CHAPTER 3
SERVICES, RECORDS AND SUPPORT GROUPS
3.1
This chapter considers some of the major issues raised in evidence
concerning the implementation of the recommendations of the Forgotten
Australians and Lost Innocents reports. These are:
-
delivery of services;
-
location and preservation of, and access to, records; and
-
the role and operation of support groups.
Delivery of services
Lost Innocents Recommendation 2
That British and Maltese former child migrants be treated
equally in accessing any of the services currently provided or as recommended
in this report, including access to travel funding.
Government response
The government supports this recommendation and agrees
that former British and Maltese child migrants should be treated equally in
accessing any existing or new services proposed in this response (Refer
recommendations 17 and 22).
The government, through the Department of Immigration and
Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, (DIMIA) has funded the Child Migrants
Trust to provide counselling and family reunification services for former child
migrants since 1990. Services provided by the Trust are open to both UK and
Maltese former child migrants. The Trust provides support and assistance to
approximately 750 UK and Maltese clients per year.
Implementation
3.2
A number of the recommendations of Lost Innocents dealt with
issues relating to the delivery of services to former child migrants. Along
with specialised tracing and counselling services, a particular concern was
that former child migrants have access to well-designed and -funded programs to
facilitate re-connection with relatives and families in their countries of
origin, namely Britain and Malta. The report noted that, given the similarity
of their experiences to those of British child migrants, Maltese former child
migrants 'should not be differentiated in their rights to access any services
provided to former child migrants'.[1]
3.3
The Committee received no evidence of differential treatment of British
and Maltese former child migrants in accessing services.
3.4
The Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) advised that
British and Maltese former child migrants have had equality of access to
services provided by the CMT since 1990. The assistance package provided by the
Australian government in response to Lost Innocents was available to
both British and Maltese former child migrants regardless of their country of
origin.[2]
3.5
The Department for Child Protection (WA) submitted:
The Western Australian Department for Child Protection fully
supports this recommendation and has on all occasions provided information and
services to Maltese former child migrants in the same manner as British child
migrants. The Maltese child migrants form part of the Former Child Migrants
Referral Index, established by the Department in partnership with former
receiving agencies.[3]
Lost Innocents Recommendation 5
That the Commonwealth Government continue to provide
funding for at least three years directly to the Child Migrants Trust to ensure
that the specialised services of tracing and counselling are provided or
accessible to former child migrants living throughout Australia.
Government response
The government supports this recommendation. The
government will continue to fund the Child Migrants’ Trust for the next three
years at an amount of $125,000 plus associated administrative costs per annum.
Implementation
3.6
Lost Innocents identified the Child Migrants Trust (CMT) as a
valuable support service for former child migrants, due to its 'considerable
knowledge and expertise in the areas of childhood abuse and its impact on
children, adult lives and relationships and subsequent generations', and
particularly for its tracing and reunion services for former child migrants to
establish contact and develop relationships with their families. Mr Harold Haig,
Secretary, International Association of Former Child Migrants and Their
Families (IAFCMF) described the CMT as a 'lifeline' forming the 'vital link'
between child migrants and their families:
[The CMT] provide a complete independent specialist family
reunion and counselling service that child migrants need. They have been doing
this for 20 years. They have the infrastructure in place to reunite families
across the world, and they do.[4]
3.7
In evidence to the previous inquiry, the trust indicated it had some 700
active clients across Australia. The CMT at that time had offices in Perth and
Melbourne and was seeking to further develop its services in Sydney and
Brisbane, both areas of high demand for the trust's services.[5]
3.8
Lost Innocents closely examined the CMT's funding arrangements
and found that the importance of its services and impressive track record
justified the recommendation that the Commonwealth continue funding the trust.
3.9
DIAC advised that the Commonwealth government had funded the CMT for six
years between 2002 and 2008:
The Australian Government supported this recommendation.
Through the immigration portfolio, the Government has committed funding totalling
$825 000 over six years from 2002 to the Child Migrants Trust Inc to provide
specialised family tracing and counselling services to former child migrants
from the United Kingdom and Malta living in Australia.
