Skip to Content

The state of child protection

By the Evatt Foundation

Read the chapter on child protection from the Evatt Foundation's report: The State of the States 2003, the 10th anniversary issue.

The State of the States 2003 report (100 pages) is available from the Evatt Foundation for $24.95. With the generous assistance of the State Public Services Federation (SPSF), this special 10th anniversary issue contains additional reports on the performance of the States over the past 10 years, as well as extensive reports on privatisation, child protection and corrective services policies.

If you wish to understand the purpose and methodology behind The State of the States, go to the background information on the report via the link at the bottom of this page.

For full information, see the report itself, which can be purchased from the Evatt Foundation.

The Evatt Foundation is the think tank of the Australian labour movement. It was founded in 1979 and named in honour of Dr Herbert Vere Evatt, one of the Australian labour movement's greatest statesmen.

The Foundation is an independent research organisation. It is not affiliated with any political party


The state of child protection

Introduction

Child protection has become a major issue in Australia as governments, communities and advocates attempt to respond in effective ways to more reporting of child abuse. Australia being a federation, each State responds within the constraints set by its history.Australia has recognised that child protection and welfare practices have significant effects on people as adults. We have recognised that some past practices are no longer acceptable; many practices have never been acceptable. Into this category we can put the experience of the 'stolen generations', and 'child migrants'.The Commonwealth has also played a role in heightening our awareness of child protection issues via their treatment of people seeking refugee status. We can add concerns with emerging policies such as curfews. In addition, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) reported early in 2003 that:

There are some major differences between jurisdictions in policies and practices in relation to child protection and these differences affect the data that are provided. The data from different jurisdictions are therefore not strictly comparable and should not be used to measure the performance of one jurisdiction relative to another.

This is disturbing. After all, an accident of birthplace should not affect the rights of an individual, or the responsibilities of the appropriate authorities.

Broadening our perspective beyond the children who are the subjects of protection policies, there are those who are charged with policy implementation. As we shall see, these people-many of them public sector workers-have experienced considerable increases in workloads, stress and responsibility over recent years. The provision of child protection services also provides an example of the impact of privatisation of human services via contracting to private providers-including church-based charities-and the return of responsibility to families.

Scale of the issues

Different approaches to child protection issues adopted by the States makes it difficult to accurately assess the scale of the problem. Chart 1 provides a necessarily conditional impression of the size of the issue. Despite the conditions which attach to these data, it is clear that there has been an increase in both child protection notifications and substantiations in most States in the last two years.

State differences

Some of the differences are:

  • Policy frameworks used by States and Territories in relation to notifications, screening etc. For instance, in some jurisdictions reports to the department relating to abuse by a stranger may be classified as a notification, while in other jurisdictions they will not.
  • Differences between jurisdictions are greatest in relation to child protection notifications, investigations and substantiations.
  • There are large variations across States and Territories in the types of care and protection orders that can be issued.

These significant differences reflect our federal structure. How they can affect children requiring protection was summarised by a Western Australian parliamentary committee in 2002. The committee listed the following problems:

1. The difference in child protection legislation between the various jurisdictions does not provide for consistent case support for the children who move between them.

2. A child protection order made in one jurisdiction is not enforceable in another jurisdiction to which the child has moved.

3. There is no capacity for child protection proceedings to be transferred between jurisdictions. The need for transfer arises in circumstances where a child relocates interstate after the proceedings commenced. The current process involves the withdrawal of child protection proceedings in the original jurisdiction and the re-commencement of the proceeding in the new jurisdiction-this is costly and time consuming.

The impact of these jurisdictional differences on our understanding of the issue can be seen in Chart 2 (based on data in Chart 1), showing changes in child protection notifications and substantiations over two years.

Model national legislation has been produced in an attempt to resolve these problems, an issue developed below.

How far changes to child protection policies have gone is reflected in Teachers' Federation advice to its members that 'It is unfortunate that a hug or pat aimed at encouraging or comforting a student may be misinterpreted by the student, or a staff or community member as 'unwarranted or inappropriate touching'. (http://www.nswtf.org.au/journal_extras/cpprotect.html)

Child protection staffing

Despite the large number of child protection reports produced in recent years, staffing data are difficult to come by. If we wanted, we could describe the absence of such information as 'extraordinary'. One of the reasons why staffing information is difficult to collect is that services are provided by at least three types of agencies: state agencies, community-based organizations (CBOs), and charitable organisations.

