Wednesday, 19 November 2025

 Nicole WERNER (Warrandyte) (14:55): It is my pleasure to resume the debate on the Children, Youth and Families Amendment (Stability) Bill 2025 and return to what I was last speaking about, my concerns about the bill that we are debating. I will be moving amendments in the house and, firstly, moving a reasoned amendment, the reason being that stakeholders have raised with us the issue of not being consulted. In fact the bill was introduced without the knowledge of key stakeholders in the out-of-home care sector, and for some, it took them by surprise. Broad stakeholders with lived experience as foster carers, kinship carers and permanent carers have not been consulted, and specifically these stakeholders have raised with me that the issue with this bill is that:

[QUOTES AWAITING VERIFICATION]

The voice of the child is missing from the bill, despite these changes critically impacting their future.

That is an issue that has been raised with me in this space by carers of all varieties, who have raised with me their deep concern that children in care are not afforded agency over their futures, the agency that they deserve as children, and that the lack of consultation on this bill with children with lived experience in the out-of-home care system, and who have been under the family reunification orders, highlights this further. Carers have written to me, distressed at their inability to have a voice despite the fact that they are the ones that are caring for these children.

One foster carer wrote to me and said:

As carers we are effectively silenced. The mandatory code of conduct with our agency prohibits us from speaking publicly, preventing us from being able to advocate for vulnerable children or exposing systemic failures.

And that is why, in this case where the stakeholders have raised with me that the voice of the child is missing from the bill – the very children that this bill impacts, the very children that these reforms will affect – there is not the voice of those with lived experience informing or having been consulted on this bill. And we know that the government often purports to support those with lived experience. So then I ask why it would be that many of the stakeholders who are the carers and the stakeholders that are leading the charge in this space have written to me saying they did not know these changes were ahead, they did not know that this was coming and, no, they were not consulted.

Stakeholders have expressed their concern about many elements of this bill. I read this recommendation from a specific group, Permanent Care and Adoptive Families, otherwise known as PCA Families, who have recommended that we should pause this bill and pause changes to the act until thorough consultation with people with lived experience and key stakeholders has taken place and clear evidence shows the changes are in the best interests of children. This is a key stakeholder that represents 3700 kinship carers, foster carers and permanent carers in Victoria that has recommended, because it has not been consulted, that there should be consultation that takes place with those with lived experience. These key stakeholders are asking for this. One stakeholder said to me, ‘Nicole, for these children, it is just so important that we get this right.’

One of the members of PCA Families also wrote, saying:

As a permanent care family, I am hoping PCA Families will oppose these changes. How is longer time for reunification a good thing for stability for the child?

Another PCA Families member wrote:

I strongly believe more robust safeguards are required in the act to ensure that a child’s best interest, including their need for stability, is genuinely prioritised.

If the government does as it purports to do and cares about lived experience, it would support these amendments and support this reasoned amendment that I will put to the house this afternoon to include lived experience in this bill. It being the case that children only have one chance at a childhood, it is so important that we get this right and it is so important that we consult with those with lived experience. Therefore we believe that the house should not proceed to debate this bill any further until the government has undertaken that broad and genuine consultation with all stakeholders, including those with lived experience as children in the system and those who care for them. These are the voices that were not adequately included in the government’s consultation, and these are the voices that carry the real-life consequences of the decisions that we make here in this place. Accordingly, I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government has consulted more widely with all affected stakeholders, including stakeholders who have lived experience as children in care.’

Additionally, under standing orders I wish to advise the house of amendments to the bill and request that they be circulated. The reasoned amendment specifically seeks to ensure that reforms of this scale are informed by the people that understand the system best and the children and carers who rely on it.

Now to the concerns at hand beyond that which is contained in the reasoned amendment: another concern of ours on this side of the house is that this bill is a parent-focused and parent-centred approach, rather than a child-centred approach. One of the most consistent concerns raised is that this bill takes that approach to decision-making. The focus of child protection must always be the safety, wellbeing and long-term outcomes of the child, yet the structure of this bill and particularly the open-ended nature of family reunification order extensions, being unlimited, place far greater emphasis on accommodating the needs and circumstances of adults rather than the rights of the child. Stakeholders have repeatedly warned that when systems prioritise adults over children, children become the ones that are left in limbo. That is why these reforms took place in 2014. This is why there was that reform initially, which is now being reversed, and that is the risk that is being embedded in this legislation. To quote the story of a kinship carer who wrote to our office – they wrote to us of their lived experience:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

After three years of exhausting court appearances, significant financial strain and deep family trauma, a permanent care order was finally granted for our grandchildren, giving us full parental responsibility. The journey to this point was harrowing. The word ‘reunification’ still triggers painful memories of repeated attempts to return the children to birth parents despite overwhelming evidence of harm. Each attempt failed, causing further distress to the children and wasting time and resources while we watched in disbelief as the system prioritised reunification over safety.

During these years our grandchildren endured supervised contacts that were anything but safe. They returned from visits traumatised, having witnessed drug use, violence and threats, including promises to kidnap and harm family members. Both children were born addicted and now live with lifelong disabilities caused by prenatal exposure, yet these contacts were deemed in the best interests of the child.

