weekly hansard - Queensland Parliament - Queensland Government

23 Aug 2005 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2639
The Liberal Party supports the family as a fundamental institution for the raising and nurturing of
children and for making each individual an integral part of society. When circumstances dictate that it is
no longer appropriate for a child to be with his or her immediate family, the emotional stability of the child
is far better addressed through placement with a relative who is familiar with the child rather than with
strangers. In particular, grandparents should be recognised as being the preferred foster-carers when a
child is removed from his or her parents and the grandparents seek custody. In such a case it should be
up to the department to demonstrate why the child’s best needs would not be served by being placed
with grandparents. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in Australia in 2003 there were
22,500 families where grandparents were the guardians of their grandchildren. Today’s grandparents
are healthier and living longer than generations before them, and many have proven their ability to be
well and truly up to the task of raising children in their retirement years. After all, they were parents
themselves in years gone by.
Grandparents should receive the same financial assistance from the state government that is
available to other foster-carers. The current provision for foster-parents’ names and addresses to be
given to people from whom the child was removed is, in my view, an unacceptable and dangerous
practice. Talking to local residents who have dedicated many years to fostering children in this state, I
learned they have decided that they can no longer be foster-parents as the availability of their name and
address is an unacceptable risk to their own safety and to the safety of children in their care. This was
an extremely difficult decision for them to make as they genuinely loved the role they had previously
played in displaced children’s lives. When we think about it, who would want their address given out to
potentially abusive and angry people who may resort to any lengths to take their children back? It is
certainly not in the best interests of the child. After becoming settled in a new environment, the sudden
appearance of emotion-charged parents making demands upon foster-parents would be confusing and
upsetting to many children. Perhaps the minister will take this issue on board and comment on it in his
summary.
The training of foster-carers was a major concern of the CMC report. During Foster Care Week in
March the minister announced the new foster care training package the government had implemented.
However, reports continue to emerge that the minimal training received by foster-carers is inadequate to
cope with the complexity of issues that arise. A first-hand example came through my office from a fosterparent
who had been promised extra training to cope with dealing with a child who had experienced
sexual abuse. The situation became intolerable, and the foster-carers had no choice but to ask for the
child to be removed from their care. I emphasise that this was after months of asking the department for
counselling for the child and additional training for themselves which, sadly, never eventuated.
Improvements in this area are urgently required.
Clause 5 in part 2 of this bill outlines new reforms for Indigenous child placements. This is the key
part of this legislation causing concerns within the wider community. It seems that a trend of placing
Indigenous children with non-Indigenous foster-parents is becoming the norm instead of the exception.
A spokesperson for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women’s legal service was noted as saying
that the growing number of interventions was creating ‘a new wave of stolen generation children’.
Indigenous elders are up in arms about a recent episode where a midnight raid on a Brisbane
house caused a toddler to suffer the secondary effects of capsicum spray. A delegation is asking for an
inquiry into these events as well as this child protection legislation which assists in allowing Indigenous
children to be placed with non-Indigenous foster-carers. I do believe it is important that the state
government tracks the frequency of these placements and makes the data available to Indigenous
elders and leaders.
In recognising the shortage of suitable carers, it would be prudent to make a concerted and
urgent effort to encourage Indigenous people to become registered carers. It is imperative that
Aboriginal children do not lose their cultural identities and are able to remain within their community with
either a relative or another respected member of their society.
The minister has repeatedly stated his wish to double the number of foster-carers in Queensland.
An increase in carer numbers would certainly provide more protection for children, but it is preventive
measures and early intervention that must also be a priority. Such measures were not only
recommended in the CMC’s report but also promised by the Beattie government. To date there is little
evidence of the supposed whole-of-government framework as touted previously. Action is required now.
As I previously stated, the concept of kinship carers is one that I view with keen interest and
support. However, there are several stages within the proposal that seem to contradict other parts of
stage 3. Firstly is the requirement of kinship carers to have a separate certificate for each child as this
seems to work against the preferred model of keeping siblings together who are under protection or
voluntary orders. This appears to be even more self-defeating for Indigenous children. Perhaps the
minister would be kind enough to point out the reasoning behind this clause.
As has already been mentioned earlier in my speech, the majority of Australians acknowledge the
significance of keeping Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in their own cultural environment
whenever possible, and I commend the bill’s recognition of this. Surely streamlining the kinship concept