In the absence of such data, we are forced to rely on CBO employment data to get some handle on trends in the community care labour force. A recent report found the following:

1. Employment growth in direct service provision in non-residential care services was substantial between 1996 and 2001, at 88 per cent, compared to 8.7 per cent growth in employment overall, and only 5 per cent growth in employment in direct service provision in all community service industries (47,415 persons were employed in direct service provision in non-residential care services in 2001, up from 25,220 in 1996).

2. There was strong growth in all direct service providing occupational groups (professional, associate professional, and intermediate service worker categories), but employment of intermediate service workers increased most.

3. Females were 79.8 per cent of the direct service providers in non-residential care services in 1996, and 82.8 per cent in 2001.

4. Females were 79.2 per cent of social professionals and 85.9 per cent of intermediate service workers in non-residential care services in 2001.

5. The non-residential care services labour force is, on average, older than the labour force overall.

6. Although the number of Indigenous people employed in most occupational categories of non-residential care services increased between 1996 and 2001, the proportion of Indigenous workers fell; and

7. A significant minority of those employed as associate professionals and intermediate service workers in non-residential care services have a degree or higher.

Employment data on a historical basis would also be welcome. As noted in the privatisation chapter, changes in public sector employment are partly explained by the provision of services which used to be provided by public sector agencies now being provided by CBOs and charities.

Documents

Table listing some of the documents on child protection produced in recent years.

Organisation Date Title
Steering Committee for the Review of Commonwealth/State Service Provision 2003 Efficiency Measures for Child Protection and Support Pathways
Family Law Council (Federal) September 2002 Family Law and Child Protection
New South Wales, Parliament, Legislative Council, Standing Committee on Social Issues December 2002 Care and support : final report on child protection services, Report 29
Forde Commission of Inquiry into Abuse of Children in Queensland Institutions June 1999
August 2001		 Report to Queensland Parliament
Parliament of Victoria, Law Reform Committee May 2001 Review of Legal Services in Rural & Regional Victoria Report
Western Australian Parliament, Standing Committee on Legislation March 2002 Report in relation to the Child Welfare Amendment Bill, 2001
Tasmanian Commissioner for Children October 2002 2003-04 State Budget Submission

This is an impressive list of documents, and some of the documents are impressive. But none of them contains information on numbers of people engaged in child protection by sector. The reaction to the reports also illustrates differences between the States. The following State-by-State overview of the issues and government and trades union responses is necessarily brief. But it is also precise. Rather than trying to cover all the issues dealt with in the reports and elsewhere, the overview considers public service staffing issues in the context of mandatory reporting. Where other issues (such as funder-provider splits) emerge they are discussed, but always in the context of overall staff resources. The picture is not a pretty one.

Mandatory reporting of child protection cases has been introduced throughout Australia. Despite some debate, it is welcomed as a strategy to reduce the incidence of child abuse. But mandatory reporting also means an increase in caseloads. An absence of employment statistics makes it difficult to ascertain a precise picture of how great has been the caseload increase. However, there are indications that the increase in caseloads has been substantial. Government responses have varied.

New South Wales

Mandatory reporting was introduced 18 December 2000. The Legislative Council's standing committee on social issues was directed to examine child protection services in April 2002. The Public Service Association of New South Wales (PSA) made a submission to the inquiry in June 2002. The committee reported in December 2002, finding that the number of contact reports, from all sources, increased by 34,408 between 1999-2000 and 2000-01. Also in December 2002, the minister for Community Services reported that the number of reports to the department of Community Services of suspected child abuse had increased from 33,000 in 1994/95 to 160,000 in 2001-02.

In its submission to the committee, the PSA said that 'Whilst mandatory reporting has been a major cause for the drastic increase in the number of reports of child abuse and child neglect, it has served as a useful tool in identifying the true extent of child abuse and child neglect in our community. The only true response from any decent government would be to tackle the problem head on and provide the resources necessary to deliver the appropriate service'. The PSA recommended that additional '850 to 900' caseworkers be employed, and that supplementary funding be provided for ancillary staff and computer equipment. Members of the PSA had previously identified what it called a 'crisis' in the department and had taken industrial action (April 2002) to bring the crisis to the attention of the departmental management, the minister and the community; and to protest at dismissal action taken by management in response to publicity given to a number of child deaths which had occurred. There had also been instances of assault against frontline staff of the department.

