Tuesday, 14 May 2024

Questions without notice and ministers statements

Ministers statements: child protection

Lizzie BLANDTHORN
Download page

Ministers statements: child protection

 Lizzie BLANDTHORN (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Children, Minister for Disability) (12:21): I rise to update the house on our continued investment in the child protection and family services system in the most recent budget. The budget papers clearly demonstrate the investment in outputs – in this case child protection and family services – through both budget paper 3 and the ‘Department Performance Statement’. Both of these documents, if you know how to read them, show that for the child protection family services output there is an increase from the 2023–24 target, which was $2.022 billion, to the 2024–25 target of $2.124 billion. That is an increase. Helpfully, this increase outlined in the DPS has a footnote to assist in explaining the target increase, stating:

The higher 2024–25 target primarily reflects additional funding provided for continuation of Government policy commitments and indexation.

I was therefore curious to read last week a press release from those opposite, which said:

Child Protection – cut by $141 million or 6.2 per cent

I was confused. How could that be? So I had another look at the budget papers, assuming those opposite did not want to be dishonest. If you look at the budget papers – if you actually know how to read the budget papers – the expected outcome had exceeded the 2023–24 target, but they ignored the footnote that explained why. For the benefit of the house:

The 2023–24 expected outcome is higher than the 2023–24 target due to additional funding provided for Government policy commitments including the Victorian Redress Scheme for historical abuse and neglect in institutional care and Civil claims costs for historical institutional child abuse and carer leavers.

This mistake could be excusable if the footnote was not on the exact same page in the DPS as the figures that they cited. But they could not read that. To assist those opposite, it is page 39 of the ‘Department Performance Statement’. As I said last week, those opposite must be missing Dr Bach. Not only was he an actual advocate for children and young people, but he could also read the budget papers. There has not been a cut to the funding.

Back to the top