CHAPTER 5
FORGOTTEN AUSTRALIANS
5.1
This chapter provides a complete listing of the recommendations of the Forgotten
Australians report and the government responses. Recommendations that were
not considered in chapters 2 and 3 are also addressed in this chapter.
5.2
Many of the recommendations set out below did not attract extensive
comment or evidence through the course of the inquiry. There are a number of
reasons that this may be so:
-
the specific issue has been addressed or is for other reasons less
relevant than at the time of the previous inquiry;
-
the specific issue is a subset of a more general recommendation
that was commented on; or
-
the recommendation was rejected by the government and the
relevant issues are substantially unchanged since the time of the original
inquiry.
5.3
As noted in Chapter 2, the Commonwealth government has expressed a
commitment to review the responses to the Forgotten Australians report.
Statements of acknowledgment and apology
Recommendation 1
That the Commonwealth Government issue a formal statement
acknowledging, on behalf of the nation, the hurt and distress suffered by many
children in institutional care, particularly the children who were victims of
abuse and assault; and apologising for the harm caused to these children.
Government response
The Australian Government has great sympathy for those
children who suffered hurt and distress in institutional care. While it would
not be appropriate for the Australian Government to issue an apology for a
matter for which it does not have responsibility, the Government expresses its
sincere regret that these children were placed in situations where they did not
receive the care they deserved. The Government appreciates that many of these
unfortunate Australians and their families continue to experience the serious
personal consequences of their experiences of abuse, assault and abandonment.
The Government urges state, territory and local
governments, churches, institutions and community organisations to acknowledge
their responsibilities and to take action, where appropriate, to alleviate the
suffering of those who were in their care. In particular, the Government urges
a collaborative approach to assistance, through improved information access as
well as practical support for care leavers.
Implementation
5.4
The implementation of this recommendation is addressed in Chapter 2.
Recommendation 2
That all State Governments and Churches and agencies,
that have not already done so, issue formal statements acknowledging their role
in the administration of institutional care arrangements; and apologising for
the physical, psychological and social harm caused to the children, and the
hurt and distress suffered by the children at the hands of those who were in
charge of them, particularly the children who were victims of abuse and
assault.
Government response
This is a matter for state and territory governments,
churches and agencies to consider.
Implementation
5.5
The implementation of this recommendation is addressed in Chapter 2.
Addressing legal barriers
Recommendation 3
That State Governments review the effectiveness of the
South Australian law and consider amending their own statutes of limitation
legislation to achieve the positive outcomes for conducting legal proceedings
that have resulted from the amendments in the South Australian jurisdiction.
Government response
This is a matter for state and territory governments to
consider.
Implementation
5.6
Two States offered responses to this recommendation, noting that
limitations of the type that applied in South Australia before the passage of
the act in question did not apply in those jurisdictions.
5.7
New South Wales advised:
The purpose of the Criminal Law Consolidation (Abolition
of Time Limit for Prosecution of Certain Sexual Offences) Amendment Act 2003
(SA) was to abolish a three year time limit that applied to sexual crimes
committed between 1952 and 1982. There are no time limits on indictable sexual
offences in NSW. Therefore, the application of the South Australian law in NSW
does not seem appropriate.[1]
5.8
Western Australia advised:
The South Australian law referred to in the recommendation is
in regard to the statute of limitation in regard to criminal matters. In
Western Australia there is no limitation period for the prosecution of serious
criminal matters.
As there is no limitation period for the prosecution of
serious criminal matters in Western Australia, the recommendation does not
present an issue for this State.[2]
5.9
The Committee is not aware that any similar restrictions on the
commencement of criminal proceedings for sexual crimes apply in the other States
of Australia.
5.10
The Committee did not further consider this recommendation
Recommendation 4
That in recognising the difficulty that applicants have
in taking civil action against unincorporated religious or charitable
organisations, the Government examine whether it would be either an appropriate
or a feasible incentive to incorporation, to make the availability of federal
tax concessions to charitable, religious and not-for-profit organisations dependent
on, or alternatively linked to, them being incorporated under the corporations
act or under State incorporated associations statutes.
Government response
The Government does not support this recommendation. The
Australian Government recognises that the requirement for charities to be
incorporated, as a condition for receiving tax concessions, may be desirable in
some cases; however, the Government considers that such a requirement would not
be feasible on administration or equity grounds. In regards to charities, the
Australian Government has already taken steps to safeguard against the
potential abuse of the tax status of charities and has announced that it will
provide for greater scrutiny of the taxation concessions available to charities.
In addition, the Australian Taxation Office maintains a compliance program under
which organisations’ charitable status can be reviewed.
Compulsory incorporation of charities as a precondition
to granting tax concessions will add significant compliance and financial costs
to the sector as a whole. For example, not-for-profit organisations may need to
consider maintaining a constitution, appointing a board of directors, holding
annual general meetings and hiring a lawyer and an accountant to meet the
requirements of incorporation. These requirements can impose prohibitive costs
on smaller charities (such as locally based community organisations), which
currently do not undertake activities that may warrant incorporation.
Confining tax concessions to incorporated not-for-profit
organisations may draw public criticism that the Government’s tax concessions
favour larger not-for-profit organisations at the expense of the smaller ones.
Furthermore, such a requirement may result in reduced levels of charitable
activity across the community and community wellbeing more generally. In that
regard, compulsory incorporation may also create a distortion in the sector by
favouring those organisations that are sufficiently large or have the capacity
to justify incorporation.
Placing further restrictions on the sector by using a tax
policy instrument to achieve a non-tax policy outcome is likely to result in
unintended consequences that would be difficult to address. Other non-tax
options, such as requiring that certain governance arrangements be observed by
charitable organisations of a certain size, may offer a more appropriately
targeted means to achieve the desired outcome.
Implementation
5.11
The Committee's recommendation that the government examine the
feasibility of linking federal tax concessions to requirements for religious
and charitable organisations to be incorporated was aimed at ensuring that such
bodies are legal entities able to be held liable for crimes committed by their
employees. A current precedent of Australian law, known as the Ellis defence,
dictates that entities such as the Catholic church, which is unincorporated,
cannot be the subject of civil actions for the abuses of church workers. Ms
Angela Sdrinis explained:
The Ellis defence...is basically that in these historical cases
of sex crimes and, by analogy, cases involving physical abuse and deprivation
in an historical sense, the Catholic Church cannot be sued because there is no
legal entity that can be held liable for those atrocities—and I will call them
‘atrocities’.[3]
5.12
Ms Sdrinis identified the Catholic Church, the Uniting Church and the
Salvation Army as entities that, in her direct experience, have relied and
continue to rely on the Ellis defence to avoid civil actions involving claims
of sexual abuse of children. In contrast, other religious groups, notably
Anglicare and the Lutheran Church were incorporated and thus could be held
liable for acts of their employees.[4]
5.13
Ms Sdrinis compared the unwillingness of some churches to remove the 'corporate
veil' to other cases of corporate avoidance of liability and responsibility,
such as the James Hardie company's attempts to compensate victims of asbestos.