The industrial action resulted in what has become known as the 'Kibble joint working party' (the PSA was represented). The working party reported in June 2002 and concluded (amongst other things) that 'There had been a significant increase in the volume of reports of children at risk of harm made to DoCS, and greater demands on caseworkers as a result of requirements under the 1998 Act, but staffing resources had not increased in line with this growth'. In December 2002, the minister announced that an additional $1billion had been provided for child and family services. The $1billion was allocated to 875 additional caseworkers (in addition to 130 which had already been announced), and $20million for ancillary staff.

The government's decision to increase the number of child protection workers was a good outcome. However, it should be acknowledged that the decision was made eight months after crisis conditions were brought to the Government's attention by industrial action.

Victoria

Mandatory reporting commenced in Victoria in 1993, and according to the Community and Public Sector Union of Victoria (CPSU/SPSF), has led to an increase in workloads such that there is inadequate supervision of junior staff. Department of Human Services staff have also been assaulted. Assault against frontline child protection staff in under-resourced and stressful offices arises again and again in the documentation. Goddard and Stanley reported in their 2002 Monash magazine report In the Firing Line: Violence and Power in Child Protection Work, that there was a 'startling incidence of intimidation and violence against child protection workers'.

The CPSU/SPSF was forced to deal with these problems by resort to workplace occupational health and safety provisions. The result was resort to the industrial commission by the Bracks' Labor government. The CPSU/SPSF was vindicated, with the department found to be in contravention of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The Bracks' government has been extraordinarily slow in responding. The department eventually engaged an additional 60 workers, and on 2 June 2003 the minister announced that an additional $100,000 had been provided for training of child protection workers. It was not enough. On 3 June 2003, The Age published a piece by Chris Goddard and Joe Tucci, respectively head of social work at Monash University and CEO of Australians Against Child Abuse. They wrote:

Victoria appears to be heading for yet another child protection crisis. All the signs are there; the pattern rarely varies. There are increasingly vociferous complaints that child protection is worse then ever. Child protection staff are expected to respond to unmanageable workloads. There are ministerial denials. Reports are suppressed or delayed and then leaked. Gradually the media becomes interested. Government panic ensues. Something will be done, whether it is well-judged or not.

Western Australia

Western Australia is the only State which does not have mandatory reporting of reported child protection cases. Nevertheless, the number of cases has doubled since 1996, with no increase in staff numbers since the mid-1980s. The resultant stress on staff resulted in industrial action with no positive result.

In 2002, the monumental (664 pages) Gordon inquiry report into family violence and child abuse in Aboriginal communities was released. The report made various recommendations in respect of mandatory reporting (especially in cases where children exhibited symptoms of sexually transmitted diseases), but remained silent on the general issue, referring to an inquiry into mandatory reporting for the child protection council (established in 1999). The report did say, however, that 'strategies Â… put in place to encourage reporting may increase case loads, and will often undoubtedly lead to a need for more human resources'. On staffing issues, the Gordon inquiry recommended 'the provision of enhanced financial and other incentives to retain experienced workers in direct service delivery, particularly in remote areas'. The inquiry also quoted, without demur, the CPSU/CSA submission which reported that workers were always operating in crisis mode as a result of staff shortages.

In November 2002, the government issued its formal response to the report. In respect of staffing, the government committed itself to 'almost immediately' employ 10 additional child protection workers, and place 8 specialist domestic violence police officers in country police districts (though it is not clear that these 8 will be new staff).
The government promised that in 2003-04 it would:

  • Construct and staff 3 multi-functional remote police facilities at a cost of over $6 million;
  • Employ an additional 15 child protection workers, increasing the number to 25 in all, at a cost of $3 million;
  • Employ 14 skilled Aboriginal support workers to provide practical counselling and assistance to vulnerable Aboriginal children and youth at a cost of $1.27 million a year.

Staff safety and retention faced by the health and education systems were also placed on the agenda. The government established an 'inter-agency working group to identify barriers and difficulties associated with staffing in regional and remote areas. This group is also identifying practical proactive strategies and flexible options for addressing this issue of staffing. The government has requested that this group finalise its work as a matter of urgency. It is anticipated that a status paper will be presented in February 2003'. This seems to have been forgotten, as there is no task-force report available. The government is also instigating a review of incentive arrangements in accordance with the Public Service General Agreement.