Reading this bill, which repeatedly uses that phrase, alarms us. Our lived experience shows that without clear safeguards and timeframes children remain in limbo, exposed to further trauma. No child should suffer what ours did.

These are the words of a kinship carer – her own words of her lived experience. This raises concern about calls for enduring reunification orders when there are experiences like this out there – and they are in the hundreds – from all of the different groups and bodies that have spoken to us. In departmental briefings it was acknowledged that some advocates even pushed for enduring reunification orders that would not require periodic review or extension. That proposal was not adopted in this bill, I do note, but its presence in consultation highlights the ideological framing of these changes.

For some groups reunification is viewed as the right of the parent, which is not a child-centred approach and is a matter of concern, as was raised in the lived experience of this specific family. Additional to that, there is also the concern of the long-term harm, backed by evidence, where research clearly shows that adverse childhood experiences are, if not the number one predictor, among the strongest predictors of negative life outcomes, including mental ill health and suicidality. Lifeline’s work and data around adverse childhood experiences is very, very clear, and that is why there must be a child-centred approach and why that is so important. A child-centred approach prioritises the reduction of uncertainty rather than prolonging it. With case studies, as we have seen and as I have just read out, the evidence is clear that the sooner a child experiences long-term stability, the better their health, wellbeing and life outcomes.

These adverse childhood experiences are what we must protect children from – they are the factors that it is incumbent upon us, as legislators, to protect children from. These are the adverse childhood experiences that lead to these negative life outcomes and negative health outcomes, which we are seeking to protect children from. Studies have shown that children who have been in permanent, safe and loving homes have had better short- and long-term outcomes for their mental and physical health. Each placement, move, that a child experiences reduces the likelihood – this is what research shows – of being in the typical range for physical, cognitive and socioeconomic development.

Additionally, another concern that we have on this side of the house is that a system in crisis cannot deliver stability. These changes are proposed at a time when the child protection system is in crisis. This has been reported on widely. There are chronic staff shortages, unsafe workloads, high turnovers in staff and unacceptable wait times for services across the state. In rural and regional areas in particular, families wait months, even years, for the very programs that are critical to reunification, including mental health support, alcohol and drug treatment, family violence interventions and parenting programs. Stakeholders consistently report that these delays create structural barriers for families that no legislation can fix. Extending the timeframes for reunification does not solve the problem. It is a bandaid on a bullet wound; it simply papers over the cracks of a system failure. Without the resources and capacity to support families in a timely way, these legislative changes will struggle to deliver real outcomes. What this bill will do is excuse the service gaps by changing the law. Instead of fixing the system that is in crisis, the government has used system failure to justify legislative change.

Parents often fail to meet reunification requirements because they cannot access services. It is as simple as that. That is a failure of the government, not of these families. That is a failure of the government to protect these children, to create these structures, to have these services ready to go, to support these families with a wraparound service, in a wraparound way, and to have a holistic solution. It is patching over the gaps of this. Changing the law to accommodate inadequate services does nothing to fix the root cause of the problem. It leaves service gaps in place and leaves children bearing the consequences.

Additionally, as I have noted earlier, it is undoing the reforms that were brought by a Liberal government. It directly reverses the 2014 permanency amendments that were introduced by the coalition to reduce drift in the system and ensure timely, safe and permanent outcomes for children. Those reforms set clear statutory timeframes, because the court was granting extension after extension at the expense of children’s stability. The reforms were child-centred and focused on long-term wellbeing. This bill removes those safeguards and reopens the door to the very uncertainty those reforms were designed to fix. Unlimited extensions of family reunification orders risk keeping children in prolonged states of uncertainty. Children need stable and predictable environments to heal from trauma, to heal from the vulnerable backgrounds they may have come from, and our concern is that these extensions will do the opposite. They will extend uncertainty, delay decision-making and expose vulnerable children to long-term harm.

Another concern on this side of the house is the removal of adoption as an option. The complete removal of adoption as a pathway is concerning. While the history of forced adoptions and stolen generations must never, never be repeated, modern adoption practices are entirely different. They are open, transparent and grounded in consent. Adoption can, in some cases, provide children with the lifelong stability and belonging they deserve. Removing adoption entirely reduces the range of pathways available to vulnerable children and conflates past wrongs with contemporary practice in a way that is inaccurate and counterproductive. Unfortunately, the government has repeatedly conflated historical forced adoptions with today’s consent-based open adoptions or simple adoptions, but they are very different systems. Adoption by known carers is the form of adoption that is active now. It involves the full knowledge of the child and young person of the situation and maintains connection with the family. In Victoria, in fact, an integrated birth certificate is available which recognises both the birth parents and adoptive parents in relation to legal relationships. It is not a replacement birth certificate. It does not sever the child from their biological parents, their cultural background or their community. In fact, further to that, in Victoria the option is available to dissolve adoption should this choice be one that they want to make at a later date. There is nothing hidden about this form of adoption. Instead it is about belonging in two families, with the benefit of stability in the current carer home and the added layer of legal permanency.

