Tuesday, 3 October 2023

Care leavers redress scheme

Matthew BACH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:47): (471) My adjournment matter tonight is for Minister Blandthorn, whose new title is the Minister for Children. Now, the action that I seek from her is to provide a full and comprehensive government response to a petition tabled in the other place by Mr O’Brien regarding survivors of voluntary placement who wish to be formally recognised as care leavers. I had some discussions yesterday with care leavers who are very keen to see a government response to this petition.

I was actually very pleased with one element of the changes to the make-up of the government following the resignation of Mr Andrews. Over a long period of time I have criticised the government on the basis that there had been a revolving door in the child protection portfolio. We had seen five child protection ministers in the short period of time that I have been the shadow minister, and my contention was that we were seeing such appalling outcomes for vulnerable children in our state: record numbers of Indigenous children removed from their families to then experience further trauma in the care system; huge rates of various forms of abuse, including sexual abuse of children in care; and record numbers of deaths because there was a total lack of focus from the government. So I was hoping that Minister Blandthorn would remain in this portfolio on the basis that we need some continuity, but also on the basis, to be fair, that I believe Minister Blandthorn to be a competent person and a hardworking person.

I was interested, though, to see the fact that her title changed. Now, I am not one to get into this sort of thing. I do not really mind if Minister Blandthorn is the Minister for Child Protection or the Minister for Children. I do not mind what she is called. But when I saw the announcement from the new Premier the other day I did think back to some of the comments of Minister Blandthorn in this place regarding my former title. I was the Shadow Minister for Child Protection but not the shadow minister for child protection and family services. I still had responsibilities for family services, but I was not called the shadow minister for child protection and family services. Minister Blandthorn was deeply troubled by this. On 8 February, for example, she said:

Dr Bach has written about early intervention and family support –

and that was true, I wrote about that extensively; it was good that she read what I wrote –

… but the opposition does not even recognise the importance of family services with the allocation of such a portfolio.

‘Who cares,’ I thought at the time. But nonetheless that is what the minister said. She went on:

Family services matter … That is why we have a portfolio for it …

Following the minister’s own logic, the rebranded government does not care about child protection or family services because those portfolios have disappeared. I was interested by that. Nonetheless I am very pleased that Minister Blandthorn has remained in situ, and I would like a response – I have no doubt she will give it to me – to the important petition tabled in the other place by Mr O’Brien.