In July 2002, a group from the Department of Social Work at the University of Western Australia provided a report to the child protection council (CPC) about mandatory reporting. Extraordinarily, the authors claim that 'It has not been possible to calculate the exact number of people who have been involved in responding to this initial review of the evidentiary base for mandatory reporting.' We can only ask, why not?

Even more confusedly, the group recommends 'If there is a strong recommendation from the Gordon inquiry that the reporting of, and help to, sexually abused children (in particular minors) can only be achieved within a mandatory system, consideration be given to how this might be accomplished in all or in some part within the Health Act 1911'. It is not at all clear who is going to recommend what to whom, or when.

In respect of staffing under mandatory reporting, the report to the CPC is silent. This is remarkable, given that its terms of reference required it to 'consult with key stakeholders on the impact of voluntary or mandatory reporting of child abuse particularly in relation to the current situation in Western Australia and implications/impact of mandatory reporting of child abuse if it was introduced'. Clearly, mandatory reporting places greater demand on staff, and a failure to increase staffing levels in line with this greater demand can result in physical assault on staff. The only comment that this group can make is that 'Many of the practitioners who were interviewed individually or in focus groups talked about their reluctance to report to overworked DCD staff when indeed they as referring professionals often had more experience than many frontline DCD staff who were making the assessments'. There is no evidence that the group challenged this assertion.

South Australia

South Australia introduced mandatory reporting in 1993. In March 2002 the South Australian government appointed Ms Robyn Layton QC to head a review of child protection in South Australia. The review was released in March 2003, recommending that mandatory reporting be retained in order to send a strong signal that child abuse would not be tolerated. Child protection work is the responsibility of family and youth services (FAYS) within the Department of Human Services.

The review acknowledged the continually increasing workload dumped on departmental staff as a result of mandatory reporting. The review unequivocally recommended an increase in resources to the department, and essentially told the government (and Treasury) that the principle of cost-neutrality would not be appropriate to deal with the problem. As with all human services, an increase in resources means an increase in staffing.

In respect of who undertakes child protection work, the review found 'Volunteers within FAYS have been increasingly utilised to meet the needs of children and families, especially in the area of court-ordered access and transport. Minimal training is available for volunteers to assist them in these roles and responsibilities, and to understand the associated occupational health, safety and welfare issues. Volunteers are used increasingly in the role of 'social work aid' which could be expanded with the implementation of this review and therefore training for volunteers should reflect the complexity of their changing role'. The South Australian Public Service Association (PSA) submitted that community-based organizations (CBOs) were under-resourced; meaning that in many cases the CBOs could not cope with the sheer volume of the work. This turned the pressure back onto the department, exacerbating the stress already experienced by these staff. In light of the stress being suffered by CBO workers and volunteers, the review recommended that the department should assume-'resume' really-responsibility for cases of child abuse perpetrated by non-family members.

The 'funder-provider model' is a deliberately misleading term used to cover up the contracting-out of human services (privatisation). The review accepted the PSA's criticism of the use of the funder-provider model in the provision of some child protection services (for instance, foster care). The review concluded 'The issue of contract staffing has been a known problem for a number of years and whilst there have been efforts in recent times to improve this situation, the disproportionate use of such staff demands urgent efforts to control this practice'.

The government responded to the review with supportive rhetoric but the State Budget for 2003-4 showed a reduction in staff allocation for FAYS. The PSA responded by demanding 200 additional staff including 60 interim staff. After industrial bans were applied, the government offered $1.5 million (clawed back from other child protection initiatives) to provide an additional 25 ongoing positions-this equates to slightly more than one position per FAYS office. It is not just the PSA which argues along these lines. The director of the child protection unit at the SA Women's and Children's Hospital said on 18 July 2003 'children who are suffering repeated assaults, and so on, that aren't being picked up because of the lowering of resource levels, they're the ones I'd be concerned about' (ABC StateLine).

The South Australian government's response to an independent and substantial child protection report stands in marked contrast to the-albeit expensive-decisions made by the New South Wales government in response to industrial action around similar concerns. It is disturbing that in the 21st century an accident of birth inside one nation can still have serious implications for a child's health and safety. One can only stand amazed that a decade after the formation of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), such injustices are permitted to continue.

