Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the government response to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee's report Out of home care. It has been more than two years since the committee tabled its report. In that time, there is an issue in relation to out-of-home care that has gained considerable attention. While it is not directly referenced in the report and the government's response, I wish to speak briefly about the need for consideration to be given to extending options for continued support for young people and out-of-home care from the age of 18 to 21.

I recently met with Mr Paul McDonald, the CEO of Anglicare Victoria. Through the work of his organisation and many others involved in the Home Stretch project, there is a compelling case to be made to provide options for continued out-of-home care for support to young people who need it, to the age of 21. The Home Stretch is a national campaign formed to seek change to the current leaving arrangements for young people in state care. For too long we have been witnessing poor outcomes for kids being required to leave the care system on or before 18 years of age. Many who are required to leave their care setting at this age become homeless, involved with the criminal justice system, unemployed or a new parent within the first 12 months of being exited from care.

There are many reasons why change is needed. Findings from a 2009 survey conducted by the CREATE Foundation on care leavers demonstrated that 35 per cent were homeless in the first year of leaving care, 46 per cent of boys were involved in the juvenile justice system and 29 per cent were left unemployed. Furthermore, a 2008 study by the Care Leavers Australia Network reported that 41 per cent were pregnant during their adolescence and 43 to 65 per cent of care leavers have poor mental health outcomes, including depression, anxiety, PTSD, panic attacks and sleep disorders. I have been advised by some NGOs that young people were being groomed while homeless and on the street.

Extending care would require governments to provide support in the form of ongoing reimbursements to carers, case management to the young person and resources to access education or employment activity. Some models internationally require participation in employment or educational pursuits as a condition for a person to be supported in extended care. Other models provide financial reimbursement in the form of an allowance. Current government policies require the child protection system to begin preparing a young person to leave care as early as 15 years, while most would leave their care placement during their 16th or 17th year. In comparison, children residing at home in the wider community, with one or both parents, are remaining at home longer, with almost 50 per cent of young people aged 18 to 24 having never left the family home. Moreover, international research where care is extended until the age of 21 shows that education participation doubles and homelessness rates are halved.

While there are some available services to assist the transition to leaving care, too many young people are still struggling to cope independently at 18 years after a life in state care. The termination of care by state governments at 18 years is not consistent with parenting that is seeing most young people remain at home well into their 20s. As soon as a young person in out-of-home care reaches 18 years of age, the state, as the effective parent, abruptly ceases to provide ongoing financial, social and emotional support as a caregiver. While parents are increasingly providing support for their children well into their 20s, there are few supports available through governments to assist the young people for whom the state has assumed guardianship to help them into independent adulthood beyond the age of 18.

In light of the belated tabling of the government's response to the Out of home care report, it is timely and topical to have a public discussion about the extension of care to young people up to the age of 21. A number of jurisdictions outside Australia have implemented policies to extend care beyond the age of 18. In the UK, a program called Staying Put allows eligible young people at age 18 to voluntarily continue with support to age 21. Ontario, Canada, operates a model which provides a thick sum of money to support independent living to age 21. In California, state and federal funding provides for a flexible care model to young people in out-of-home care to the age of 21. Comparable programs are in place in other states across the US.

These programs have been evaluated, and there are important and long-term benefits. Extended care supports higher levels of engagement with education and improved employment prospects; improved housing stability and lower long-term reliance on homelessness services and public housing programs; improved physical and mental health outcomes, driven by improved access to care and early intervention; reduced incidence of alcohol and drug dependency; reduced involvement with the justice system, including reduced likelihood of being incarcerated; and improved social integration and civic engagement. These outcomes demonstrate the value of supporting young people and stand in sharp contrast to the approach taken by this government in the policies that have been promoted. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As we know, this week the government handed down its response to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee's Outofhome care report. Shamefully, it has been two years since this report was handed down and we are only just now getting a response to the very substantial issues that were raised in it. This is far too long, particularly considering there are recommendations in this report that need to be progressed through government. The report made 39 recommendations, particularly focused on a nationally consistent approach to the out-of-home-care system, noting how important that is. It asked for accountability recommendations for the Commonwealth and states and territories to ensure compliance with the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children 2009-2020, support and training for foster and kinship care, better care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, nationally consistent support services and training for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workforce, and for many other important recommendations.