The Child Migrants Trust Inc received initial funding of $375
000 over three years from 2002 and was allocated additional funding of $450 000
in 2005 to continue providing these services for a further three years to 30
June 2008.[6]
3.10
CMT had also recently received an additional $150 000 for 2008-09.[7]
3.11
The Western Australian Department for Child Protection advised that it
had also provided ongoing funded to the CMT:
[The department]...has provided funding to the Child Migrant
Trust since 1999. Recurrent funding of $77,425 per annum to 31 December 2011
has recently been approved by the Minister for Child Protection to enable the
Trust to continue to provide services to Western Australian former child
migrants and their descendents.[8]
3.12
CMT advised that it had not been successful in securing funding from
NSW, Queensland, or South Australia.[9]
Ms Margaret Humphreys OAM, International Director, CMT, observed that the
trust's historical difficulties of securing funding from State governments
continued.
In terms of state governments historically it has been very
difficult for the trust. Many years ago I had meetings with state directors and
forums for discussion, and they have always felt very strongly that this was a
federal government issue. Of course, that has changed a little in Western Australia, which has been quite supportive. Many states truly believe that this is
an issue that the federal government should pick up. It is quite difficult when
we try to negotiate funding in various states.[10]
3.13
The CMT submitted that its level of funding had been insufficient to
enable it to adequately meet demand for its services, particularly as this
demand increased following the establishment of an Australian travel scheme for
former child migrants to visit family and relatives overseas. Consequently, the
CMT had been able to provide only a 'minimalist model' of service provision,
consisting of restricted support for former child migrants pursuing applications
through the travel fund:
Because of the scarcity of resources to the Child Migrant
Trust, most of these sorts of things [like the proposed Centre of Remembrance
and Learning] have been put on hold, including research into families, the
location of families and the organising of meetings. The whole lot has been
restricted.[11]
3.14
Further, the trust had not been able to extend its services into other States,
which continued to be serviced by the offices in other States.[12]
The trust still has just two offices in Australia, in Melbourne and Perth, both
staffed by one social worker.[13]
3.15
The Committee heard evidence of the continuing importance of services
provided by the CMT, particularly in light of broader awareness of, and
increased demand for, its services:
The [Committee's previous] Inquiry acted as a catalyst for
many former Child Migrants who had previously never sought professional help to
trace their families or address painful issues of childhood abuse and loss.
Many required assistance to prepare their submission; this acted as a gateway
to the Trust’s core services, including family tracing and counselling
support...The benefits of accessing services lasted well beyond the end of the
implementation of the Government’s response. There was a further advantage of
enhanced community and professional awareness of the child migration schemes.[14]
3.16
Mr Norman Johnston, President, IAFCMF, advised that the CMT had
unsuccessfully sought recurrent or longer-term funding:
We asked for adequate, long-term funding, for the specialist
independent services of the Child Migrants Trust. Unfortunately...[this request
was not] accepted...Eight years later social justice still has not been delivered
to us. In our view, the spirit of the recommendations was not accepted by the
government of the day.[15]
3.17
At the hearing of the inquiry in Canberra, Mr Peter Templeton, Assistant
Secretary, Settlement Branch, DIAC, was unable to provide any advice in
relation to future and recurrent funding for the CMT, as this question was
currently under active consideration.[16]
However, in additional information provided by DIAC on 19 June, the Committee
was advised that the CMT had been allocated additional funds in the 2009-10
Budget. This funding is comprised of the $150 000 for the period 2008-09,
noted above, plus an additional $150 000 per annum for the years 2009-10
to 2011-12. This represents funding of $600 000 for that period, and total
funding of $1 425 000 over the period 2002 to 2012.
Lost Innocents Recommendation 18
That the Commonwealth Government urge the United Kingdom
Government to extend its contribution to the Child Migrant Support Fund for at
least a further three years beyond its anticipated end in 2002.
Government response
This recommendation will be drawn to the attention of the
UK Government along with other relevant recommendations. Further funding of the
Child Migrant Support Fund is a matter for the UK government to consider.
Lost Innocents Recommendation 19
That the Child Migrant Support Fund be supplemented by
funding from the Australian Government, State Governments and receiving
agencies; and that this funding comprise:
-
a Commonwealth Government contribution of $1 million per year for
three years initially;
-
a combined contribution from State Governments of $1 million per
year for three years initially; and
-
a contribution from receiving agencies, and that this be funded
by a levy or other means on receiving agencies not currently providing travel
assistance, in proportion to the number of children placed under their care as
a result of the child migration schemes during the 20th century.