Evidence shows that the outcomes for wellbeing for children adopted from out-of-home care are favourable compared to those who remain in out-of-home care. I also have a short testimonial from an adoptive family which highlights the clear distinction between open consenting adoptions and others, and how positive they can be. The adoptive family wrote to me and said:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

My husband and I have adopted two children through local adoption in Victoria, now aged eight and five. We pursued adoption in the hopes to provide a family for children who needed one. Several years ago, we received a call about a six-month-old boy who needed a family. Shortly after birth, he had received a diagnosis of a rare genetic syndrome. We were given time to consider if we felt able to parent him, and we agreed that we wanted to move forward while knowing the journey may not be easy. Before meeting him we had the opportunity to meet his birth parents. After meeting us, they felt that we were the right fit to parent their son, and they gave us consent for the adoption to proceed.

Holding our son for the first time was one of the most memorable experiences of our life, and it was with great joy that welcomed him into our family. Over the past seven years his joyful and loving personality has been a gift to us. We have seen him grow and develop in amazing ways despite the limits of his diagnosis. Our lives and the lives of our community have been enriched because of him.

We see his birth parents and siblings every school holidays, and our son enjoys the connection he has with them. His birth parents bring a gift for him at every catch-up. We send through photos and regular updates, and we have mutual respect between our families. We will continue to support his connection to his birth family throughout his life, as we recognise the significance of these relationships.

Our second son joined us after being born into difficult circumstances, enduring a traumatic start to life. While helping a child navigate loss and trauma takes intentional effort and understanding, it is a privilege to help our son feel loved, safe and secure. We are committed to a lifelong journey towards his healing from a traumatic past. His birth parents have chosen not to take up the opportunity for contact with him. However, if at some point in the future they wanted to, we would support this connection. Part of our commitment is to write yearly updates with photos to store on file with Adoption Victoria to be available for the birth parents if they were to seek out further information.

We believe our sons will continue to thrive through our lifelong commitment to them, along with helping them to understand their history, culture of origin and supporting connection with their birth families. It is our joy to provide our boys with a loving family and we believe they both have a bright future ahead of them.

I know this family personally. This is a family where the mother of the family has chosen to give up her full-time work to be a full-time carer, to do everything she can to look after these vulnerable children that she has since adopted. These stories show the prioritisation of even the connection to the biological parents that they maintain, that they are so connected to. They make sure that there is that community connection and that cultural connection. I know the lengths that this family has gone to. But this is the story and these are the stories that children are missing out on by removing adoption from this legislation.

The government has cited four reports as the foundation for this bill. Yet their recommendations, that have been cherrypicked, ignore key findings, and that is a concern to us. The selective use of evidence shows in that whilst the government relied heavily on the ‘…Safe and Wanted…’ report, even though it was conducted only six months after the 2014 reforms commenced, the report itself cautions that its conclusions are limited due to the short timeframe and explicitly calls for a longitudinal study. The longitudinal study then took place, the permanency longitudinal study specifically, which found that the 2014 reforms improved timeliness and delivered more stable outcomes for children, yet this has not been included in this bill. Policy based on selective evidence is not good policy and certainly not good policy for these children, whose lives depend on stability.

Again I raise the fact that there has been no evidence of consultation with foster carers, permanent carers, adoptive families, kinship networks, frontline child protection workers or residential care providers. These are the very people who are tasked with providing day-to-day care for our most vulnerable children, and good reform requires broad consultation. Reform of this magnitude demands it. That is why we have moved this reasoned amendment in the house and why we will move the amendments as to the timeframe for review.

This bill has not arisen in a system that is functioning well. It has not arisen in a context where children are consistently safe, where early intervention is strong or where the support systems surrounding families are operating as they should. It has arisen because the systems that should protect children are overwhelmed, because families cannot access the support they need and because early years services, mental health services, housing services and family violence responses are all stretched beyond their limits. It is so important that we get this right. It is so important that we consult broadly. It is so important that we have the timeframe for review reduced so that we can look after those that are most vulnerable in our care.

 Natalie HUTCHINS (Sydenham – Minister for Government Services, Minister for Treaty and First Peoples, Minister for Prevention of Family Violence, Minister for Women) (15:17): I rise to speak on the Children, Youth and Families Amendment (Stability) Bill 2025. I want to begin by acknowledging the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin nations as the traditional owners of the lands that we are all meeting on and also acknowledging that Aboriginal children are still over-represented in the child protection system and that we must all work better together to close that gap so that families can be together.

This bill is an example of what we can achieve when we work together to support reform which will close the gap. I thank everyone that has been involved in contributing to this bill. I am glad to support the bill, which takes another step to support children and families in staying together safely. I thank Minister Blandthorn for her leadership and dedication to working with and supporting children and their families. The Children, Youth and Families Amendment (Stability) Bill will improve Victoria’s child protection system so families have a greater chance to stay safely together and to reunify. At its heart this bill is about putting the interests of the child first by maximising opportunities for safe, timely and sustainable reunification with their families.

The bill will ensure we prioritise stability over permanency and provide greater flexibility to family reunification orders. By doing this, we ensure that families have more time to make positive improvements in their lives so their children can live with them whenever it is safe to do so. We know that some families need additional time and support to be at their best to address intergenerational traumas. The bill will increase flexibility to these timeframes on the family reunification orders. It will do this by allowing the court to issue an order for up to 24 months in out-of-home care, followed by an extension of up to 12 months at a time where it is in the child’s best interest. These orders aim to reduce the prevalence of removals of Aboriginal children by giving more families more time and support to come together safely.

