2016-02-12
Ms SPRINGLE (South Eastern Metropolitan) — My question is for the Minister for Families and Children. On average throughout 2014–15 about 17 per cent of children in child protection were not allocated to a child protection worker. Having unallocated cases means that children are not being provided with care by the department and their parents are not getting any services that will help them become better parents. But in 19 days, on 1 March, a reunification clock will begin ticking — a clock that gives parents just 12 months to prove they can parent, or their children will be removed permanently. Can the minister inform the chamber as to how many unallocated child protection cases there will be on 1 March?
Ms MIKAKOS (Minister for Families and Children) — I thank the member for her question. The member is essentially inviting me to engage in a bit of crystal ball gazing in terms of what might happen on 1 March. I just want to try to unpack her questions because she touched upon two different issues. One relates to allocation rates and the other one relates to the permanency changes that are starting on 1 March.
Can I just say in relation to allocation rates that the member would be well aware that our government has made a very substantial investment in the child protection and family services system — in our first budget $257 million of new investment right across the continuum of care — and a particularly significant boost to our child protection workforce. One hundred and forty eight new workers are coming into the system to respond to the increasing number of reports that have been coming through to the child protection system.
We have had a very significant number of additional reports over the last decade. The numbers have been increasing and that is due to the complexity that families are facing as a result of family violence and as a result of drug and alcohol issues such as the ice epidemic. Our government has been responding also to address the causes of these issues through the family violence royal commission, our Ice Action Plan and other initiatives that we have put in place.
In terms of the allocation rate, we have put in a significant investment in terms of our child protection workforce to be able to address these demand pressures. But, whilst we have been very transparent as a government in terms of providing data on the departmental website about allocation rates, the member is essentially inviting me to make a prediction about what the allocation rate might look like on 1 March. That is quite a separate matter to the permanency changes, because the allocation rate goes to new matters coming into the system in terms of reports and matters that are then allocated to specific workers to investigate further. They are not necessarily corresponding to cases that might be subject to the permanency changes, because the permanency changes that are coming in from 1 March relate to children who have been in the out-of-home care system, who are far more advanced down the track in the system than earlier in the stream and who have been in the system for two years.
The legislation that was introduced by the previous government and not opposed by Labor in opposition was about speeding up the process by which children can go onto permanency orders. That was designed to address the delays in the system and the fact that children were going through many placements over a period of time. The member would be well aware that our government made changes last year to that legislation to ensure that the Children's Court has a proper oversight role in terms of these new permanency changes. We reinstated the role and jurisdiction of the Children's Court through that legislation and of course we will be continuing to monitor those permanency changes.
I made a commitment that we would be undertaking a review of the permanency changes six months after those changes have taken effect. So we will be having a review later in the year, and I will be having more to say about the details of that review as we get closer to that period in time. Essentially the member is inviting me to make a prediction that I am unable to do.
Ms SPRINGLE (South Eastern Metropolitan) — I thank the minister for her answer. Many people and organisations in the child protection sector are worried about the possibility that the 12-month reunification clock will apply to these unallocated cases. If the clock is running while parents are not being provided with any services because their child's case has not been allocated within the department, how can parents improve their parenting capacity in time? Report after report has highlighted the massive problems in Victoria's out-of-home care system. Keeping children safe is not as simple as removing them from their parents, because in too many cases the department cannot keep them safe either. We need to give parents a real chance to address whatever issues are preventing them from being good parents. Can the minister guarantee that families will be allocated case workers before the 12-month reunification clock begins ticking on 1 March?
Ms MIKAKOS (Minister for Families and Children) — I think there is really a lack of understanding here in terms of what the allocation rate goes to. It is not about case workers who are dealing with the permanency changes. In terms of the figures that the member referred to and the allocation rate, it refers to matters coming in as reports and being allocated to child protection workers for investigation.
That is really at the very early stage in the process, and so the member is talking about matters that are much further down in the process. As the member knows, the legislation that we introduced last year restoring the oversight role of the Children's Court ensures that the court can ensure that families do receive the services that they require before the court would consider making a permanency order.