Government response
As an alternative to supplementing the Child Migrant
Support Fund, the government will contribute towards a new Australian travel
fund for former child migrants from the UK and Malta. Further details are
provided in response to Recommendation 22.
Lost Innocents Recommendation 20
That the eligibility criteria for access to the Child
Migrant Support Fund be broadened to:
-
permit visits to family members and other relatives, including
aunts and uncles, cousins, nephews and nieces; and for other related purposes,
such as visits to family graves;
-
be available for all former child migrants, including the Maltese
and those who may have undertaken previous visits at their own expense;
-
provide for two further visits but with a reduced level of
assistance, limited to the payment of airfares and associated travel expenses;
-
provide, in exceptional circumstances, travel funding for a spouse,
child or other person as an accompanying carer; and
-
be subject to no means-testing requirements.
Government response
Funding will be contributed by the Government towards an
Australian travel fund. Funds will also be sought from State governments. Eligibility
criteria will need to be determined in the context of the total pool of funds
available from all sources. Refer Recommendation 22.
Lost Innocents Recommendation 21
That the Commonwealth Government, together with other
stakeholders, undertake a review of its participation in the Child Migrant
Support Fund after three years to determine the adequacy of funding from
Australian sources for the fund and the extent of continuing demand for travel
from former child migrants.
Government response
The government will seek data on the usage and
effectiveness of the travel fund in order to monitor the efficacy of the
scheme.
Lost Innocents Recommendation 22
That, should the Child Migrant Support Fund not be
extended by the United Kingdom Government, the Commonwealth Government
establish a separate Australian travel scheme to assist former child migrants
to visit their country of origin, and that this scheme be funded by
contributions from the Commonwealth, State Governments and receiving agencies
as detailed in Recommendation 19; and that the scheme have a broad set of
eligibility criteria as detailed in Recommendation 20.
Government response
The Government supports the establishment of a new
Australian travel fund and will contribute $1m per year, plus associated
administrative costs, for 3 years in recognition of the importance of enabling
former child migrants to return to their country of origin to re-establish
connections and reunite with family members. The Commonwealth will also ask
State Governments and receiving agencies to contribute to the fund.
The administration of the fund will be contracted to a
suitable provider, following a competitive process. The scheme will commence in
the 2002-03 financial year. Former British and Maltese child migrants who
arrived under approved child migration schemes and were placed in institutional
care in Australia will be eligible for the scheme.
Implementation
3.18
Recommendations 18 to 22 of the Forgotten Australians report related to
the Child Migrant Support Fund (CMSF). The CMSF was established by the UK
government to fund former child migrants' reunions with relatives in the United
Kingdom, and it operated from April 1999 to October 2002. The scheme was run by
International Social Service on behalf of the UK government.
3.19
The recommendations of the Lost Innocents report went to funding
of the CMSF, seeking changes to its eligibility criteria, reviewing the
Commonwealth's involvement in the scheme after three years and establishing an
Australian scheme in the event of the fund's closure. However, rather than
contribute to the UK fund, the Commonwealth undertook to establish the
Australian Travel Fund (ATF).
3.20
The DIAC submission advised that the purpose of the ATF was to provide
financial assistance for travel and accommodation expenses for former child
migrants to reunite with surviving family members in the UK or Malta, or to
visit grave sites of family members.[17]
The scheme provided for one trip per applicant, and covered to and from airport
travel, airfares and taxes, cost of passport application, travel costs from
airport to home of family, travel insurance, accommodation and a living
allowance for two weeks.[18]
3.21
The eligibility criteria for the ATF were that the applicant:
3.22
Further, the scheme:
-
permitted visits to family members and other relatives including
aunts and uncles, cousins, nephews and nieces; and other related purposes such
as visits to family graves;
-
was open to British and Maltese former child migrants including
those who may have undertaken trips at their own expense;
-
provided in exceptional circumstances for a spouse, child or
other person as an accompanying carer to travel with the applicant; and
-
was not subject to means testing.[19]
3.23
The CMT acknowledged that the eligibility criteria and other conditions
of the ATF compared favourably to the UK's CMTF:
The eligibility requirements of the travel fund were less
restrictive and more compassionate than the UK scheme, acknowledging the
importance of visits to parents’ graves if no living relatives could be found.