We know that the connection to a child’s birth family is absolutely integral to a child’s development, identity and belonging.

That is why this bill will remove adoption from the hierarchy of case plan objectives. By removing adoption as an option, we are more clearly prioritising working to maintain relationships with the child’s birth family. Cultural, physical and relational stability ensures children can have an ongoing connection to their culture, to their family, to their languages and to their religions. The bill will now ensure stability is prioritised over permanency by replacing the word ‘permanency’ with ‘stability’ throughout the act.

Consultation has been an important part that has led us here today. I know the opposition have quite a different view on this because they have tabled an amendment to that effect, but communities have been calling for these changes, and our government has answered the call through the introduction of the bill. First Nations organisations, such as Djirra, who work to prevent and address family violence have advocated for this reform. I would like to quote the CEO of Djirra Antoinette Braybrook. She said:

Closing the door on reunification after two years is punitive and causes significant harm to mothers and their children. In our work we see firsthand the impact this has on Aboriginal mothers escaping family violence …

And:

Aboriginal children should be with their mums …

The Yoorrook Justice Commission also considered the reunification of children with their families as an issue in their hearings. On page 226 of the Yoorrook for Justice report, it states:

… an appropriate balance can be achieved by reinstating the power of the Children’s Court to override reunification time limits where necessary. This should support appropriate consideration of children’s rights, including their best interests, without undermining the policy aims of the reforms.

Recommendation 25 of the Yoorrook for Justice report recommended that the Victorian government amend the act. At the outset this bill acquits this recommendation.

I want to just emphasise that whilst those opposite have said there has not been enough consultation, the government wants to reiterate the fact that there has been comprehensive feedback provided to the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing by the commissioner for children and young people, community service organisations, legal stakeholders and certainly from Aboriginal community controlled organisations. Specifically, the Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare coordinated sector input into responses to a discussion paper that were fed into this bill. There was also feedback from Anglicare, MacKillop, Berry Street, OzChild, Uniting, Mallee Family Care, Meli, GenWest, Safe and Equal, Kids First Australia, the Victorian Aboriginal Children and Young People’s Alliance and Victorian Aboriginal Child and Community Agency. I would say that is some pretty comprehensive consultation that has been undertaken.

The bill is consistent with the balance recommended by Yoorrook. It enables the court to extend the time provided to pursue family reunification as long as it remains in the child’s best interests, and that is embedded throughout this act. Yoorrook also found that access to critical services is a barrier to reunification. Access to services will be a factor that the court will have to give consideration to.

Whilst those opposite have liked to talk a big game on closing the gap, now is the chance to support legislation that will really contribute to closing one gap in particular, and that is target 12, aimed at reducing the overrepresentation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids in out-of-home care, a target that has been set at a reduction of 45 per cent by the year 2031.

This legislation of course follows many other reforms, and it follows the landmark Children and Health Legislation Amendment (Statement of Recognition, Aboriginal Self-determination and Other Matters) Act 2023, which came into effect on 1 July 2024. This nation-leading legislation puts Aboriginal communities and services at the centre of decision-making and service delivery. This government has backed this reform with the largest ever single investment to expand Aboriginal-led services and systems, with $140 million in the 2023–24 budget.

Through the recently agreed treaty we will see not only the transfer of decision-making and resources to the community to grow stronger but also a mechanism put in place to make sure that the gaps that exist between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Victorians are closed at a much faster pace than they have been over the last 19 years.

I would like to conclude by putting on the record this government’s commitment to improving outcomes for First Nations children in out-of-home care. We are committed to advancing self-determination and supporting families to stay together. This is a really important piece of legislation that is going to make a difference to the lives of so many families in this state, and I commend the bill to the house.

 Emma KEALY (Lowan) (15:26): I rise today to speak on the Children, Youth and Families Amendment (Stability) Bill 2025. This is a comprehensive and complex bill in that the issues that I have dealt with in my 11 years as a parliamentarian that involve child protection, that involve foster caring or that involve adoption, whether it is recent adoption or many decades ago, can and unfortunately, in my experience, usually do involve deep trauma. Children are never removed from their families unless there is a dire reason to do so, and it is very, very difficult to manage that. Whether it is child protection services, whether it is the family unit that is involved or whether it is the health services and the mental health services that do reach out and provide those supports, it is very difficult to minimise the mental harm that can occur when children have been exposed to trauma during those formative years. That cannot be ignored when we are making contributions to this debate today.

We are dealing with an enormously difficult situation where one size certainly does not fit all issues that arise. It certainly is a situation where I think everybody in this chamber would come to an agreement that we need to do whatever we can to ensure the safety of the child is put first and foremost. But unfortunately we cannot be idealistic about this and think that because a child is in this world and has a connection to a family that relationship will ever be normalised, perfect or even compatible or able to function, no matter how long a reunification process is open. Unfortunately, when children are exposed to trauma, sexual abuse, neglect, abandonment and not feeling safe and secure in their own family environment, there is no way that that can be undone. While I understand that in a perfect world there could be a way we could provide the mental health treatment, the health treatment and whatever other supports are required to help to build, mend and delete that trauma, I am not aware that it can be done.

