Wednesday, 19 November 2025

 Nathan LAMBERT (Preston) (18:01): Prior to the grievance debate I was about to make a few points in response to opposition speakers on the Children, Youth and Families Amendment (Stability) Bill 2025, and I will return to those. First, I think it is very important to point out that the best interests of the child remain paramount in any decision that the Children’s Court makes with respect to family reunification orders, and that certainly will remain the case in the act as it would be amended by this bill. We spoke last week in this place on the importance of that best interest principle in the context of amendments to the national laws for the early childhood sector. It is a principle that is very close to the heart of all of us in the Labor Party and I know very close to the heart of the minister, and we repeat our commitment to it here.

Secondly, I would just like to briefly highlight the additional considerations that form part of the best interests tests that are set out in clause 10 of the bill. When making those more flexible family reunification orders, the court will consider the duration of any previous order, the extent to which a parent has engaged with services and supports and any circumstances that have impeded the progress of family reunification. That last factor is of course one that we must always be conscious of. In order for family reunification to occur safely it often requires that the parents of the child have meaningfully engaged with the appropriate supports, but in order for that to have happened of course those supports and those services have to be available and have to be available in a culturally responsive way, and that is something that we are also very committed to as a government.

Then, on a third point just touching on the subject of consultation, which is indeed the subject of the reasoned amendment moved by the member for Warrandyte, I think it is very important to be clear that this bill picks up on a considerable body of work, starting perhaps with the 2017 ‘…Safe and Wanted…’ report by Liana Buchanan and Andrew Jackomos. I had the opportunity in an earlier life to work with Andrew Jackomos. I know this is a topic that has been of importance to him for a long time, and that report did some very important work. There is also of course the 2021 Legal and Social Issues Committee inquiry into responses to historical forced adoptions in Victoria. This bill acquits recommendation 56 of that review. There are the 2022 permanency longitudinal study from the University of Melbourne, the 2022 Monash University Stronger Together report, a 2023 review of the permanency settings and of course the 2023 Yoorrook for Justice report, and this bill before us acquits recommendation 25 of that review. The member for Warrandyte in her contribution touched on the further history of these matters, going back to the discussions in this place during the life of the previous Liberal–National government. I say all that just to say that these are things that the government has considered deeply and the minister has considered deeply. She has consulted widely, and I do not think anyone familiar with this issue over a long period could suggest in any way that a wide variety of lived experiences and perspectives have not been considered. They have been documented and they have been highly appreciated throughout all those reviews and inquiries that have led to the bill that we have here today, and so I oppose the reasoned amendment from the member for Warrandyte on those grounds.

In wrapping up my remarks, I would like to stress that nothing in the bill that we have in front of us changes the vital importance of permanent care orders and indeed permanent carers for the children they look after but for our society more broadly. Obviously it is the hope, when a family reunification order is made, that the protective issues will be addressed and that the family will be unified. But as previous speakers have noted, that hope is not always borne out, and we know that permanent carers provide a safe, supportive and secure environment for many children who have endured difficult and complex situations in their young lives. And if it was not for the support, the generosity and the love of those carers, those children would face very different set of circumstances. So I just want to make absolutely clear our gratitude for the role that permanent carers play, and particularly I wanted to commend the role of Permanent Care and Adoptive Families, the representative body, their permanent carer members and their adoptive family members, who provide similar support and love. And I thank CEO Wendy Mason, chair Kellie Burns and deputy chair Chris Lockwood, who hails from Darebin, from our part of the world, for the role that they play supporting their members but also for the very important role they play in administering and delivering the flexible funding program, the PCA Families Helpline and the Better Futures program.

The member for Warrandyte did also circulate some textual amendments to clause 15 that adjust the review period, I think, from five years to three years. I have made the point in other debates that of course if this chamber wishes to return to any legislation, it may do so. I did feel that, having spoken in her remarks about perhaps different safeguards, certainly those textual amendments did not set out any, and nor did her speech, so again, I would oppose those textual amendments if we got to the opportunity to debate them at a later stage.

I just want to thank, in finishing, the Minister for Children in the other place for her work. I know this is an area and issue that she cares deeply about. She has got a great team and a great department supporting her. They have done some good and important work and very considered work on this bill. So I commend it to the house, and in particular I commend it to the house because ultimately – and I think this is a point upon which we are all in agreement – it is something that will act to support and protect vulnerable children, and that is one of the most important things that any government does.

 Chris CREWTHER (Mornington) (18:07): I rise to speak on the Children, Youth and Families Amendment (Stability) Bill 2025. This bill represents the most significant change to Victoria’s child protection system in a decade. It will have real consequences for vulnerable children and families across Mornington, Mount Martha, Mount Eliza, Moorooduc, Baxter and Tuerong in my electorate of Mornington but also across Victoria. Many carers and carers and families in our electorate already struggle with long waiting lists for support and inconsistent access to services, which means any reform must be carefully considered. This bill reverses a major part of the coalition’s 2014 permanency reforms, which were designed to prevent children from drifting in the system for years without a secure long-term plan.