The frailty and vulnerability of former child migrants was acknowledged by the
provision of funding for carers as escorts, when confirmed by
medical/psychological assessment.[20]
3.24
The ATF ran from 2002 to 2005 with total funding of $5.5 million. This
was comprised of initial funding of $3 million, which was extended by $2.5
million due to demand. The fund received 826 applications of which 771 were
approved for travel, Ultimately, 703 return visits by former child migrants
were facilitated.[21]
3.25
The CMT noted that the need for additional funding of the ATF had
indicated an 'unappreciated demand'. However:
Despite this large increase, the Trust continued to be
restricted to grants of only $125k per year. Clearly, there was a massive
imbalance in this allocation of resources, which created tremendous pressures
on the Trust’s staff, both in the UK and Australia, to support reunions. [22]
3.26
CMT felt that pressure on resources had 'compromised the [fund's] family
restoration work'. The availability of the fund had set up 'high expectations'
for many former child migrants. In combination with the 'complex and difficult'
task of searching for family, the volume of applications and limited period for
the scheme's operation, 'some former child migrants were denied the opportunity
of a meaningful, healing reunion with family'.[23]
3.27
The IAFCMF and CMT observed that the limited period of operation of the
fund had amounted to a 'lottery' and a form of 'discrimination'. This was
because only those that were fortunate enough to locate their families within
the prescribed period were able to take advantage of the scheme:
If family or a close relatives’ grave could be found within
the allotted three-year period, they would be eligible. If not, they
experienced further loss and discrimination by remaining excluded. It is always
a problematic policy to try to resolve matters of social justice by means of a
device which could be regarded as a lottery. The discriminatory issue relates
to the arbitrary deadline imposed to complete an often complex search for
family members who have been missing for more than fifty years.[24]
3.28
CMT advised that it had continued to receive clients needing assistance
with family reunion after the closing of the ATF. Further, it perceived a need
for assistance for former child migrants to be able to make additional trips to
visit family, to continue the process of re-building family ties:
...there remains a steady flow of new referrals for family
restoration services. This continued need arises from several sources,
including the resolution of particularly complex family research, due to the
poverty of data or deceit; or as a result of new referrals from those who have
been isolated from mainstream services....Resources are needed to support first
time reunions alongside follow up visits.[25]
3.29
Both the IAFCMF and the CMT believed that further provision should be
made for former child migrants to seek to locate their relatives and travel for
the purposes of family reunion. Given the limitations and shortcomings of
travel funds, particularly in terms of funding, resources and time limits, it
was suggested that a reparation package for former child migrants would allow
individuals more control, flexibility and choice in re-establishing and
re-building family relationships. Mr Johnston explained:
...there needs to be a reparation package where individuals can
decide themselves how many times they want to go back, whether they want to
stay here, or whether they want to continue the relationship, which is going to
take a lot. The older we get the more difficult it is to bond, as you could
probably appreciate. It gives them independence...[26]
3.30
Similarly, Ms Humphreys observed:
...travel funds have restrictions. They impose limits...It is
government money so they have to...I think that [the apology to the Stolen
Generations] perhaps could lead forward to a reparation package that involves
quite a few things. I suggest that could involve people making their own
choices and their own decisions about whether they go back to family or not.[27]
3.31
In October 2005, International Social Service (ISS) published a report The
Journey of Discovery: A Report on the Australian Former Child Migrant Travel
Fund. The report gave a detailed overview of the Travel Fund, its
limitations and the immense benefits it provided. In its recommendations, ISS
proposed:
That continued funding be provided for the former child migrant
community to allow travel opportunities for those who have been unable to trace
their family origins. It is important that this recommendation be acted upon
promptly as many former child migrants living in Australia are elderly and do
not enjoy good health.[28]
Lost Innocents Recommendation 23
That, to ensure that choice in counselling services
remains available to former child migrants, the Commonwealth Government urge
agencies and other State Welfare Departments providing counselling services to
maintain those services and expand them where necessary.