While I understand the intent of this legislation, we do need to ensure that it is closely monitored when rolled out, and I assume the legislation will pass. We need to ensure that children are not being put at risk by seeking an ideal outcome that connections with family can be healed over time rather than trying to revert to a position where a child’s right to have safety and security on a long-term basis and a new forever home, with a side connection to community, is still allowable.

I understand that this is not ideal for different cultures. Over particularly the past few months – the past few years, really, through the Yoorrook commission – we have learned so much about Aboriginal people’s connection to family, which is much different than the family connections that we know and understand, and I absolutely respect that.

I am following the Minister for Treaty and First Peoples, who I acknowledge has done an enormous amount of work in this area. What she has sought to achieve is noble and is informed by the Yoorrook commission and Aboriginal peoples, but we also need to look at other aspects of evidence, of people outside of Aboriginal culture who also are going through the child protection system.

When you are working in the child protection system, it does not matter what your background is or what your culture is. You should not have child protection workers who are actively being predators and seeking to make contact with children who are on the child protection database. That is just wrong, and that is what we see under the Allan Labor government. We have seen media reports around this, where children who are in child protection have child protection workers who are looking to make linkages with them for the wrong reasons. That is disgraceful in this state. We have got situations where child protection has absolutely catastrophically failed to intervene when children were known to have been at risk – when they were known to have been exposed to drug use and abuse, when they were known to have been exposed to sexual predators and when they were known to have been pimped out by their carer at the time. We cannot talk about child protection without talking about the ugly side. In my view, I think that we will learn over time that the collapse of the child protection system in Victoria at this generation’s time will require a royal commission. I hate to think what exactly is happening within child protection, and we do not know, because there is such a lack of transparency with the Allan Labor government.

I do note that the Minister for Treaty and First Peoples went through an extensive list of engagement and consultation that was undertaken in relation to this legislation, and I respect that long list, which does show a level of consultation. But there was one key group that was missing from the list, and that is stakeholders who have lived experience of being a child in child protection, of living with a foster carer, of being placed with an immediate family carer or of adoption. We know so well the times that adoption has not gone well, and it was catastrophic for so many Aboriginal people through the stolen generation. We understand that and we do not deny that in any way, but there are different experiences for different individuals who have gone through those various pathways.

We should have the same respect for those children who have got lived experience of going through the system as for the stakeholders who operate the system, who sit above the system and do not understand what it is like to be in a position where the family unit, which is where you should learn to feel loved and safe and secure, is not there. When you are relying and falling back on a government system to be there for you, to catch you and make sure you have a genuine and strong pathway into safety and security, that is so important. That is in my view more important than talking about the processes. This is about the people. This is particularly about the children who have been failed in some way or another. It is not a situation that many people actually go through, but those voices must be heard. That is why I support the reasoned amendment by the shadow minister to ensure that lived experience stakeholders have the opportunity to have their say. They have something to give. So many times there have been decisions made for them without them. They deserve to have their voices heard now.

I have concern around the impact that taking away the opportunity for adoption may have on some children. There is no doubt that for some cultural groups that may be something that is absolutely not appropriate at all. But I know from speaking to some people who I know have been adopted that that gave them a sense of belonging that they did not have beforehand. It does concern me that taking away that option as part of the considerations may actually take away the opportunity for some people to have a sense of belonging.

As I said in my opening remarks, there is no simple solution to ensure that every child that is born in Victoria has a great upbringing, wonderful supports and a perfect family environment.

We know that is not going to be achieved, but we need to ensure that the government of the day can provide that safety net, that security, to ensure that when the family unit is unable to support a child, the government system is there to be able to provide a pathway to continue connection with their family – absolutely – connection with their culture and their religion and connection with their community but to make sure, first and foremost, that every child feels safe and secure and understands that they are loved and that they belong. That is what we should be seeking in all of this, better outcomes for children, rather than tweaking around the edges with processes. I urge the government to consider the reasoned amendment put, particularly around ensuring there is consultation with those with lived experience as a child in this system, before this bill is debated in the upper house.

 Eden FOSTER (Mulgrave) (15:36): I am proud to rise today to speak in strong support of the Children, Youth and Families Amendment (Stability) Bill 2025, a bill that reflects the very best of who we are as a Parliament and as a community. It is a bill that actually puts children first, listens to families and recognises that every child, no matter their background, culture, circumstances or story, deserves the chance to grow up safe, loved, connected and with a sense of hope. And it is a bill that reflects what so many families in Mulgrave tell me every week: that children do better when we keep them connected to family, connected to their culture and connected to the people who love them. This is what our community values, and this is what this government is delivering.

The bill amends the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 to ensure we give families more time, more flexibility and more opportunity to reunify whenever it is safe to do so. It places human rights, cultural understanding and stability at the centre of decision-making, and it reflects years of evidence that the current settings, introduced under the 2014 permanency amendments, have been too rigid, too limiting and, for too many families, too damaging. We are changing that, and we are doing it thoughtfully, carefully and guided by what is best for children.

