weekly hansard - Queensland Parliament - Queensland Government

More documents

Recommendations

Info

23 Aug 2005 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2633 process. Obviously, a person receiving such information will be prohibited by the confidentiality provisions from using or disclosing this information to anyone else. Minister, I again raise the impossible situation that the opposition finds itself in in ensuring adequate oversight of the department. As I stated earlier, the department, and for that matter the minister, steadfastly refused to provide information regarding the administration of particular cases. As the representatives of constituents we are powerless in seeking any redress on behalf of constituents as, in the first place, they are prohibited from disclosing information to us as is the department in responding to concerns raised. It is an unfortunate fact that some clients of the department require assistance in making representations to the various review bodies, including the Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian. I find it rather incongruous that this House is approving the supply of information to a broader range of people and that an army of bureaucrats have access to the information. But people from whom the family seek assistance in their communications with the department are excluded from such access even though exactly the same sanctions regarding unauthorised release could apply to a member of parliament just as it would a public servant. I also note the amendment that has been circulated by the minister. As I understand it, the amendment clarifies the operation of the notification system for a change in a person’s police history. I look forward to a further explanation of this from the minister at a later date. During the estimates committee hearing I asked the minister about the implementation of a carer directory. In this question I outlined the case of a constituent who had her children taken into care by the department. In the weeks following the removal she was constantly rung by the department asking her to take on foster care children. She is a foster-carer. The minister rightly asked me whether I had brought this situation to his attention. My answer was no, that I had not. I still have not. The reason I have not is that I use this case to illustrate a problem in the system, and I add that it is not a problem with the staff. The information that is coming to me from within the department—the information that is coming to me that is really distressing me—is that the intimidation amongst the workers from management is appalling, and I believe this is a matter of grave concern. There is no way that I would identify that particular situation I spoke of earlier because I believe there is full truth in it and, at the end of the day, I have no doubt that it would be the staff involved who would be severely disciplined and it is not their fault. It is because systems are not in place, and matters such as this are still falling through the cracks. I am also told that many staff have been leaving and there is no process in place for exit interviews to occur. Those staff who have asked for exit interviews have been greeted with a ‘whatever for?’ comment. Staff who genuinely want to provide input into why the system is not working are being blocked in being able to provide useful, critical appraisal that could further develop the efficiency of this very important department. Also during estimates I asked the minister if all 24-hour response cases were being responded to within the time frame, if he was aware of any that were not and what the consequences were. His response was that, in terms of 24-hour responses, the department was absolutely committed to keep them and that it used partners in Police, Health and Education in that regard. He also said that he has indicated to the director-general that they must be attended to within 24 hours. He said— That is our requirement. If over the last two or three years one has not occurred in that way, that is unacceptable—absolutely unacceptable. The opposition has been extremely worried about the increasing number of unattended notifications that are coming to light, and I refer to a letter the Leader of the Opposition recently received from Ms Elizabeth Fraser, the Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian. In this letter she states that on 24 May 2005 she informed the director-general of the child safety department of her intention to commence an audit to identify whether there are any systemic issues related to unallocated and/or incomplete initial assessments across the various child safety service centres. Mr Deputy Speaker Wallace, I put to you that it is obvious that the minister was aware of this audit at the time of estimates. He was aware that the commissioner had sufficient concerns to instigate an audit, but he chose to ignore answering this question. I also note that the Children’s Commissioner may ask the minister to table a report of this audit to the parliament when it has been completed. This debate is not about politics. It is not about which party I represent. Regardless of which side of the chamber I sat on, my objective would be the same: to have a Department of Child Safety that works, to see the children at risk become the focus of the department rather than its current fixation with legitimising and explaining its failures. The minister in the past has tried to deflect my criticisms of his and the department’s inability to discharge their duty of care as criticism of the individual staff members within the department. Nothing could be further from the truth. My admiration for those staff members and caseworkers forced to work in a culture reminiscent of the health department knows no bounds, and I want to place this admiration on record. The blame lies not with the staff; it lies squarely at the feet of the minister. While I do believe that the minister does have the interests of the children at heart—I know that he has the interests of the children at heart—the simple fact is that at this stage the job is not being done. He is not able to reduce the number of notifications. He is not able to reduce the number of