Noting that change was unlikely without government action, Ms Sdrinis urged the
Committee to pursue this issue as a priority.[5]
5.14
The Alliance for Forgotten Australians supported a continued effort to
implement this recommendation:
AFA supports conditionality of tax concessions, particularly
in the light of the legal manoeuvring by some religious bodies to avoid responsibility
for child abuse within their systems. Organisations funded by Australian
taxpayers must be fully and openly accountable to those taxpayers for their
actions.[6]
5.15
In relation to the government's response to the Committee's
recommendation, the Committee acknowledges the concerns about sector compliance
costs, particularly for smaller not-for-profit entities. Conversely, it is
unclear precisely what the 'unintended consequences' are that the response
indicates would be likely to flow from compulsory incorporation of charitable
organisations. Regardless, as noted in the response, such issues could well be
addressed by the application of thresholds determined by the size of entities,
or by the development of governance requirements that would not impose undue
compliance costs.
5.16
The Committee is not aware that the Commonwealth has made any further
consideration of non-tax options for ensuring that religious and charitable
organisations may in appropriate cases be held liable for the criminal actions
of their workers.
Recommendation 5
That the Commonwealth Government examine the desirability
and feasibility of introducing whistleblower legislation for the not-for-profit
religious and charitable sectors.
Government response
The Government supports this recommendation. In its
examination of the desirability and viability of introducing whistleblower
legislation to provide protection for those working in the not-for-profit
religious and charitable sectors, the Australian Government will need to
explore a number of issues, including the extent to which it is possible,
practical and appropriate for the Australian Government to legislate in this area.
Implementation
5.17
The Department of Families, Housing, Communities and Indigenous Affairs
(FaHCSIA) advised that it was not aware of any further action by the
Commonwealth on this recommendation.[7]
National reparation fund
Recommendation 6
That the Commonwealth Government establish and manage a
national reparations fund for victims of institutional abuse in institutions
and out-of-home care settings and that:
-
the scheme be funded by contributions from the Commonwealth
and State Governments and the Churches and agencies proportionately;
-
the Commonwealth have regard to the schemes already in
operation in Canada, Ireland and Tasmania in the design and implementation of
the above scheme;
-
a board be established to administer the scheme, consider
claims and award monetary compensation;
-
the board, in determining claims, be satisfied that there was
a 'reasonable likelihood' that the abuse occurred;
-
the board should have regard to whether legal redress has been
pursued;
-
the processes established in assessing claims be
non-adversarial and informal; and
-
compensation be provided for individuals who have suffered
physical, sexual or emotional abuse while residing in these institutions or
out-of-home care settings.
Government response
The Government does not support this recommendation. The
Government deeply regrets the pain and suffering experienced by children in institutional
care but is of the view that all reparations for victims rests with those who
managed or funded the institutions, namely state and territory governments,
charitable organisations and churches. It is for them to consider whether
compensation is appropriate and how it should be administered, taking into
account the situation of people who have moved interstate.
Implementation
5.18
The implementation of this recommendation is addressed in Chapter 2.
Internal Church redress processes
Recommendation 7
That all internal Church and agency-related processes for
handling abuse allegations ensure that:
-
informal, reconciliation-type processes be available whereby
complainants can meet with Church officials to discuss complaints and resolve
grievances without recourses to more formal processes, the aim being to promote
reconciliation and healing;
-
where possible, there be independent input into the
appointment of key personnel operating the schemes;
-
a full range of support and other services be offered as part
of compensation/reparation packages, including monetary compensation;
-
terms of settlement do not impose confidentiality clauses on
complainants;
-
internal review procedures be improved, including the
appointment of external appointees independent of the respective Church or
agency to conduct reviews; and
-
information on complaints procedures is widely disseminated,
including on Churches' websites.
Government response
This is a matter for churches and agencies to consider.
The Australian Government urges churches and agencies to respond positively and
compassionately.
Implementation
5.19
The implementation of this recommendation is addressed in Chapter 2.
Recommendation 8
That the Commonwealth establish an external complaints
review mechanism, such as a national commissioner for children and young people
who would have the power to:
-
investigate and mediate complaints received by complainants
dissatisfied with Church processes with the relevant Church authority;
-
review the operations of Church sponsored complaints
mechanisms to enhance transparency and accountability;
-
report annually to the Parliament on the operation of the
Churches' complaints schemes, including data on the number and nature of
complaints; and
-
publicise the existence of Church-sponsored complaints
mechanisms widely throughout the community.
Government response
The Australian Government does not support this
recommendation. A Children’s Commission or similar office may be appropriate
for state and territory governments to establish, given the primary
responsibility the states and territories have for child welfare, and that
decision rests with them. NSW, Queensland and Tasmania have Children’s
Commissioners, and they are regarded as performing valuable functions. The ACT
Government also plans to have a Children’s Commissioner. However, the Australian
Government does not believe there would be any benefit in having a National
Children’s Commissioner, as this would duplicate processes already in place. The
Australian Government does not seek to influence state and territory
governments regarding the establishment of state or territory children’s
commissions. This is a decision for each state or territory government.
Implementation
5.20
In the Forgotten Australians report the Committee concluded that
there was a need for whistleblower legislation relating to religious and
charitable organisations. This conclusion was based other the view that people
working in religious and charitable environments may be more vulnerable to than
private or public sector employees due to the nature of such organisations and
higher levels of financial and employment dependence.[8]
5.21
A number of submitters and witnesses indicated their support for the
creation of a national commissioner for children, including the Benevolent
Society and Origins Inc.[9]
The AFA also supported this recommendation, however:
...its role would need to be carefully defined if
responsibility for past wrongs and for adult survivors is to be included in its
mandate. The roles of existing State and Territory Commissioners with respect
to Forgotten Australians, and the relationship of those Commissioners with a
national office, would also need careful consideration.[10]
5.22
New South Wales also expressed concern that the creation of such a
position could lead to duplication and confusion, given the number of bodies in
place that are able to deal with complaints and allegations of abuse. These
include:
5.23
FaHCSIA provided an update to the previous government response,
outlining a number of executive and administrative innovations in the area of
child welfare and protection. This includes:
-
appointment of a Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and
Children's Services who has a 'key role in delivering children’s programs and
advising on children’s issues, including child protection';
-
undertaking development of a National Child Protection Framework
to help prevent abuse and neglect of all children and avoid the harm inflicted
on many children while in care; and
-
establishment of an Office of Work and Family within the
Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to give the Prime Minister direct
involvement in the formulation of policies that provide for the wellbeing of
children.