These reforms did not materialise in isolation. They are the result of years of reviews, inquiries, advocacy and community leadership. They respond to the ‘…Safe and Wanted…’ report, to the permanency longitudinal study, to the inquiry into historical forced adoption and, overwhelmingly, to the Yoorrook Justice Commission and its historic Yoorrook for Justice report. Those processes showed us that strict inflexible timelines for reunification were disadvantaging families, particularly First Nation families, and were not always consistent with a child’s best interests. In some cases they were cutting children off from their culture, their kin and their identity, setting in motion a new generation grappling with disconnection and loss. In my former work as a psychologist, having met some of the victims of the stolen generation, I saw firsthand – and these were the children; they are now adults, but they were children at the time – what that did to them: the depression, the trauma, the transgenerational trauma that continued, the anxiety, the inability to hold down a job because of instability in their life. So we do have data from children that have been in these positions.

We cannot talk about child protection in this state without acknowledging the profound harm caused by the stolen generation, as I have mentioned, and also by forced adoption. The legacy of those injustices still reverberates, and the voices of survivors, advocates and Aboriginal community controlled organisations have been clear: rigid timelines, insensitive legal frameworks and Western notions of permanency have continued to echo those past wrongs. When families and communities tell us what is hurting them, we have an obligation to listen and to act. This bill reflects that obligation. It is respectful of culture, it is responsive to community and it is grounded in truth-telling.

One of the central reforms in this bill is the shift from strict, rigid timeframes to a more flexible child-centred approach to reunification. Under current law a family reunification order can run for a maximum of 24 months – an initial 12-month period and one 12-month extension – no more, no matter what.

We know life does not fit neatly into 12-month blocks. Trauma does not heal on a schedule like that. Services are not always immediately available, and some families, particularly families facing intergenerational disadvantage, mental health challenges, disability, poverty or racism, need more time and more tailored support. This bill removes those arbitrary limits and gives the Children’s Court the discretion it needs to make decisions based solely on what is in the child’s best interests. Under the new model the court can issue initial orders of up to 24 months, issue extensions of 12 months at a time and continue issuing those extensions for as long as reunification remains in the child’s best interest. This is not a free-for-all; it is a considered, structured framework. In deciding whether to extend a family reunification order the court must consider the history of previous orders and their duration, the extent to which a parent has engaged with support services and any barriers beyond the parent’s control that have impeded their progress, such as service delays or availability. This protects children from unnecessary delays, strengthens accountability for parents and for the system and recognises that sometimes the system, not the parent, has caused the delay. That distinction matters.

I used to work in a drug and alcohol counselling setting. I would work with mums or dads that had their children removed from them. Through no fault of their own, at times things get in the way. Sometimes things get in the way, whether it is processes, perhaps misunderstandings or miscommunications, and there have been times when there have been those miscommunications that have meant that their child has not been able to return to them. That is not necessarily all their fault. We need to consider these things for the child’s best interests.

Another profound shift in this bill is the replacement of the term ‘permanency’ with ‘stability’. This is not a cosmetic change; it is a philosophical change and an important one. Stakeholders have repeatedly told us that permanency has been interpreted too narrowly, focused on legal arrangements rather than a child’s holistic wellbeing, identity, culture and connections. The term ‘stability’ better reflects what children actually need. It incorporates legal stability, like secure long-term care arrangements; physical stability, such as a safe and predictable home; cultural stability, including ongoing connections to cultural identity, country, language, values and traditions; and relational stability, trusting, loving relationships with parents, siblings, extended family and other significant people. All four elements matter, all are essential to safety and all must be considered together, not one at the expense of others. This is especially critical for First Nations children, who are tragically over-represented in out-of-home care. It ensures that stability for Aboriginal children is understood in cultural terms, not just legal ones, and that connection to community, kinship systems, elders and country is treated as an essential part of their wellbeing.

The bill also removes adoption from the stability hierarchy, a change long advocated for by survivors, families, Aboriginal leaders and the 2021 inquiry into historical forced adoption. Adoption, particularly when pursued by the state, permanently severs a child’s legal relationship with their parents. That is an action that carries enormous weight and trauma for that young person and their family. Victoria’s child protection system should never again be used to pursue adoption as a case-planning goal. That is the clear message from reviews, inquiries and the community, and this bill reflects that message that adoption will no longer sit in the stability hierarchy. This aligns the law with longstanding practice, and it brings us closer to healing from the harms of the past.

I want to acknowledge in the last couple of minutes I have our frontline child protection workers. Their work is some of the hardest, most emotionally complex and most critically important work in government. Having, as I said before, worked in the field of psychology, I have worked closely with child protection workers. Having been a foster parent myself in the past, it is tough work – a child protection worker has it tough. Since 2014 we have funded 1180 new child protection practitioner roles.