2634 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 23 Aug 2005 renotifications. He is not able to reduce the number of children re-experiencing harm. How much time does the minister and the department need before we can see further results? Every day my office and all other members’ offices receive calls from people with family and child safety based concerns. In amongst these concerns I am hearing more and more cases of child abuse and, more horrendously, many allegations of sexual molestation of children. I have no doubt that the minister’s office gets many more calls than I do, and I have absolutely no doubt that the minister and his staff share my concern— our concern—our horror and dismay at these allegations. Staff in the department are working with these situations every day and they have my total admiration. This is the Department of Child Safety. That is the crux of what the department is about. But my real anger—and I say ‘anger’—is that there are far too many cases of substantiated allegations of sexual harm to children, allegations that are passed through to the agencies of the law, and that seems to be the last that is heard of them. Parents and children are desperate to get some closure, but perpetrators are still out there in droves and nothing seems to be happening. It is being swept under the carpet. I cannot blame the child safety department for this, because I am aware in many cases that it is out of its hands—it is virtually out of its hands—and I have no doubt that the minister and his staff must be just as frustrated as we are. I am sure that they share the same feelings I have. I also have no doubt that there are many police officers who are absolutely shocked at some of the stories that are brought to them, but the current legislation and lack of ready evidence in so many cases is such that they cannot move. This is an all-of-community problem. Until the whole community confronts these problems, as well as government departments and agencies, children’s safety cannot be guaranteed. In the words of Desmond Tutu, it takes a whole village to raise a child. This will take community support and much stronger legislation to finally acknowledge and defeat these horrendous practices from subhuman people. The child safety department cannot be allowed an extended time frame for the implementation of reforms. Because we are talking about the safety of our children, we do not have time. We do not have the time to wait for the minister to get around to implementing the integrated client management system. We have seen very little progress on this in the last 12 months. I am told by people within the department how much this is needed and how good it will be but that it is a huge process and seemingly a long, slow one. While we wait, children are suffering. Families are suffering. We do not have time to wait for the minister to realise that he needs to employ more people on the front line, not more managers and administrators—office staff who are paid far more highly than the vitally important frontline caseworkers. We do not have the time to wait. This is not a theoretical exercise in logistics management that can be modelled with a scoping study or explained by interdepartmental reports. This is real life, and real children are suffering now. I am sure that I speak for every member of this chamber when I say that even one case of child abuse is one too many. We all realise the devastating effects this abuse has on the lives of the children and their families and the complexities involved. Again, I am sure that I speak for everyone when I say that implementing the CMC reforms of the Department of Child Safety is of the highest priority. We gave, and continue to give, unqualified bipartisan support in seeing those reforms implemented. But the government is using our bipartisan support as a shield for itself. Our bipartisan support has become a cover for its ineptitude in implementing the recommendations of the CMC report. What we do not give unqualified support to is the continuing inability of the minister to administer his department. In summary, the opposition welcomes this third stage of the legislation and, subject to the amendment I propose, will be supporting this legislation. I have voiced my concerns at the progress of reform to date and my doubts regarding the department’s ability to meet the enormous challenges ahead. These are challenges that must be met, and I look forward to the minister’s response to the issues I have raised. I commend the bill to the House. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (8.49 pm): It is very gratifying to hear the words that have just been delivered in this House by the member for Burdekin, the shadow minister for child safety—a woman who has certainly undertaken a great deal of study on this matter and who has come up with I believe one of the better speeches in relation to child safety in <strong>Queensland</strong>. I congratulate her on that. At the outset, can I say that there is nothing more sacred than a child. Regardless of whose child it is, that child’s safety is not negotiable. When I say a child’s safety is not negotiable, I mean the safety of every child—not only in <strong>Queensland</strong> but also in our country. I am a member of the Palm Island Select Committee and I have seen some of the things that have happened on Palm Island and in other parts of the state. That has made me even more passionate about looking after the children of our state. I will give members an example. A few weeks ago I was in Townsville. I had occasion to go into the car park of a shopping centre. I pulled up there. I had the windows of my car up and I was speaking on my mobile phone. A van pulled up beside my car and in it were a couple with three kids. Out of the back of the van came the three little ones, ranging in age from about eight down to about four. The mother got out, as did the father, and he walked off somewhere. They were great little kids. They were beautiful little kids. The mother started brushing one child’s hair. She looked at the child and said something to the child. The next minute she gave that child an almighty slap across the face. She nearly knocked that child’s head off. I thought, ‘God, what am I in for here?’ I
Page 1 and 2:
PROOF ISSN 1322-0330 WEEKLY HANSARD
Page 3 and 4:
Table of Contents — Tuesday, 23 A
Page 5 and 6:
2536 Papers 23 Aug 2005 PAPERS PAPE
Page 7 and 8:
2538 Ministerial Statement 23 Aug 2
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
2550 Scrutiny of Legislation Commit
Page 21 and 22:
2552 Private Members’ Statements
Page 23 and 24:
2554 Questions Without Notice 23 Au
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
2564 Members’ Ethics and Parliame
Page 35 and 36:
2566 Matters of Public Interest 23
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
2576 Constitutional and Other Legis
Page 47 and 48:
2578 Transport Legislation Amendmen
Page 49 and 50:
2580 Transport Legislation Amendmen
Page 51 and 52: 2582 Housing Legislation Amendment
Page 53 and 54: 2584 Education (Queensland College
Page 55 and 56: 2586 Succession Amendment Bill 23 A
Page 57 and 58: 2588 Succession Amendment Bill 23 A
Page 59 and 60: 2590 Queensland Competition Authori
Page 69 and 70: 2600 Racing Venues Development Amen
Page 81 and 82: 2612 Plumbing and Drainage and Othe
Page 99 and 100: 2630 Child Safety Legislation Amend
Page 101: 2632 Child Safety Legislation Amend
Page 111 and 112: 2642 Adjournment 23 Aug 2005 One pa
Page 113 and 114: 2644 Adjournment 23 Aug 2005 years.
Page 115: 2646 Adjournment 23 Aug 2005 Finall
show all

weekly hansard - Queensland Parliament - Queensland Government

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?