5.24
Further, FaHCSIA advised that the current government is currently
examining the merits of a federal children’s commissioner.[12]
Recommendation 9
That the Churches and agencies publish comprehensive data
on all abuse complaints received to date, and then subsequently on an annual
basis, and that this information include:
-
numbers of complainants and type of complaints received;
-
numbers of Church/agency personnel involved in complaint
allegations; and
-
amounts of compensation paid to complainants.
Government response
This is a matter for state and territory governments,
churches and agencies to consider. Privacy considerations would be paramount.
Recommendation 10
That information on the above matters be provided
annually (including any reasons for non-compliance) to the national
commissioner for publication in a consolidated form in the commissioner's
annual report.
Government response
See response to Recommendations 8 and 9. However,
national consolidation of data is possible through existing departmental
mechanisms. The Australian Government will discuss consolidation processes with
state and territory governments, churches and agencies if they choose to
establish data collection mechanisms.
Implementation
5.25
FaHCSIA advised that it was not aware of any further action by the
Commonwealth government on this issue.
5.26
A number of groups commented that there had been no progress on the
comprehensive publication of data on abuse complaints by churches and agencies.
Broken Rites submitted:
No progress has been made in respect of this recommendation.
Essentially, the churches and religious organisation focus upon keeping as much
information as possible away form public scrutiny. This has been their position
with respect to internal, civil and criminal cases.[13]
5.27
Mrs Gloria Lovely, Historical Abuse Network (HAN), advised:
HAN believes that the churches, as significant institutions
in society, should have to report about the complaints, internal processes and
outcomes annually to an appropriate statutory external body. There has been no
progress on these matters.[14]
5.28
New South Wales advised that the NSW Ombudsman publishes information in its
annual report on allegations of reportable conduct from government and
non-government agencies involved in out-of-home care and child protection.[15]
5.29
South Australian also annually reports data on abuse in care allegations
in its Review of Government Service Provision Report.[16]
5.30
Western Australia responded that this recommendation was a matter for
the churches and non-government agencies that provided institutional care.[17]
5.31
The Committee is not aware that the Commonwealth government has
discussed consolidation processes with any State and Territory governments or
churches and agencies that have chosen 'to establish data collection
mechanisms'.
Royal Commission
Recommendation 11
That the Commonwealth Government seek a means to require
all charitable and church-run institutions and out-of-home care facilities to
open their files and premises and provide full cooperation to authorities to
investigate the nature and extent within these institutions of criminal
physical assault, including assault leading to death, and criminal sexual
assault, and to establish and report on concealment of past criminal practices
or of persons known, suspected or alleged to have committed crimes against
children in their care, by the relevant authorities, charities and/or Church
organisations;
And if the requisite full cooperation is not received,
and failing full access and investigation as required above being commenced
within six months of this Report's tabling, that the Commonwealth Government
then, following consultation with State and Territory governments, consider
establishing a Royal Commission into State, charitable, and church-run
institutions and out-of-home care during the last century, provided that the
Royal Commission:
-
be of a short duration not exceeding 18 months, and be
designed to bring closure to this issue, as far as that is possible; and
-
be narrowly conceived so as to focus within these
institutions, on
-
the nature and extent of criminal physical assault of children
and young persons, including assault leading to death;
-
criminal sexual assault of children and young persons;
-
and any concealment of past criminal practices or of persons
known, suspected or alleged to have committed crimes against children in their
care, by the relevant State authorities, charities and/or Church organisations.
Government response
The Australian Government urges state governments, charitable
organisations and churches that managed or funded institutions to cooperate
fully with authorities to investigate the nature and extent of criminal
offences and to work in good faith to address outstanding issues.
The Australian Government considers that a royal
commission into state government, charitable and church-run institutions is not
appropriate. This inquiry has shown that there are a number of practical steps
that can be taken to redress the experiences of children in institutional care.
The offences dealt with under Recommendation 11 are
offences under state/territory law. Any investigation of the nominated
institutions is, therefore, a matter for state and territory governments.
Implementation
5.32
The implementation of this recommendation is addressed in Chapter 2,
'Judicial reviews and Royal Commission'.
Location, preservation, recording and access to
records
Recommendation 12
That government and non-government agencies holding
records relating to care leavers, implement and fund, as a matter of priority,
programs to find, identify and preserve records including photographs and other
memorabilia.
Government response
This is a matter for state and territory governments,
churches and agencies to consider. The Australian Government strongly supports
the proposal in principle.
Recommendation 13
That all government and non-government agencies
immediately cease the practice of destroying records relating to those who have
been in care.
Government response
This is a matter for state and territory governments,
churches and agencies to consider. The Australian Government strongly supports
the proposal in principle.
Recommendation 14
That all State Governments and non-government agencies,
which have not already done so:
-
provide dedicated services and officers to assist care leavers
in locating and accessing records, both government and non-government; and
-
compile directories to assist in the locating and accessing of
records relating to care leavers and the institutions into which they had been
placed.
Government response
This is a matter for state and territory governments,
churches and agencies to consider.
Recommendation 15
That a dedicated information and search service be
established in each State and Territory to:
-
develop a complete register of all records held by government
and non-government agencies;
-
provide assistance to care leavers to locate and access
records;
-
provide advocacy and mediation services to care leavers
accessing records; and
-
ensure that all agencies holding records identify, preserve
and make available all surviving records relating to care leavers and the
institutions that housed them.
Government response
This is a matter for state and territory governments to
consider.
Recommendation 16
That all government and non-government agencies agree on
access guidelines for the records of all care leavers and that the guidelines
incorporate the following:
-
the right of every care leaver, upon proof of identity only,
to view all information relating to himself or herself and to receive a full
copy of the same;
-
the right of every care leaver to undertake records searches,
to be provided with records and the copying of records free of charge;
-
the commitment to a maximum time period, agreed by the
agencies, for the processing of applications for viewing records; and
-
the commitment to the flexible and compassionate
interpretation of privacy legislation to allow a care leaver to identify their
family and background.
Government response
This is a matter for state and territory governments,
churches and agencies to consider. The Australian Government strongly supports
the proposal in principle.
Recommendation 17
That all agencies, both government and non-government,
which provide access to records for care leavers, ensure adequate support and counselling
services are provided at the time of viewing records, and if required,
subsequent to the viewing of records; and that funding for independent
counselling services be provided for those care leavers who do not wish to
access services provided by a former care agency.