We have invested $14 million in the 2025–26 budget to support workforce recruitment, kinship engagement, Aboriginal cultural support advisers and litigation support, and over six budgets we have invested more than $4.4 billion into the child protection and family services portfolio. That investment reflects our commitment not only to families but to the workforce that supports them. The evidence shows Victoria continues to lead the nation in key measures, with the second lowest rate of children in care, the highest rate of kinship care placements, the lowest rate of residential care use and the highest rate of home-based care. These outcomes do not happen by accident, they happen because this government prioritises early intervention and investment in what matters. I do not have a lot of time left, but this bill is important. We need to look after those most vulnerable, and this is how we do it. We give them hope – we give families hope – and when you give them hope, you see outcomes. I commend the bill to the house.

 Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (15:46): I rise to speak on the Children, Youth and Families Amendment (Stability) Bill 2025. Any step towards improving the lives of vulnerable children in care is welcome, and for that reason we will not oppose this bill, despite the fact that it repeals what the coalition put in place in 2014. At that time the coalition government introduced reforms to limit Children’s Court powers to stop children languishing, to ensure timely, permanent decisions and to give children security. This legislation is not the solution our child protection system so desperately needs. It is a gesture – well-meaning, perhaps, but one that barely scratches the surface of a system that is deeply broken. The Allan Labor government has held power for 21 of the last 25 years, and in that time Victoria’s child protection system has become a place where neglect is replaced with trauma, instability and abuse, and hope with life-long damage. That is the reality for too many children in care today.

This bill proposes to amend the timeframe for permanency from two years to whatever is in the child’s best interest. It sounds compassionate, but in practice it risks legalising indefinite uncertainty. I have spoken with foster families who have cared for children for five, six or seven years. Permanency is barely achieved under the current law. This change does not fix that. It simply gives bureaucracy more room to delay. Two years is already an eternity in a child’s life. Four years is a lifetime, and seven years is almost their entire childhood. A child has only a handful of years before adolescence begins to shape their world, and under this government’s watch that innocence is often being shattered far too early.

Let me share what is happening right now in our system. I know of a case where a nine-month-old baby is picked up five days a week in the morning by a different child protection worker and driven across the city for over an hour to attend a court-ordered visit with their biological parent. More often than not, and sadly, the parent does not show up. The baby spends hours in the car distressed, off routine and confused, only to be driven back and handed to the foster carers, who are doing everything they can do to provide love and stability. These carers witness the trauma. They see the regression, but they have no voice in the care plan and no ability to inform the court of what they observe. That is not a child-centred approach; that is cruelty sanctioned by the state, and this bill does nothing to address that.

We all want to see parents in a child’s life, but sometimes it is simply not best for the child. The government says this bill supports reunification and stability, but you cannot fix families by extending timelines and ignoring early intervention. I saw this firsthand as a registered nurse working in Aboriginal health. I went into homes, before school and after school, helping parents, establishing routines and supporting families before they collapsed. That is what real prevention looks like. When the Liberals were in government, Minister Mary Wooldridge funded programs that put workers in homes – not behind desks – to stop families breaking down. Labor cut those programs, and now they claim they are investing in prevention. But the outcomes, the reports and the shattered lives of children tell a very different story.

Let me tell you about one young girl, a 12-year-old, who asked for help but instead was torn from family, school and community and placed into a residential care facility – not a home.

I have seen photos inside that house of bongs on her bedside table and dog faeces on the bed. What is called care becomes surveillance – locked doors, stripped autonomy, no privacy, no friends, no education. Staff rotate like strangers, reading journals and policing emotions, while the child is told they are the problem. Within a year she was introduced to drugs, for reasons I will tell you about in a moment. She had two pregnancy scares by the age of 13. That is what care looks like under Labor’s watch. Isolation opens doors to exploitation. Whilst in care she experienced drugs, assault and rape. Men picked her up directly from the driveway of a state-funded unit. She overdosed, landed in hospital and thought of ending her life because the system keeps her alive but never safe.

She is now 17, and she has spent five years in residential care. She is traumatised, uneducated, unprepared and about to be abandoned into independence without basic life skills. I have spoken with this young girl. She is just a kid dealt a shitty deal. She overdosed again last week. The system that promised protection delivered exploitation, neglect and despair. This is not just this child’s tragedy, it is a pattern. Residential care has become the default dumping ground for the most vulnerable, producing children who are leaving more traumatised than when they entered – criminalised, exploited and at risk of homelessness or death. Last week her caseworker told me she was raped regularly. She said it is hard to stand by while the system fails her.

The state is pouring millions into a system that harms children, strips them of hope and leaves them carrying the lifelong consequences of systematic neglect and living in residential homes where staff – good, compassionate people – tell me they are not supported, not resourced and often not even permitted to intervene when children leave the premises, knowing they are engaging in sex acts with men – 13-year-olds, 14-year-olds or 15-year-olds. This is sexual assault and exploitation, surely, in anyone’s definition. I have read internal reports describing young girls returning drug-affected and angry, saying they were not paid for the sexual acts they were coerced into but that they do not want to report the coercion because they need the drugs. The police cannot do anything without a report, and the staff cannot stop the girls leaving. At the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee the minister said, ‘We can’t lock them in.’ Minister, no-one is asking you to build a jail; we are just asking you to protect the children being sexually exploited under your government’s care.