Queensland

In August 1998 the Queensland government instituted an inquiry to examine whether there had been any abuse, mistreatment or neglect of children in Queensland institutions, the Forde commission. The commission reported mid-1999. One of the commission's recommendations was:

That the Queensland Government increase the budget of the Department by $103 million to permit it to meet the national average per capita welfare spending for children, and agree to maintain the increase in line with the national average. The additional resources should focus on the prevention of child abuse through supporting 'at risk' families, respite care, parenting programs and other early intervention and preventative programs for high-risk families. (Recommendation 4).

In August 1999, the Queensland government published its response to the commission's report. It made no commitment to increasing funding to the level recommended by the committee. Rather, the government's response in respect of the funding recommendation utilised high-sounding but largely content-less terminology, referring to the need to increase expenditure 'in a budgetary context'. This phrase has been recycled in subsequent statements of the government's position.

In September 2001, the Queensland government published a Progress Report on the implementation of the Forde commission recommendations. The Progress Report said that 'Resources to implement a comprehensive reform strategy in the short, medium and long term will be considered in a budgetary context' (page 14). The Progress Report documented levels of government spending on the issue. It did not mention its achievements in respect of the national average, but did say that the government was progressing implementation of the recommendation.

The 2002-03 Budget contained the following:

An additional $188 million over four years will be provided to the Department of Families for a range of initiatives aimed at delivering better outcomes for children, young people and families. This comprises new funding of $148 million over four years, in addition to the final instalment of funding ($40 million over four years) committed in response to the Forde Inquiry. The Premier and the Minister for Families will launch the Queensland Families: Future Directions policy statement on 20 June 2002. This statement will outline the Government's vision for the Department into the future and provide detail on the range of initiatives to be funded as part of this package. The Government has now met its fiscal commitments flowing from the Forde Inquiry (i.e. exceeded the Forde recommendation of an extra $103 million per annum).

What additional child protection expenditure actually occurred, and did this raise expenditure on child protection to the national average? Analysis undertaken by the QPSU indicates that increased expenditure amounted to only $40 million. The difference in the two figures results from a difference in the method of calculation. The issue is simply this: do we count an extra $10 million in the first year of a four-year cycle as a $10 million increase in each of the three years? Or, does the initial $10 million increase create a new base-level of expenditure upon which subsequent increases are counted separately?

The issue is not a trivial one as it flows from the government's decisions to present more detailed forward estimates. It is worth expanding on the issue. The following Table provides the basic information.

. Current year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total increase
Government calculation $x $x+$10m $x+$10m+$10m $x+$10m+$10m +$10m $x+$10m+$10m +$10m+$10m $10mx10=$100m
Alternative calculation $x $x+$10m=$y $y+$10m=$z $z+$10m=$a $a+$10m=$b $10mx4=$40m

Governments use terms like 'an extra $100 million over four years' when they use the first calculation method, and 'an extra $10 million per year, year on year, over the next four years' when they use the second calculation method. Which method they use, and when they use it, is decided on the basis of political advantage.

In relation to claims about national averages, Queensland's per capita expenditure on family and child welfare, as reported by the Commonwealth Grants Commission, remains considerably below the six-State average and also shows declines in recent years (Chart 3). Whilst not all child protection spending is captured in this category of expenditure, whatever is spent elsewhere would need to be considerable to overcome this low level of direct expenditure.

The Queensland government's treatment of child protection issues also provides a good example of the imaginative use of language. For instance, the minister for Families, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy, Disability Services and Seniors issued a press release on 14 February 2003, the opening paragraph of which claimed that 'Welfare services funding in Queensland has more than doubled the national average over the past five years, according to a new report released today'. But the title of the press release ('Queensland's Welfare Funding Growth Outstrips National Average') and subsequent paragraphs raised questions about the veracity of the opening paragraph. For instance, paragraph 2 of the release states 'The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's report Welfare Expenditure Australia 2000-01 shows Queensland's recurrent funding growth far outstripped the national average'. Ministerial press officers or staffers who produce press releases are not, despite what we might believe at times, ignorant or stupid. Professional and experienced officers know exactly what sort of impression they want to create in press releases. They know that it is opening paragraphs which get the attention. The opening paragraph, which makes a claim about absolute levels of expenditure, is belied by both the title and other content of the press release: the press release is really about expenditure growth. It is only the opening paragraph which celebrates absolute levels of expenditure.