Government response
The Australian Government notes that counselling services
are already funded and widely available, including to care leavers, and would
be appropriately used in these circumstances. The Australian Government has provided
one-off funding to the Care Leavers of Australia Network (CLAN) of $100,000 for
counselling support. In the longer term, this is the responsibility of state
and territory governments, churches and agencies.
Recommendation 18
That the Commonwealth request the Council of Australian
Governments to review all Federal and State and Territory Freedom of
Information regimes to ensure that they do not hinder access by care leavers to
information about their childhoods and families.
Government response
The Australian Attorney-General will raise this proposal
with his state and territory counterparts.
Implementation
5.33
The implementation of recommendations 12 to 18 is addressed in Chapter 3,
'Identification and access to records'.
Advocacy and support groups
Recommendation 19
That the Commonwealth fund a national conference of
service providers and advocacy and support groups with the aim being to
establish a professional national support and advocacy body for care leavers;
and that this body be funded by the Commonwealth and State Governments and the
Churches and agencies.
Government response
The Australian Government supports in principle the
proposal for a conference of service providers, but not with a pre-determined
outcome. Such a conference could identify ongoing needs of care leavers and
make recommendations about the most effective ways of meeting those needs. The
Australian Government is prepared to work with states and territories to
convene a meeting of service providers and will discuss cost-sharing arrangements
with states and territories. The Government cannot commit to funding of any
outcomes in advance.
The Australian Government acknowledges the important role
played by service providers and advocacy and support groups for care leavers.
The Government notes that it already provides significant funding for
counselling and support in the areas of child abuse and/or sexual assault.
The Australian Government considers that the
establishment of any national support and advocacy body for care leavers would
need to ensure that it does not duplicate services already available in some
states. A state-based approach to providing support and advocacy is beneficial
as it provides care leavers with the opportunity to talk to others with similar
experiences and with counsellors who are aware of the specific experiences of
children in those locations.
If there were seen to be a role for a national body, a
fair and transparent selection process would be appropriate.
Recommendation 20
That the Commonwealth and State Governments and Churches
and agencies provide on-going funding to CLAN and all advocacy and support
groups to enable these groups to maintain and extend their services to victims
of institutional abuse, and that the government and non-government sectors widely
publicise the availability of services offered by these advocacy and support
groups.
Government response
The Australian Government acknowledges the work CLAN has
done in bringing together the stories of the individuals and families who
suffered abuse and neglect in institutions. The Government commends CLAN for
effectively reshaping the country’s history by drawing the nation’s attention
to these tragic events. It is now important for governments, churches and
agencies to take responsibility for delivering positive and concrete responses,
and it remains to be seen what role CLAN and other support groups now have to
play in encouraging them to do so.
The Australian Government has committed $100,000 to CLAN
as a one-off grant for the provision of counselling services to care leavers.
The definition of any ongoing role for CLAN, or another national support body,
would be expected to emerge from the conference proposed in Recommendation 19.
Appropriate structures and sources of funding would be determined following
discussion of recommendations from that conference. There are other care leaver
support bodies, specifically providing services in some states to people who
were in care in each of those states.
While ongoing support for care leavers is primarily a
role for state and territory governments, churches and agencies, the Australian
Government will commit additional funding of $100,000 to assist care leavers
through support groups, to be determined in conjunction with the planning and
holding of the national conference.
Implementation
5.34
The implementation of recommendations 19 and 20 is addressed in Chapter
3, 'Role and operation of support groups'.
Provision of support services
Recommendation 21
That all State Governments, Churches and agencies provide
a comprehensive range of support services and assistance to care leavers and
their families.
Government response
This is a matter for state and territory governments,
churches and agencies to consider. The Australian Government strongly supports
a process that is based on an assessment of need and an identification of gaps
in existing services. These matters could be further discussed at appropriate
Ministerial Councils.
Recommendation 22
That all State Government funded services for care
leavers be available to all care leavers in the respective State, irrespective
of where the care leaver was institutionalised; and that funding provisions for
this arrangement be arranged through the Community and Disability Services
Ministerial Council.
Government response
This is a matter for state and territory governments. The
Australian Government supports the recommendation in principle and urges state
and territory governments to continue to ensure access to services is provided
for care leavers who have moved interstate.
Counselling services
Recommendation 23
That all State Governments, Churches and agencies fund
counselling services for care leavers and their families, and that those
currently providing counselling services maintain and, where possible, expand
their services including to regional areas. The counselling services should
include:
-
the extension of specialist counselling services that address
the particular needs of care leavers;
-
their provision to clients on a long-term or as required
basis; and
-
the provision of external counselling as an option.
Government Response
This is a matter for state and territory governments,
churches and agencies to consider. The Australian Government strongly supports
the proposal in principle.
Implementation
5.35
The implementation of recommendations 21 to 23 is addressed in Chapter
3, 'Delivery of services'.
Recommendation 24
That specialist higher education courses be available for
the training of health professionals in areas related to the particular
psychological and psychiatric effects of institutional abuse.
Government response
Universities are self-accrediting institutions that
decide the courses they will offer, within broad profiles agreed with the
Australian Government. Under the new funding framework that commenced in 2005,
there will be Funding Agreements with each University, specifying the number of
places across the discipline mix to be supported by the Australian Government.
In reaching these agreements, every year the Department of Education, Science
and Training will meet with each University to discuss their strategic
directions and plans for course offerings. This would be the stage at which the
possibility of offering this training might be discussed, assuming that they
are to be included in a health related degree. However, Universities decide how
the funds they receive from the Government and the tuition fees they receive from
their students will be used internally, as they are in the best position to
allocate funds in a way that furthers their strategic direction in the
provision of higher education.
The Australian Government will ensure that the Australian
Vice-Chancellor’s Committee is aware of the recommendations of the Senate
Community Affairs Committee in this regard.
Other higher education providers are autonomous
institutions, which determine their own teaching arrangements and course
curricula.
The Medical Specialist Training Steering Committee,
commissioned by the Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Council, is currently
looking at providing training for medical specialists, including psychiatrists,
which is more applicable to the range of health care settings within which they
will practice as professionals. This work is being done in conjunction with the
Royal Australasian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists who are responsible
for the development of training programme content. It will ensure that training
provided to the future psychiatry workforce is more applicable to the needs of
the community, including those members of the community who present to a range
of community based and acute settings for psychiatric treatment.
Implementation
5.36
FaHCSIA advised that it was not aware of any further action by the
Commonwealth government in relation to this recommendation.