What does this bill do? First, this bill replaces the concept of permanency with a broader and more subjective concept called stability, which includes legal stability, physical stability, cultural stability and relational stability. It also allows the Children’s Court to issue an initial family reunification order for up to 24 months, which doubles the previous maximum period and significantly changes how long a child may remain in temporary care. The bill removes the previous cumulative 24-month limit and allows unlimited extensions of family reunification orders, which means a child could remain in uncertainty for years. Adoption is removed entirely from the case planning hierarchy, which reduces the number of pathways available for children who need a permanent, secure and loving home. And the bill returns large amounts of discretion to the courts, which Parliament intentionally restricted in 2014 in order to protect children from prolonged instability.

On the history and background of this, before the 2014 reforms the system was in crisis, with the Cummins report showing children waited on average five years for a permanent outcome, which left many children drifting in care for far too long. The coalition reforms in 2014 deliberately introduced clearer timelines and a stronger focus on permanent outcomes so that children could achieve certainty sooner.

The permanency amendments longitudinal study later showed that these reforms were working by reducing the time it took to secure permanent care orders and improving stability outcomes for children. The government is now relying heavily on early reports that were conducted only months after the 2014 reforms began while overlooking the later long-term data that shows positive results.

So what are the key concerns? First, the bill shifts from a child-centred approach to a parent-centred approach. Children need timely decisions about where they will grow up and who will care for them because long periods of uncertainty can lead to trauma and long-term harm. Allowing indefinite extensions of reunification orders risks keeping children in prolonged uncertainty and may prioritise adult needs over the child’s right to stability and safety. Evidence from research into adverse childhood experiences shows that extended instability leads to poorer outcomes in mental health, education, wellbeing and lifelong opportunity. And we all know about the crucial development of children that happens particularly between the ages of zero to five and that children can lose their hope, their purpose and their chances to utilise their gifts in life without this stability and without this opportunity.

Second, the bill returns broad judicial discretion that was previously limited for a reason. The 2014 reforms restricted the court’s discretion because repeated extensions had been granted even when children were suffering from the instability that resulted. The experience with past bail laws shows that a very broad discretion can lead to outcomes that do not adequately consider community safety or victim impact. Without clear timeframes the child protection system may again allow children to drift, which was the exact problem that the coalition reforms were designed to fix.

Third, the bill changes the law to compensate for service failures rather than fixing the services. Families in the Mornington electorate and beyond regularly report difficulty accessing mental health assessments, family violence programs and drug and alcohol support within a reasonable timeframe. Parents often wait many months for specialist services, which means the delays are created by service shortages, not by statutory time limits. Instead of improving access to support services, the government is changing the law so that children remain in temporary care longer, which leaves children to bear the consequences of system failures.

Fourth, the removal of adoption reduces important options for children who need permanent care. Modern adoption usually is open and consensual and for some children provides a pathway to lifelong belonging, identity and stability. Removing adoption entirely from the hierarchy fails to recognise that, in certain cases, adoption can provide the best long-term outcome for a child who cannot safely return home and who wants the guarantee of permanent long-term care and to be part of a family. This change reduces the number of legal options available to child protection workers, carers and the courts when determining what is best for the child.

Lastly, consultation was narrow and did not include many groups most affected. The Labor government consulted mostly with legal and Indigenous organisations and did not adequately engage with foster carers, permanent carers, kinship carers, adoptive families or frontline child protection staff. Many carers in our community and across Victoria have shared that they were not approached for their views, despite having direct experience navigating the system with vulnerable children. Some organisations have said privately that they have hesitated to speak about this bill or against this bill because they fear losing funding or appearing unsupportive of self-determination frameworks.

On the local impact on the Mornington electorate, foster carers in Mornington, for example, have raised concerns that children already face delays in receiving assessments and support, which means extended timeframes and timelines will only increase uncertainty. Permanent carers in Mount Martha have told me that stability is essential for children who have already experienced trauma and that long waits for decisions only compound their challenges. Young families in places like Mount Eliza often struggle to access parenting programs, mental health treatment and alcohol and drug support, with many reporting wait times of six months or longer. Indeed community workers in places like Baxter, Moorooduc and Tuerong also report that service shortages make reunification slow and difficult, which shows that extending legal timelines does not address the real problem.

Across the electorate there is strong support for reforms that remain firmly centred on the best interests of the child and not on administrative convenience. On the coalition’s position, the coalition will not oppose the bill outright, but we have serious and carefully considered concerns about its potential to create poorer outcomes for vulnerable children. We indeed believe that amendments need to be moved in the Legislative Assembly, calling on the government to pause the bill until proper and inclusive consultation is undertaken with all the stakeholders, including children and families with lived experience. These steps reflect a balanced and responsible approach that focuses on protecting vulnerable children while allowing for proper scrutiny of the changes.

In conclusion, every child in Victoria deserves safety, stability, certainty and the opportunity to grow up in a loving, supportive and stable home. Children in Mornington, Mount Martha, Mount Eliza, Moorooduc, Baxter, Tuerong and across Victoria deserve a system that puts their wellbeing first and does not leave them in limbo or in the lurch. The government should address service shortages, invest in timely access to support and strengthen child protection capacity, rather than extending legal timeframes that keep children waiting for permanent decisions. Our position in the coalition is clear and principled: we support a child-centred approach that delivers stable, loving and timely outcomes for vulnerable children, and we will continue to advocate for reforms that reflect this priority.

 Ros SPENCE (Kalkallo – Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Community Sport, Minister for Carers and Volunteers) (18:16): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day.