Are we being unfair, picking up on a minor matter? No. A paragraph embedded towards the end of the press release makes it clear that the authors of the press release know exactly what they were doing when they wrote the first paragraph. The minister is quoted as saying "It is true we have some way to go before spending matches that of some other states, but we are closing the gap rapidly Â…'. Are we perhaps being overly critical of a small discrepancy in what the Queensland government is telling us? No. What ministers authorise are carefully constructed documents designed to provide information which governments believe is important. It does not help our political culture, or our faith in politicians, if governments are so transparently misleading. This is especially the case when governments are issuing media statements about an emotive and disturbing issue like child protection.

The union acknowledges that the State's 2000 Child Protection Act is amongst the best in Australia, and it contains provisions for mandatory reporting. What concerns the union is the failure to provide sufficient resources to enable public servants to do their job (the Department of Families employs child protection workers). Chart 4 shows the number of family service (child protection) officers in each year, and also shows the number of child protection notifications and substantiations for the three years for which data are available. What are important are the shapes of the lines. They show that the rate at which the number of child protection staff is increasing lags behind the rate at which notifications and substantiations is growing.

Tasmania

On 21 May 2003, the second reading occurred for the Child Protection (International Matters) Bill 2003. The Act was assented to in June 2003. The Act deals with potential conflicts in jurisdiction on matters involving children in different countries. It brings Tasmania into line with the Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children signed at The Hague on 19 October 1996. The Convention deals with the extent of parental responsibility, custody rights, guardianship, and the responsibilities of relevant agencies and institutions in respect of child protection. Fortunately for the federal government, it does not apply to asylum and immigration.

In answer to a question during the second reading speech, the minister said 'my advice is that all States have been co-operating in the drafting of this legislation and we just happen to be better organised and ahead of the other States at the moment'. (Parkinson, Council Hansard, Part 1, page 1). How does the Tasmanian government's stated reasons for introducing the Bill, and obvious pride, align with other aspects of Tasmanian government policies on child protection, in particular the staff resources which the government is willing to allocate to the issue?

The Commissioner for Children's 2003-04 State Budget submission said that under-resourcing 'is a concern that we share with the [Tasmania Together] Board, as after an assessment of the situation, my view is that we have not adequately resourced the introduction of the new child protection legislation in Tasmania. It is also my view that this has significantly impacted on the ability of services to adequately deal with the expectations of the community that were raised by the proclamation of the [Youth Justice Act 2002]' (October 2002, page 6).

The union representing Tasmanian child protection workers has been raising these issues for some considerable time, resulting in action in December 2002. The union took action designed to assist the department prioritise its work, given its resource constraints. This action was taken at the Devonport office, and notification of the action made specific reference to unfilled positions resulting in unallocated cases. In January 2003, the union again highlighted resourcing of a problem which was growing, but still not fully appreciated. A survey of departmental staff, including child protection staff, showed that:

  • In the south, workloads had increased by 40 per cent on the previous year (backed-up by figures from non government services which show workload is up by 30 per cent).
  • The intake team was weeks behind in its work and only urgent cases were being done. There were up to 70 files on the unallocated list, including child harm cases.
  • In the north, the increased case load was creating unacceptably high stress levels in the admin team - exacerbated by having to deal with more aggressive clients. There too, the unallocated list has had child harm & maltreatment cases on it.
  • In the north-west, the new legislation has created an increase in paperwork therefore less time for field work.
  • Around the State, protocols are being breached due to lack of time & the urgency to get the case off the desk. Issues are increasing in complexity due to - alcohol/drug abuse, mental health issues and domestic violence (CPSU, Child Youth and Family Services Bulletin, January 2003).

The May 2003 issue of the Bulletin (which concentrated on the department's Launceston office) reported that since the proclamation of the 2000 Youth Justice Act, there had been a drastic increase in workload for all staff. Caseload numbers rose from approximately 20 clients in 1999/2000 to 45 in 2002. At the time, the community development officer had 62 clients on her caseload. This situation created work overload and as a result, extreme stress for the team.

As a result of community pressure, including pressure from the union, the 2003-04 Budget contained the following provisions:

  • $450,000 for an additional 6.5 child protection positions;
  • $450,000 to convert contract child protection officers to employees;
  • $1.6 million to cover increased costs (such as access visits, legal services and psychological assessments) for children in care;
  • $2.4 million for and $250,000 for the beginning of a rollout of an increased reimbursement for carers to commence February 2004, as part of a four year rollout of a total of $2.1million which is going to go to increased reimbursements for foster carers (Ritchie, Council Hansard, 28 May 2003, page 12. These amounts are not in the Budget papers, as they are aggregated into a larger category of expenditure).