5.37
The AFA observed that there was no evidence that the government had
acted on its commitment to ensure that the Australian Vice-Chancellor’s
Committee was aware of the Committee's recommendation.[18]
5.38
New South Wales advised:
While this is primarily a Commonwealth responsibility, this
recommendation is supported in principle. NSW notes that a workable outcome
would be to ensure such elements were included as part of relevant mainstream
educational streams.[19]
5.39
Western Australian offered in-principle support for the recommendation,
although also noted that universities and other education providers are
autonomous bodies that wholly determine course content.[20]
Health care, housing and aged care programs
Recommendation 25
That the Commonwealth and State Governments in providing
funding for health care and in the development of health prevention programs,
especially mental health, depression, suicide prevention and drug and alcohol
prevention programs, recognise and cater for the health needs and requirements
of care leavers.
Government response
The Australian Government, through the Department of
Health and Ageing, funds a range of health care, health promotion and support
programs, which are accessible to all Australians. While not targeted at care
leavers, these programs are accessible to this group. These include the
National Suicide Prevention Strategy, National Mental Health Strategy and the
Better Outcomes in Mental Health Care Initiative.
Recommendation 26
That the Department of Health and Ageing fund a pilot
program under the Aged Care Innovative Pool to test innovative models of aged
care services focussing on the specific needs of care leavers.
Government response
The Australian Government, through the Department of
Health and Ageing, acknowledges the potential scope to develop a pilot proposal
under the Aged Care Innovative Pool that would aim to test innovative models of
aged care services for older people with specific needs, such as care leavers,
whose care needs are not adequately met through existing aged care services.
Consistent with Program Guidelines that specify the arrangements for developing
innovative pool pilot proposals, stakeholder agencies can develop an outline of
a proposed model and project parameters and make contact with the Department.
More information about the Innovative Pool, including program guidelines, is
available from the Department of Health and Ageing's website.
Recommendation 27
That the Home and Community Care program recognise the
particular needs of care leavers; and that information about the program be
widely disseminated to care leaver support and advocacy groups in all States.
Government response
This is a matter for state and territory governments. The
Australian Government, through the Department of Health and Ageing, provides
funding for the Home and Community Care (HACC) program, which is accessible to
all Australians. The dissemination of information about state and regional
specific programs funded under the HACC program is a state and territory
government responsibility.
Recommendation 28
That the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program
recognise the particular needs of care leavers; and that:
Government response
The Government supports this recommendation in principle.
Data collection on the use of the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program
(SAAP) by care leavers is currently being investigated by the SAAP program’s
Information Sub Committee.
Information on SAAP services may be of interest to care
leaver support and advocacy groups, and such information will be made available
through the Department of Family and Community Services. However, SAAP is a
crisis response program for people who are homeless or about to become
homeless. Support groups should familiarise themselves with the range of
programs available for this particular client group which aim to prevent them
from falling into crisis.
Education
Recommendation 29
That the Commonwealth and State Governments widely
publicise the availability of adult literacy and numeracy services and
associated adult education courses to care leavers and care leaver support
groups.
Government response
The Australian Government supports this recommendation.
While funding of Adult and Community Education (ACE) provision is a State and
Territory Government responsibility, from 1 July 2005 the Australian Government
(through the Department of Education, Science and Training) will provide $1.105
million to Adult Learning Australia (ALA) to undertake activities associated
with adult learning. Part of this funding ($730,000) supports the promotion of
adult learning, research and other activities. An additional $375,000 is
provided to ALA to distribute to the States and Territories for activities
associated with Adult Learners’ Week.
The Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and
Training liaises with State Training Authorities and with peak bodies, such as
the Australian Council for Adult Literacy (ACAL) and ALA, and will seek their
support to further publicise the availability of adult literacy and numeracy
courses and associated education courses to care leavers and care leaver
support groups. The Department of Education, Science and Training also funds
the Reading Writing Hotline which directs callers to their nearest literacy
training provider and will ask ALA to further publicise it.
State and Territory Governments also provide general
education courses, which largely consist of literacy and numeracy training. The
two Australian Government programmes which focus on literacy and numeracy, the
Language, Literacy and Numeracy Programme (LLNP) and the Workplace English
Language and Literacy Programme (WELL), target quite specific groups –
jobseekers and those in employment respectively – and are not programmes that
care givers or care agencies can refer people to. These two programmes are,
however, widely publicised through several different methods and are well known
throughout the adult and vocational education fields.
Recommendation 30
That State Governments investigate options for
alternative entry pathways to higher education courses for ex-residents of
institutions and their children.
Government response
This is a matter for state and territory governments to
consider.
Implementation
5.40
The implementation of recommendations 25 to 30 is addressed in Chapter
3, 'Delivery of services'.
Data collection
Recommendation 31
That the Commonwealth, in conjunction with the States,
develop procedures for the collection of data on people who have been in care
on forms that are already used to elicit client information such as Medicare
and Centrelink forms and admission forms to prisons, mental health care facilities
and aged care facilities.
Government response
The Australian Government will examine what the
possibilities are of collecting information on existing forms. Not all
situations will be appropriate. Collection of this type of information on
Medicare forms is not supported. Access to such information through Medicare
forms would infringe the Privacy Act 1988, as such collection is not a
legislated purpose nor covered in the Information Privacy Principle 2 pathway
as printed on the Medicare claim form. Further, section 130 of the Health Insurance
Act 1973 would prevent any such disclosure. The inclusion of specific questions
on Centrelink forms would only be appropriate if programs were specifically
tailored for, or offered particular services to, care leavers. This
recommendation will be revisited if specific programs or services are developed
in the future that target care leavers as a distinct group.
This is a matter for state and territory governments to
consider also.
Recommendation 32
That Commonwealth and State programs across a range of
social policy areas, including health and aged care and social welfare services
generally, explicitly recognise care leavers as a sub-group with specific
requirements in the publications and other material disseminated about
programs.
Government response
The Australian Government recognises the issues faced by
care leavers but does not endorse the recommendation to explicitly recognise
care leavers as a sub-group with specific requirements in publications and
public information materials. Australian Government departments will consider
and address, where appropriate, the special needs of care leavers with regard
to information and programs that specifically address the needs and
circumstances of that group.
Implementation
5.41
Despite the government's undertaking to examine the possibilities of
collecting information on care leavers on existing forms, FaHCSIA advised that
it was not aware of any further action by the Commonwealth government in
relation to these recommendations.