This chamber and, most importantly, the many families and children who are impacted by the out-of-home care system deserve better. They deserve an explanation about why the government took so long to respond. They also deserve an explanation as to why the government has made so few commitments in that time to act on these recommendations. The response only notes most of the recommendations. It only outlines things the government is already required to do under the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children, and, in the main, it uses nothing from this report to say that, yes, there is more of an agenda that needs to be pushed here.

As my good colleague Senator Doug Cameron highlighted, we know that children coming out of the out-of-home care system are suffering from serious disadvantage—homelessness, contact with the justice system, poverty and more. What I find perhaps most galling about the government's response is that there was no acknowledgement of the personal experiences of young people and children in the out-of-home care system in terms of the impact the system has on their lives. It was an absolutely bureaucratic response that talked about recommendations, frameworks, state and Commonwealth government relations and so on, which are of course important, but there was absolutely no moral acknowledgement of the profound situation of young people in the out-of-home care system and what a significant thing it is to sever the relationship between a child and their parent and take that child into care because the child is deemed to be in an unsafe situation. It is a profound thing to do, and there is absolutely no acknowledgement of the experiences of young people in our out-of-home care system, particularly in terms of how they can at times be shoved from pillar to post by the foster care system in our states.

The Commonwealth government must play a role in making sure we give children and young people in care and those leaving care the support they need. Our approach to child protection at the community level, the state level and the Commonwealth level covers the whole range of needs. We have to accept that these children are no longer in the care of their families; they are effectively in the care of the state. There was really no acknowledgement in the government's response of how profound and significant a thing that is. Before their children even enter into care, we need to help families more with early intervention, prevention and family support services. Then, if the children do enter care, we need to make sure that they are safe, secure and protected in that care. When they are leaving care to live independently or to go back to their families of origin, we need to make sure that children and their families are given the support they need to thrive for the rest of their lives. Senator Cameron highlighted some of the particular issues that young people leaving care have.

I'd be the first to acknowledge that child protection is a complicated issue and that we won't change things overnight. We also know that responsibility for the tertiary end of child protection lies with the states. But the Commonwealth must be involved in national leadership on these issues. True leadership is needed if we are to see real change in these areas. There are things that the Commonwealth can do.

We in the Labor Party understand the need for a nationally consistent approach to child protection in order to best protect children. That's why, under Labor, we developed the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children 2009-2020. The framework commits state and territory governments to an ambitious long-term plan to promote and enhance the safety and wellbeing of Australia's children. Part of this plan is the National Standards for Out-of-Home Care. Labor members of parliament have continued to hold the government to account for the lack of progress under this framework. The government's response, which references the framework, gives little comfort that, under this government, we are making any real progress on these issues.

We are very concerned about the lack of progress made on developing a national approach, especially with things like working with children checks and a National Statement of Principles for Child Safe Organisations. I note, for example, that national working with children checks are something that the royal commission into sex abuse in institutions also called for some two years ago. They gave this government 12 months to implement the recommendations, and there has been no evidence forthcoming that anything has been done about nationally consistent working with children checks. It is a disgrace. The government have not demonstrated in any way that they are serious about taking action in support of protecting children in our nation. They've been too slow to respond to these recommendations, let alone act on them.

In this country child protection notifications are increasing and we need to work out how to do more. We hear more and more about the challenges and, sadly, the trauma that children experience in out-of-home care. I again return to the fact that what is most missing from the government's response, not only in the practical detail, is any recognition of the lived experience of these children—what they confront in their lives. We need to listen to the sector about what they think needs to be done to protect our children, but, more than that, we need to listen to the children and young people themselves.

Last month, Jenny Macklin and I held a meeting, as part of Labor's community sector partnership, with children and family service delivery organisations. We talked with peak bodies and leading researchers about how the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children can be improved. We remain committed to facilitating a national approach to child protection, acknowledging that this work must be done through COAG and in partnership with state governments. But it is not simply enough to talk about how we can take a national approach to protect the wellbeing of children. The government must show real leadership and action if we are serious about protecting our nation's children. As the shadow minister for families and communities, I certainly am dedicating myself to ensure that we do everything we can to keep our children in this nation safe.

Question agreed to.