers over 25.
The Coalition finds the
Committee majority’s failure to take evidence or to acknowledge
that submissions had been received from mature careleavers extremely
problematic.
By ignoring evidence
of the lack of official recognition or acknowledgement of the trauma
of previous generations of care leavers despite submissions establishing
the need for such services, the Committee majority has once again
mistaken the evidence provided to it. Consequently it has lost the
opportunity to make important reform and in particular, continues
the likelihood of the next generation of children entering care.
The significance of appropriate
Transitional Care for children exiting out of home care has been
highlighted in research in the United States (see Vera Institute,
New York, Website). However it is as if the Labor majority on the
Committee have deliberately avoided the issue as it would highlight
the continuing incompetence of the Labor Government in addressing
this vital aspect of obtaining satisfactory outcomes for children
leaving care.
Assumptions /
No Supporting Evidence
The Committee’s majority report repeatedly makes
generalised statements based on assumptions that do not reflect
the evidence provided to it. This approach is rejected by the Coalition.
Comments by the Committee stigmatise and label all children entering
care as having problematic pasts. This can be totally untrue.
A striking example is
provided in Chapter 6: Out of Home Care pg 5 at 6.15
"At the same
time, the poor outcomes for children and young people in out of
home care also reflect their experiences prior to care"
Young people may enter
care because a parent has died, been gaoled or deserted the family,
and through family violence, neglect or abuse, or drug / alcohol
addiction.
However, it is undeniable
that deliberate welfare policies which had the effect of targeting
distinct social groups such as Aborigines or those with an intellectual
disability or mental illness have also led to the removal of children
from their birth homes where such removal may have been unwarranted.
Although the Committee
failed to reflect this view, both inquiry submissions and published
material suggest that these practices are continuing today.
Case Plans and
Proclamation
Evidence to the Committee was unanimous in the view that
a workable effective Children’s Guardian is needed. Without
such a body, the care plans and progress of the 9000 children in
out of home care in NSW cannot adequately be measured.
Despite Premier Carr’s
personal commitment given in 1995 that all children in care would
have case plans developed however, the Government failed to proclaim
the relevant sections of the Children and Young Persons (Care and
Protection) Act 1998, which would permit the office to begin examining
the care plans of children in care.
Witnesses to the Committee
were highly critical of this inaction.
"I am concerned
about the failure to proclaim the legislation, and while I fully
appreciate that the Minister and the director-general need time
to understand the impact of the new legislation and that we should
not hastily proclaim, it is concerning that that work should have
been done over the past four years. The Act is not new. It was
passed in 1998 and implications of it had been discussed for three
years prior to that date."
Professor
PARKINSON: It is a complete disgrace. The Children's
Guardian's work has not been allowed to take place. These children
are at the end of the queue and I understand the resource issues
and the difficulties, but to have no system in place in as rich
a country as this is just unbelievable... We all need to hang
our heads in shame that we have not put a system in place for
these kids. If a short allocation from Treasury is needed to overcome
the hurdles, then so be it. This was, and is, the most crucial
reform in the entire 1998 Act."
As the Children’s
Guardian acknowledged, it is unclear how many children in out of
home care have their matters attended to, or see a case officer
on a regular basis.
"The
Hon. JAMES SAMIOS: This is a critical question; I know
that you will appreciate that, Madam Chair. Ms Mallett, do you
have any idea of how many kids in foster care have not seen their
DOCS supervising caseworker for months or even years?
Ms MALLETT:
No, I do not because I do not review the plans and I do not have
the function of reviewing them. I guess I am saying that I do
not know because I am not legally entitled to know at the moment."
However, the Committee’s
majority report again fails to accurately state the extent of DOCS
failings in this crucial area. As Commissioner Fitzgerald stated
"The highest
priority is not about money, although that is an issue and the
Government has made some rectification of that, it is actually
about support and you do need a caseworker."
Legislative Definition
of Out of Home Care
"…In
New South Wales we do not have, and have not had for many years,
any system by which we follow up on the welfare of kids in care
and some kids do not have an allocated worker, particularly those
in kinship care."
The Coalition is particularly
concerned at the Committee majority’s lightweight suggestion
that there needs to be more consultation with the Aboriginal community
in relation to extending the definition of out of home care to include
kinship care.
This debate has been
waged on numerous occasions in the Parliament where the indigenous
community’s support for the inclusion of kinship care into
out of home care – with the financial and administrative support
that comes with it – has been clearly expressed.
Moreover, although pre-dating
the current Director General’s time, the Government has previously
embarked on an exhaustive consultative process with indigenous communities
on this issue, although the report has not been made public.
As Hansard states
"The Opposition
has been fortunate to receive, though not through the Government,
a fairly thick document, which I present to the House… it
is an internal working document of the Department of Community
Services.
The document shows the consultative process engaged in with a
large number of Aboriginal agencies about the issue that the Opposition
will address at the Committee stage. The overwhelming conclusion
of the consultation team—whose report the Government has
not placed before the House—is that the vast majority of
Aboriginal agencies support an extension of this bill's provisions
to kinship care arrangements that operate in the indigenous community."
The Committee majority’s
position is therefore not only inadequate but insincere, in that
this evidence was available to it had indigenous witnesses been
called.
Conclusion
The Parliamentary Committee into Child Protection was set
up to oversight and change the terrible history and secretive, closed
culture of the Department of Community Services. Instead the Labor
majority has embraced that culture.
In the Coalition’s
view, this Committee has done considerable disservice to the parents,
families, advocates, community representatives and survivors of
the NSW child welfare industry.
The outcomes of this
Committee’s Report are extremely disappointing. The Committee’s
potential to substantively address the issues has been thwarted
by a deliberate strategy adopted from the outset by the State Labor
Government to minimise the crisis in DOCS.
While some issues have
been addressed they have generally been addressed at a very superficial
level and more designed to divert attention from the failings of
the Carr Labor Government than to achieve real and substantive change
in New South Wales.
|