5.42
On the issue of data collection, Mr John Murray, Foundation Member,
Positive Justice Centre, submitted:
Certainly nothing has progressed with what I consider to be
the very important recommendations dealing with data collection. A great deal
of very important information could be discovered by Government and NGO
agencies collecting data regarding the child welfare experiences of their
clients.[21]
5.43
Broken Rites commented that data collection on care leavers was still a
worthwhile goal:
This is a very important recommendation and yet apparently no
progress has been made despite the fact that it should not be difficult to make
some simple process changes. The benefit from implementing the recommendation
is that it should enable various parts of the Australian government to get
reasonably accurate data of the cost of various services that are accessed by
Forgotten Australians. In view of the high dependency needs of these people in
out society, these costs are probably very high. Furthermore, in the present
vacuum in terms of data, government has know way of determining whether current
services are effective and whether more client-specific services would result
in better outcomes for Forgotten Australians.[22]
5.44
In relation to the specific rejection of using Centrelink forms to
collect data on care leavers, Miss Eris Harrison, Senior Policy Manager, AFA,
observed that there was a circular element to the government response:
[The government's response was:] ‘Why would we collect data
when there are no reasons for collecting it, in the sense that there are no
targeted services?’ That is a circular argument to me...If you do not collect the
data, you do not know how badly the services are needed and you do not
understand the multiplicity of barriers to economic and social participation
that that this group faces.[23]
5.45
Dr Joanna Penglase, Co-founder and Project Officer, CLAN, suggested that
other forms could be used to gather such information, such as the Census form.[24]
5.46
However, Western Australia rejected this recommendation on the basis of
privacy concerns and doubts about the efficacy of such an approach:
The Western Australian Government does not support the
identification of people who have been in care on various admission forms and
notes that issues of privacy, consent and data comparability would be
significant impediments to obtaining meaningful data. It is acknowledged that
former residents may be reluctant to identify themselves on service application
and admission forms. The purpose of collecting this information, as stated in
the Senate Committee's
report is to inform policy makers about services and assistance required
for care leavers. This information could be obtained through research on
specific areas of relevance to former residents.[25]
5.47
A number of submissions also disagreed with recommendation 32 that care
leavers be recognised as an explicit sub-group in publications and other
material disseminated across a range of policy programs. Origins Inc. advised:
Origins does not endorse clients being treated as a sub-group.
Services to clients should be specific but not discriminatory as in making
clients feel lesser than the ‘accepted norm’[26]
5.48
The Tasmanian government also rejected this recommendation:
The number of care leavers in Australia does not warrant the
creation of specialised services and to create a sub group in these
circumstances would run the risk of care leavers facing further discrimination.
Services offered to care leavers need to be responsive,
non-discriminatory and prioritised in terms of those in the highest need, it is
felt that in Tasmania appropriate and effective support can be provided to a
care leavers [sic] from within existing services.[27]
5.49
Similarly, Western Australia advised:
Western Australia does not support the recommendation to
explicitly recognise care leavers as a sub-group with specific requirements in
publications and other materials. Not all care leavers would wish to be specifically
recognised as such.[28]
Whole of government approach to program and service
delivery
Recommendation 33
That the Commonwealth and the States commit, through the
Council of Australian Governments, to implementing a whole of government
approach to the provision of programs and services for care leavers across
policy areas such as health, housing and welfare and community services and
other relevant policy areas.
Government response
The Australian Government believes that these issues are
worthy of further discussion but does not support referral to COAG. The
Australian Government will commit to a whole of government approach through
relevant Ministers’ Conferences, including the Community Services Ministers and
the Health Ministers Councils. Appropriate strategies will be developed for
government consideration.
Implementation
5.50
FaHCSIA advised that it was not aware of any further action by the
Commonwealth on this recommendation.
5.51
The Committee notes that the coordination of services to care leavers
nationally involving all levels of government is a consistent theme across all
of the recommendations of the Forgotten Australians report, particularly
those relating issues to delivery of services, identification and access to
records and the role of operation of support groups. These are discussed in
Chapter 3.
Recognition through memorials and exhibitions
Recommendation 34
That the Commonwealth and State Governments, in
conjunction with the Churches and agencies, provide funding for the erection of
suitable memorials commemorating care leavers. Where possible, memorials could
take the form of:
-
memorial gardens constructed in conjunction with local
councils;
-
the placement of plaques at the site of former institutions;
and/or
-
the construction of heritage centres on the site of former
institutions.
The Committee further recommends that the appropriate
form and location of memorials should be determined after local consultation
with care leavers and their support and advocacy groups.
Government response
The Government supports the concept of memorials to
commemorate the experiences of children in institutional care as an appropriate
way to acknowledge past injustices. The Government will contribute funding of
up to a total of $100,000 towards any suitable proposals for memorials
initiated by state or territory governments.
Implementation
5.52
As indicated in the government response, the Commonwealth provided
$100 000, evenly divided among the States, for the purpose of establishing
suitable memorials commemorating care leavers. FaHCSIA advised:
The Government invited applications from all State and
Territory Governments and, in 2007, all six states received $16,666 (GST ex) to
assist them establish memorials.[29]
5.53
Mr Golding was critical of the Commonwealth's contribution, which
amounted to $16 666.66 per State:
...$100,000 for memorials (split mechanically six ways
regardless of the number of institutions in each State and the number of
residents). These new funds were derisory in the overall context of the Senate
Committee [findings]....[30]
5.54
The CMT commended the provision for memorials as 'a bright spot in an
otherwise fairly bleak landscape with regard to the implementation of most of
the recommendations of Lost Innocents:
Combined Federal and State funding for memorials in each
State was generally well received by former child migrants and their families.
The launch of each memorial was accompanied by a ‘statement of regret’, if not
a full apology. The Federal Immigration Minister opened the memorial in
Victoria; other events were largely managed by State Governments. There is an
enduring value of the memorials in terms of heritage issues, and former child
migrants having a focus to visit with their children and grandchildren, quite
separate from the institution where many experienced appalling childhood abuse.[31]
5.55
The erection of memorials appears to be progressing at variable rates
across the States.[32]
The AFA provided a summary of progress in relation to funding and consultation
over the form and location of memorials:
Consultation has generally been good, and most States have
contributed funds as well, but the overall amount is not large (NSW appears to
be the lowest, with roughly $3,334). Tasmania, Queensland, Victoria and South
Australia have made good progress, and AFA members in those States are happy
with the outcomes. In NSW, consultation has been limited, but CLAN and...[the]
Association of Children’s Welfare Agencies have been involved through a group
they themselves set up. In South Australia, Churches have contributed $12,000
on top of the Government contribution. Progress in some States is very slow,
with WA still planning a memorial as part of their Redress program.[33]
5.56
However, the AFA called for the establishment of a national memorial in
Canberra, 'reflecting the national ownership of this piece of Australia's
history'.