The staff increases do not match the increase in notifications and substantiations shown in Chart 2. But it is not only for direct provision of services that more resources are required. On 17 June 2003, it was reported, without government contradiction, that a child protection case was not advanced in the State's north because of a shortage of magistrates (Wilkinson, Council Hansard, Part 3, page 85).

The failure of the Tasmanian government to allocate sufficient resources to child protection has created substantial community concern and has resulted in a new group calling for a full inquiry into child sexual abuse and child protection in Tasmania (Whinnett, 'Push for top level child sex inquiry' in Mercury, 2 August 2003). As with any other issue, there is a clear political (i.e. anti-government) element to the campaign. However, the information indicates that there is substantial justification for the campaign launched by the group.

National initiatives

At the federal level, child protection is an issue considered by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). In March 2002, COAG prepared and published a 'compendium' of Commonwealth-State ministerial councils. A number of these councils comprise ministers' conferences, reflecting the trend towards the establishment of super-ministries. Community service ministers are members of such a conference, and the compendium explains:

The objectives of the Community Services Ministers' Conference (CSMC) are:

  • to provide a mechanism for regular consultation on matters of mutual concern between the Commonwealth, States, Territories and New Zealand;
  • to promote a consistent and coordinated national approach to social welfare policy development and implementation; and
  • to consider matters referred by a Member Minister and to consider reports from Community Service Ministers' Advisory.

    • In 1999 a national agreement to overcome some of the jurisdictional problems identified above was agreed at COAG. Though there has never been a report issued by the ministerial conference, it is understood that Western Australia was the last State to amend its legislation to overcome at least some of the jurisdictional problems identified above. It was in 1999 that the Western Australian government introduced the Child Welfare Amendment Bill, 2001. The main purpose of the Bill was to 'insert interstate transfer provisions (clause 10), which aspect involves implementation of reciprocal legislation to facilitate a uniform national scheme'.

    In March 2002, all heads of State and Territory departments (with the agreement of their ministers) signed an 'Interstate Child Protection Warrants Protocol' (meaning that alleged offenders cannot escape court action by moving to another jurisdiction).

    The December 2002 COAG meeting resulted in a Communique which reads, in part 'COAG acknowledged that no simple solution exists to the problem of child abuse, and that responsibility for child protection rested appropriately with individual States and Territories'. Commonwealth-State co-operation was agreed for the protection of Aboriginal children. Subsequent to the implementation of the new legislation and the protocol, no post implementation report on practice and outcomes has been prepared or published.

    In response to developments at the State level, and to the need to adopt a national perspective on child protection, the State Public Services Federation issued a national bulletin in 2002. It called on all governments to 'accept their statutory responsibility to protect children by adequately resourcing the statutory child protection departments across Australia. Currently, they are failing to do this and are compromising their duty of care to workers and children'.

    Conclusion

    The rate of notification and substantiation of child abuse has increased in all Australian jurisdictions in recent years. Whether this reflects increased rates of child abuse, or indicates that people have a better idea of how and to whom to report such cases is not a question we can answer. In any event, and regardless of the causes, increasing demands are being placed on front-line public sector and community sector child protection workers. Government responses have so far been inadequate to deal with child protection officers' workplace issues, which may eventually come back to haunt each of the governments as occupational health and safety provisions are used to gain just compensation for the stress being suffered by the officers. The people who are ultimately harmed by the government shortsightedness in this fundamental area of government service provision are the children. These conditions are not acceptable and must be fixed.

    This paper was written for the Evatt Foundation by Stephen Rix, a former federal and state public servant who has worked for the trade union movement in Australia, South Africa and the Asia-Pacific Region. He has written extensively on the public sector and is currently resident in Bulli, where he is active in local council affairs.

    How do I get a copy of the full report?

    The State of the States 2003 report (100 pages) is available from the Evatt Foundation for $24.95.

    To order a copy of the full report you can contact the Evatt Foundation in the following ways:

    Related Articles

    For more information

    • Report Author: Stephen Rix,(02) 4268 1408 or (02) 9810 0265
    • Evatt Foundation: Fay Gervasoni, (02) 9385 2966 (w)
    • Evatt Foundation: Jeannette McHugh (Secretary), (02)9387 3199 (h)