Child protection
Ms KEALY (Lowan) (14:31): My question is to the minister for child protection. Victoria’s independent Commission for Children and Young People has confirmed that growing numbers of vulnerable children in the care system are being kept in hotels and serviced apartments. The commission describes this situation as ‘deeply concerning’ and says that the whole system is ‘underfunded and not fit for purpose’. The commission highlighted these exact issues three years ago, and they have worsened. Why has the government failed to act to protect the health and wellbeing of vulnerable children?
Mr BROOKS (Bundoora—Minister for Child Protection and Family Services, Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers) (14:32): Can I say at the outset of my first question as the minister for child protection a big thankyou to all of the people who work in our child protection sector, our carers and those people who work in our family services sector. I want to say that our broad policy direction, the Roadmap for Reform: Strong Families, Safe Children, is a sound policy agenda. It is all about ensuring that we intervene early to support families—to get in to help families before they end up with children in the child protection system, to avoid families getting into crisis. This has been backed in by $2.8 billion worth of investment by the Andrews Labor government over the last three budgets. Since 2014 we have funded an additional 1180 child protection practitioners to ensure that we keep our children as safe as possible. Due to these policies and this investment we have the lowest per capita rate of children and young people in out-of-home care of any state or territory in the country—the lowest per capita rate of children in out-of-home care in the country. Of the 9500 children and young people in care approximately 5 per cent are in residential care, 17 per cent are in foster care and the vast majority, 78 per cent, are in kinship care. Our investment in the sector has delivered nearly 50 more residential care beds, with over 40 per cent of these now therapeutic placements.
Removing a child from their family or home is always a decision of last resort and one that is made with the safety of the child or young person as a paramount concern. There are circumstances where, as an example, a child might be removed in the middle of the night, in complex situations or where a sibling group could otherwise be separated. These are temporary contingency accommodation placements that are utilised. This is a rare type of placement, representing less than 1 per cent of the out-of-home care placements at any one time. This is most often in department-owned or -managed properties. Children and young people in these situations are always supervised by appropriate staff and continue to access a range of services.
I am surprised to hear the comments from those opposite, because in 2014 the Victorian Auditor-General found that those opposite had been running the residential care system over capacity and it was unable to meet the demands of children. In fact, on contingency care, it was a Liberal government who purchased additional contingency placements of some $24 million. More importantly, it was the previous Liberal-National government, where the Leader of the Opposition sat around the cabinet table, and the now shadow minister was an adviser to the then government in this very portfolio area, that cut 500 jobs from the Department of Human Services, which was charged with the protection of vulnerable children and young people. On this side of the house, we are not going to take lectures from those opposite about the care of vulnerable children and young people.
Members interjecting.
The SPEAKER: Order! This is an important matter. I ask the house to come to order.
Ms KEALY (Lowan) (14:35): It is actually the children’s commission that has been speaking about deep concerns around vulnerable children in Victoria. As the children’s commission said today, the children entering Victoria’s child protection system have experienced major trauma, with significant mental and physical health needs. Therefore the commission has criticised the government’s use of so-called ‘contingency placements’ due to the inadequate quality and suitability of placements and the lack of continuity of staff. Why is it acceptable to this government that growing numbers of Victoria’s most vulnerable children in child protection are not having their mental and physical health needs met?
Mr BROOKS (Bundoora—Minister for Child Protection and Family Services, Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers) (14:36): I reject the premise of that question. The Andrews Labor government support our child protection workers and those people who work in the care sector and our family services, rolling out programs to intervene early to support families before they come into contact with child protection services and to ensure that children and young people are kept safe. So I reject the premise of the question that has been put by the honourable member.