There are no plans for a national memorial, and AFA would
like to see one created in Canberra, reflecting the national ownership of this
piece of Australia’s history...Any such memorial...contributes towards banishing
the widespread ignorance of this important piece of history and bringing the
experiences and needs of the survivors to the fore.[34]
New South Wales
5.57
New South Wales advised:
The Department of Community Services is planning for the
establishment of a dedication to people who experienced institutional care as
children. It has consulted with care leaver support organisations, including
the Care Leavers Australian Network and past providers of institutional care,
on the design and location of the dedication. The memorial will be located in
the Royal Botanic Gardens in Sydney. The Department is planning for a
ceremonial unveiling of the memorial in early 2009.[35]
5.58
Ms Mallet advised that the plans for the care leaver memorial were
currently being finalised:
Arrangements are being confirmed for a memorial to be located
in the Royal Botanic Gardens of Sydney. Consideration is being seriously given,
in conjunction with important parties that we need to consult with in these
matters, including care leavers, to the planning of a healing service in
conjunction with a memorial unveiling.[36]
Queensland
5.59
The Queensland government submission outlines a number of reconciliation
events and memorial projects for care leavers undertaken in response to the
Forde inquiry and the Forgotten Australians report:
December 2004 – launch of a Remembrance statue in the Roma
Street forum precinct, Brisbane to commemorate former residents of orphanages
and institutions. The memorial was funded by a Community Gaming Benefit Fund
grant and developed with the support of the Department of Communities and
Brisbane City Council;
September 2004 – commencement of Annual Remembrance Day event
during Child Protection Week to acknowledge the experiences of former
residents;
2005 onwards – youth detention memorial project to develop a
contemporary sculptural artwork commemorating former residents of detention
centres (this project is funded by the Department of Communities and the
Commonwealth Government under its response to Recommendation 34 of the Forgotten
Australians report); and
2008 – Karrala House (Ipswich) memorial plaque (funded by the
Commonwealth Government under its response to recommendation 34 of the Forgotten
Australians report and supported by the University of Queensland, Ipswich
Campus and the Department of Communities).[37]
South Australia
5.60
South Australia advised that Families SA Post Care Services Consumer
Reference Group held a public consultation in December 2007 inviting care
leavers to contribute to formation of the Forgotten Australians Memorial Working
Party (FAMWP). Since that time:
The FAMWP has met with the Adelaide City Council a number of
times to discuss the Artist Brief for this project and the Council has shown
the FAMWP the proposed site (Peace Park. Karrawirra; Park 12 on the Adelaide
City Council website). The FAMWP has been seeking avenues of financial support
for the project. Many Adelaide churches have committed amounts of $1,000 to
$4,000 to the project. The total amount is now $44,000 including equal
contributions from the Commonwealth and State Governments. The FAMWP has met
with Arts SA in September 2008 subsequent to requesting a donation of $50,000.
An application for Seed Funding will be made to Arts SA. It is anticipated the
memorial will be launched in March 2010.[38]
5.61
In addition, State Records of South Australia hold a permanent free
exhibition 'Scabby knees, hopes and dreams: a child's experience of government
1840-1990'. The collection includes a significant display of records and
experiences of care leavers in-out-of home and State institutional facilities.[39]
Tasmania
5.62
Tasmania unveiled a memorial rose garden for care leavers at its
botanical gardens in November 2008. Ms Alison Jacob, Deputy Secretary, Human
Services, Department of Health and Human Services, advised:
[This] has been a very successful recognition of the pain and
suffering of Forgotten Australians. Certainly, the feedback that we have had is
that gesture...of providing that memorial as a contemplative place...has been a
very suitable memorial to...[care leavers].[40]
Victoria
5.63
The Committee notes that as part of its 2006 apology to care leavers
Victoria committed $30 000 for a permanent memorial 'to be built in
consultation with care-leavers and former wards and investigate erecting
commemorative plaques at former institutions'.[41]
The Committee understands a Sector Working Group, comprised of VANISH and CLAN
and auspiced by the Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare, is
working in collaboration with the Department of Human Services (Victoria) to
develop an appropriate memorial.
5.64
Mr Golding noted that the progress towards establishing a memorial in
Victoria had been very slow.[42]
5.65
Ms Deborah Findlay, Member, Wings for Survivors, felt that there had
been inadequate recognition of the Forgotten Australians in signage erected on
the sites of orphanages and institutions in Victoria. In particular, some sites
had memorials to staff and members of the Stolen Generations but did not
acknowledge the general population of children who had spent time in 'care'.
Further, Ms Findlay felt that there had been inadequate memorials erected to
commemorate the lives of the many children that had died in such institutions;
in some cases, mass burials of children lacked individual identifications.[43]
Western Australia
5.66
The Western Australian Department for Child Protection advised that it
had allocated $50 000 through Redress WA toward a permanent memorial to
those abused or neglected while in State care. The memorial was still at the
planning and development stage:
The Department for Child Protection is currently supporting
and liaising with committee of former residents regarding the development of
the memorial. The Department for Culture and Arts has agreed to provide space
in the Perth Cultural Centre for the memorial.[44]
Recommendation 35
That the National Museum of Australia be urged to
consider establishing an exhibition, preferably permanent, related to the
history and experiences of children in institutional care, and that such an
exhibition have the capacity to tour as a travelling exhibition.
Government response
While the Australian Government has responsibility for
the National Museum of Australia, the management of Australian Government
institutions is at arm's length from the government of the day. The Council and
Management of these institutions form their own policies on acquisitions,
exhibitions and all collections issues. The Museum has advised that while
similar social issues, in particular those that affect the lives of children,
have been represented in its temporary exhibitions program, it would be unable
to commit to a permanent exhibition on this theme.
Oral histories
Recommendation 36
That the Commonwealth Government provide funding for
the National Library of Australia to undertake an oral history project to
collect the life-stories of former residents in institutional and out-of-home
care.
Government response
While the Australian Government has responsibility for
the National Library of Australia, the management of Australian Government
institutions is at arm's length from the government of the day. The Council and
Management of these institutions form their own policies on acquisitions,
exhibitions and all collections issues. The National Library has advised that
it would be unable to undertake a project of this scale at this time.
Implementation
5.67
FaHCSIA advised that it was not aware of any further action on these
recommendations.
5.68
The AFA submitted that, despite the Commonwealth's lack of direct
influence on the National Museum of Australia (NMA) and the National Library of
Australia (NLA), it was open to the government to provide direct funding of an
exhibition on institutional care and an oral history project on former
residents:
...it has been clear in the past that the Australian Government
can influence institutions such as the National Museum of Australia and can
also fund special exhibitions. Another option would be the National Archives,
where a display of historical material would be appropriate.
