Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

In supporting this motion also, I note too large shifts and trends in public awareness. The first is a fall in trust in institutions, and the second is identifying now, for the first time, the importance of providing every possible level of support, safety and nurturing for children. These two come together in this motion today. There were very, very good people in this place as recently as two decades ago, when many of these injustices occurred—and, to be honest, I confess that there probably are still injustices occurring around Australia, hopefully far fewer than we have witnessed in prior decades. I also note that internationally this issue of looking after children and high levels of institutionalisation are endemic around the world. In a large number of nations, the rates of institutionalisation are far higher than in Australia. Eastern European nations, for one, probably lead in that invidious ranking. We do need to identify for the first time, as I have said, the important role of nurturing zero-to-fives and, of course, helping parents who are right on the margins of being able to cope to do that.

Of course, Australia has changed in that time. My colleague the member for Swan was pointing out how few supports were available to young families a generation ago. We do now have far more generous family payments and supports for struggling parents than we probably did in those days.

But still, as the then opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull said, 'We believe you.' The stories that are told in institutions cannot simply stop at the institutions' walls. The institutions need to be open and permeable. We need to make sure that those concerns are heard—fully ventilated and fully explored—and, where we can, to act.

There is a bigger picture here, of course, and that is: just how much can the state do to step in to the lives of families and turn them around for the better? In many cases, I need to admit the fallibility of government—that we can only do so much. Government will never be able to kick in doors, walk down corridors and look into bedrooms and living rooms across the nation. We will, in the end, have to rely on higher levels of awareness, higher levels of reporting and more communication.

I note that last week there was White Ribbon Day, looking at violence perpetrated predominantly against women and children but recognising that anyone can be the victim of violence. It is simply not good enough to tolerate it, not good enough to brook it—not good enough to hear a cry and ignore it. For so long now there has been the sense that what happens in your own home is your own business, and, very slowly, that is being broken down because we are realising that the costs—the pain that is caused by this kind of behaviour and conduct—have massive implications, both for the individual and, self-evidently, for the state. One broken child will cost over $3½ million over a lifetime in welfare payments. It is unsustainable to simply think that that is the cost of running a nation—that that is the cost of doing business.

About five per cent of children are born vulnerable. By the time they reach school, that has increased to 27 per cent. I have asked this question in here before: what are we doing with our zero-to-fives to see that five per cent become 27 per cent on the day they enter school, many of them not knowing which end of a pencil to hold?

We must do better by pulling down those siloed structures in the zero-to-fives. Government was invented long before we realised just how important it was to look after these children, so we do not have a genuine holistic focus in the zero-to-fives. But slowly nations will come to the realisation that we need to refocus.

I accept that there are no spare dollars in education for those under the age of five. The previous government took really important steps with a biosocial and physical check for children 3½ to four years of age, but that is still 3½ years too late. We must move earlier, and that means more awareness and better reporting.

We simply cannot continue to expand child protection services; it is already a massive department. And to expect them to micromanage and intensively case-follow all of these dysfunctional families is simply a step too far for the state. So we rely on better reporting; we rely on better awareness. We need to make sure that one in five poor families can afford to get their children into structured early education, because only with those small snapshots can we see how those children are faring—can we hear the voices of families who are most crying out.

As a general practitioner, one might immunise a child at 18 months of age but then not see them again until the age of five; that is unacceptable. We are popping in when they have a sniffle, and, apart from that, not evaluating their benchmarks and their milestones and their ability to enter school. Improving these will help in this area. I commend this motion to the House.

See this speech in context