Residential care homes in Victoria have become feeding grounds for predators. Older teens introduce the young ones to the drugs and dealers and abusers wait outside the gates; everyone in the sector knows it. Workers document it and reports record it, yet it continues. One provider said to me, ‘You can’t say all the girls are addicted to drugs and are prostituting, but almost all are.’ Almost all – that is not child protection, that is systematic abuse. These children in this life, through no fault of their own, are living a nightmare. And what is this government’s response – spin and glossy reports. At budget estimates the government department claimed it was investing in addressing sexual exploitation in out-of-home care. Yet that same budget document admits that cases are rising, that demand for residential care is outpacing resources and that the government cannot even fill the positions of child protection clinicians and caseworkers. To make matters worse, the position of commissioner for children and young people, an independent voice for accountability, has been left vacant for months. Why – because this government does not want to hear the truth.

Two-thirds of the children in residential care end up in the youth justice system. This is not a coincidence. It is the result of neglect, instability and trauma inflicted by a government that has lost its moral compass. These are children who were supposed to be removed from harm and instead are being delivered into it. While the minister praises the workforce, let me be clear: it is not the fault of the frontline workers, the child protection officers, the carers and the clinicians. They are doing their best. The child protection system does not allow them to care the way they need to.

Foster families, who are opening their homes and hearts, are being treated as an afterthought, excluded from decisions. The number of foster families is declining, which equates to more vulnerable children in residential care.

If Labor respected these carers, they would listen to them. When a government knows that children are being sexually exploited, knows that drugs are rampant in the facilities and knows the predators wait outside its residential homes and still does nothing, that is a government that has lost its humanity. This is not about politics. This is about children – children who deserve love, safety and hope; children who are being failed not by bad parents but by a very bad system; children for whom the youth and family stability amendment bill does not address the deep structural failures.

I support the amendments introduced. We need to listen to those who have lived experience of this system, like the young girl I spoke of, and the legislation does need to be reviewed. This is not just a policy debate, it is a moral reckoning. And on behalf of the children – the voiceless, the forgotten, the innocent, the betrayed – I say to this government: you have failed them. You have failed Victoria, and history will not forget.

 Nathan LAMBERT (Preston) (15:56): I rise in support of the Children, Youth and Families Amendment (Stability) Bill 2025 and to oppose the reasoned amendment by the member for Warrandyte for reasons that I will come to, and perhaps to at least push back on some of the comments from the member for South-West Coast. None of us would deny the extraordinarily difficult circumstances that our child protection system faces. None of us would deny that, in all the complex decisions that are made within that system, they are often a choice between one set of difficult circumstances and another set of difficult circumstances. But I thought the description of what we are trying to do was ungenerous and did not grapple with the fact that we are –

Roma Britnell interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Order! Member for South-West Coast, you have had your turn.

Nathan LAMBERT: The member for South-West Coast interjects. We could stand up in this place and describe some tragic and awful circumstances of people with cancer. All of us know what that is like. Then you could turn around and say, ‘Oh, that’s the Victorian government’s fault, because why haven’t they looked after these people properly?’ I think there is a need for the member for South-West Coast in her comments to recognise that we are starting in a hard place on day one. If there were magic wands to solve these problems, the government would be doing it.

Members interjecting.

Nathan LAMBERT: I am not justifying it in the slightest. And that suggestion – through you, Chair – from the member for South-West Coast –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Order! The member for South-West Coast will come to order. Member for Preston, through the Chair.

Nathan LAMBERT: Through you, Chair, I am just suggesting that we are starting with things that are intrinsically difficult, and I thought that was not sufficiently recognised in the member’s remarks. As the minister noted in his second-reading speech, this is a bill that deals not only with child protection but specifically with those decisions that are made by the Children’s Court in relation to long-term care arrangements for the child.

I do want to acknowledge that before we ever reach that point, our child protection professionals have done an enormous amount of what is very difficult and challenging work. I want to make that point, in part because I think some of the commentary has been a little bit negative about the work they do. It is difficult work. The risk assessments, the information gathering and of course the engagement with families that they do is across some very complex matters. All of us will know that they do that also working with our maternal and child health system, they do that working often with professionals in the early childhood sector and they do it of course working closely with our schools and family service providers. I want to acknowledge that those professionals in those areas also support us in what we are trying to do to protect Victorian children. I was actually just speaking this morning to one of our schools about a number of child protection–related issues that they have there, and some specific work they are doing with First Nations children and children who have an interaction with the child protection system.

I think that all of us in this place know that if I describe the world generally, most people most of the time do not need any form of government support. There are some people who need a little bit of it, and there are always, at some point in time, a few people who need a lot of government support – intensive support. And we as MPs in this place know full well what that looks like because often here we are dealing with people who need a large amount of support. I just think it is important for all of us to recognise that child protection officers and child protection professionals are working in that area of people who need a high level of support every day of the week. That is of course why we as a government support them through the child protection wellbeing program and the child protection health program and why we support them with additional funding and policy reforms in their area, like the ones that we are bringing to the house today.

I will not repeat the nature of the three reforms that are found in the bill that we have in front of us. The member for Warrandyte covered them off in her remarks. But before getting into the details of those three reforms, I think there are two important points to make here. The first point that I would make –

The SPEAKER: Order! The time has come for me to interrupt business for the grievance debate. The member will have the call when the matter is next before the Chair.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.