Any such memorial or display contributes towards banishing
the widespread ignorance of this important piece of history and bringing the
experiences and needs of the survivors to the fore.[45]
5.69
In relation to the NLA it observed:
Had funding been provided, the Library would have been a very
appropriate institution to take on such a project. The oral history is a
priority for AFA. AFA believes that an oral history has an important role to
play in acknowledging to survivors that their experiences were real and are
part of history. It is also an accessible means of education for Australians
generally. AFA has requested funding for a scoping study leading up to an oral
history, but this has not been forthcoming at this point. The project is
urgent, so that survivors can contribute to it while they are still alive.[46]
Research
Recommendation 37
That the Commonwealth Government fund research either
though the Australian Institute of Family Studies or other relevant research
body or university into the following areas:
-
historical research into institutional care, including the
role of institutional care in Australia's social history; the history of
institutions and the commissioning of personal histories of former residents;
-
the social and economic impact and cost of institutional care;
and
-
inter-disciplinary research into the relationship between
child welfare/child protection and areas such as welfare dependency, social
problems such as drug and alcohol abuse and family relationship breakdowns.
Government response
The Australian Institute of Family Studies is an
independent entity, and the Australian Government has no capacity to determine
its research priorities. However, the Government will explore, through the
Department of Family and Community Services, possibilities for engaging other
research partners to examine issues relating to the social impacts of
institutional care, the ongoing needs of care leavers, service delivery
ramifications and specific issues around family relationship effects. Historical
research, if undertaken, would not be a primary focus. Any research should be
tailored to improving outcomes for this group of care leavers. The National
Child Protection Clearinghouse is contracted to the Department of Family and
Community Services and can be funded to carry out additional research as
required. This avenue will be pursued.
Recommendation 38
That the Australian Institute of Family Studies National
Child Protection Clearinghouse be funded by the Commonwealth Government to
collect publications related to historical studies of institutional and other
forms of out-of-home care and that this information be widely disseminated.
Government response
See response to Recommendation 37.
Implementation
5.70
FaHCSIA provided the following update to the previous government
response:
Funding is provided to the Australian Institute of Family Studies
to maintain the National Child Protection Clearinghouse.
The Clearinghouse disseminates information on child
protection activities and research to professionals and organisations in this
field. Among the clients of the Clearinghouse are: policy makers, including
State and Territory government departments responsible for family and community
services; service providers; professionals in child abuse prevention;
researchers; and students.[47]
Tertiary study courses
Recommendation 39
That the Commonwealth, in co-operation with State
Governments, establish courses of study at selected tertiary institutions that
focus on child protection and related issues, especially early childhood and
family studies, psychology, conflict management, the impact of institutional
care and social policy to address issues in these areas.
Government response
The Australian Government supports this recommendation in
principle but notes that universities are self-accrediting institutions that
decide the courses they will offer, within broad profiles agreed with the
Australian Government. Under the new funding framework that commenced in 2005,
there will be Funding Agreements with each University, specifying the number of
places across the discipline mix to be supported by the Australian Government.
In reaching these agreements, every year the Department of Education, Science
and Training will meet with each University to discuss their strategic
directions and plans for course offerings. This would be the stage at which the
possibility of offering this training might be discussed. However, Universities
decide how the funds they receive from the Government and the tuition fees they
receive from their students will be used internally, as they are in the best position
to allocate funds in a way that furthers their strategic direction in the provision
of higher education.
Other higher education providers are autonomous
institutions, which determine their own teaching arrangements and course
curricula.
Agencies that employ child protection workers could seek
to work with individual Universities (or other higher education providers) to
develop courses that meet their needs. Funding is being provided through the
Higher Education Support Act 2003 under Section 41-45 (Other Grants), for a Chair
in Child Protection at the University of South Australia. The Chair was
announced by the Minister for Education, Science and Training on 19 March 2004.
Ten million dollars has been committed over ten years from 2004, to provide a
special focus on research into child protection issues. The position of the
Chair, currently held by Professor Dorothy Scott, is to lead and promote
research into child protection and assist researchers working to combat child abuse
across the disciplines of early childhood and family studies, psychology, education
and literacy, conflict management, Indigenous communities and cultures, service
delivery and social policy. The Australian Government has agreed with state and
territory governments to write, as a group, to Professor Scott and seek her
input and guidance on these issues.
The Australian Government will ensure that the Australian
Vice-Chancellor’s Committee is aware of the recommendations of the Senate
Community Affairs Committee in regard to this recommendation.
Additionally, in vocational education and training, the
Community Services and Health Industry Skills Council will be developing a
national competency framework for workforce planning for Family Counsellors,
Family Dispute Resolution Practitioners and workers in Children’s Contact
Services. This project, to be undertaken during 2005-2006, was funded by the
Attorney General’s Department (Family Pathways Branch).
Vocational/job outcomes for workers will be achieved by
developing competency standards and qualifications, and supporting their work
under a national structure. The competency standards/qualifications are planned
to be included in the Community Services Training Package.
Further, the Certificate IV in Mental Health Work
(Nonclinical), in the current Community Services Training Package, was
developed for health workers who provide a range of community services and
community interventions to clients with mental health issues and/or implement
health promotion and community interventions. Their work may take place in a
range of contexts such as community based organisations, residential
rehabilitation services and outreach services. This qualification refers to
specific knowledge of a “clients with mental health issues” group and
appropriate intervention processes applied in residential and community settings.
Also in the Community Services Training Package are three
child protection qualifications: Certificate IV in Community Services
(Protective Care), Diploma of Community Services (Protective Intervention) and
the Diploma of Statutory Child Protection. These are delivered by TAFE and
other Registered Training Organisations. The Community Services Training
Package also provides national Certificate, Diploma and Advanced Diploma
qualifications in the areas of children’s services, residential support
services, and non-residential services. In 2006-07 the Department of Education,
Science and Training plans to fund the Community Services and Health Industry
Skills Council to review the Community Services Training Package. Extensive
stakeholder consultations occur during development and review to ensure that
the Training Package is relevant to industry’s needs and usable. Before the
Training Package is endorsed for use, the developer must validate it with all
relevant stakeholders and provide evidence of broad industry support.
Note that States and Territories are responsible for the
quality of training and assessment, and for prioritising the allocation of
funding for New Apprenticeships and other VET courses.
Implementation
5.71
FaHCSIA provided the following update to the previous government
response:
Australian Government funding has been provided for a Chair
in Child Protection at the University of South Australia, currently held by
Professor Dorothy Scott. The Australian Government agreed with state and
territory governments, as a group, to write to Professor Scott to seek her
input and guidance on this issue.
This item was put on hold due to the death of Dorothy Scott’s
mother.
FaHCSIA is not aware of further action.[48]
5.72
In additional information provided at the request of Committee, FaHCSIA
further advised that the National Framework for Protecting Australia's
Children recognises the need to work across government and non-government
sectors to educate and engage the community to influence attitudes and beliefs
about abuse and neglect. To this end:
Actions under the Framework will support community
organisations to deliver cost effective, community based initiatives, including
information and awareness activities. In addition, initial actions under the
Framework include a commitment by the Commonwealth to lead a partnership with
States and Territories to support a National Research Agenda for Child
Protection.[49]
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page