Government response
The government supports this recommendation and will
refer it to the Community Services Ministers Advisory Council for consideration
by State and Territory governments. Former child migrants currently have access
to counselling services available in states and territories from government and
non-government counselling organisations.
Implementation
3.32
The issue of counselling services for care leavers generally is
addressed in the consideration of the implementation of recommendations 20 to
23 of the Forgotten Australians report (see below).
Forgotten Australians 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.
Implementation
3.33
Forgotten Australians concluded that there was a serious lack of
services available to address the needs of care leavers; and that governments
at all levels, as well as the non-government sector, needed to urgently address
this matter. Services provided by the States were found to be limited and
generally restricted to those who were ex-residents of particular institutions
in a given State.
3.34
Services provided by the churches and agencies were found to vary
widely, and levels of funding difficult to ascertain. Provision of church
services was also problematic in that many care leavers were reluctant to utilise
services offered by organisations associated with the abuse and neglect of
former residents.[29]
3.35
Care Leavers Australia Network (CLAN) submitted that the response to
recommendation 21 had been poor, noting that the provision of services by the States
was still 'limited'; and that these had generally been provided in response not
to the recommendations of the Forgotten Australians report but to State
inquiries:
With the exception of VANISH in Victoria, services which do
exist in fact have not come out of the Senate inquiry, but out of state
inquiries - which means that in effect there has been no take-up of this
recommendation.[30]
3.36
Mr Frank Golding, Vice-President, CLAN, felt that, although there was
perhaps now a more refined understanding of the needs of care leavers, in terms
of services, 'in many instances we are no closer than we were all those years
ago'.[31]
3.37
Submitters and witnesses emphasised that the need for care leavers to be
able to access a comprehensive range of support services and assistance was
still critical. Ms Karyn Walsh, Coordinator, Esther Centre, stressed that care
leavers were a very diverse group with a commensurately broad range of needs,[32]
and observed:
Healing is really a combination of what pathway people
personally choose and the services that are available. We stress the need to
learn from the evidence of what has worked in different areas and what needs to
be built upon now, but really make sure that the scope of services and the
framework for service delivery is across the broad perspective.[33]
3.38
Miss Eris Harrison, Senior Policy Manager, Alliance for Forgotten
Australians (AFA), observed that care leavers and their families had ongoing
care needs, and noted the importance of establishing services that could be
available for care leavers of all generations:
Setting something up and just saying, ‘We’re going to deal
with the issues of today and the people who leave care now,’ is good, it is
fine, but it does not go far enough. We think that there should be a continuum
of care for people who have been damaged in out-of-home care and it should
extend from people who leave care now to all the people who have left care at
any time in the past.[34]
New South Wales
3.39
The NSW Department of Community Services (DoCS) advised the Committee
that it 'provides or funds a number of services to assist and support people
who grew up in institutional care', relating to advocacy and support groups;
support services; counselling; health care, housing and aged care programs; and
education.[35]
3.40
Concerning recommendations not supported by NSW, Ms Linda Mallet, Acting
Deputy Director-General, Service System Development, DoCS, advised that the
State had generally not supported recommendations relating to services for care
leavers where this would have resulted in duplication of existing services:
Generally, recommendations which were not supported related
to the establishment of additional systems or services for people who
experienced institutional care as children which would duplicate existing
services or systems that were available to them as members of the New South
Wales public.[36]
3.41
The Committee heard that DoCS funds a branch of the Aftercare Resources
Centre (ARC), a specialist service of Relationships Australia, available for
people over 25 who have experienced care in NSW. The ARC's services included a
telephone helpline, information, counselling, advocacy, assistance with file
readings and also family reunions. The ARC's services are available to NSW care
leavers Australia-wide.[37]
3.42
The ARC's funding covers a permanent part-time counsellor for three days
a week; it also receives funding to provide some brokered counselling to enable
counselling services to be provided to people outside metropolitan areas. Mrs Julie
Holt, Counsellor, advised that the ARC had successfully lobbied for increased
funding and would be staffed at a full-time level and have increased brokered
counselling services from 2009-10.[38]
The ARC had received $193 729 in non-recurrent funding (that is, for 12
months), which was problematic for forward planning:
It is very difficult. We do the broker counselling and we
organise X number of people, but we do not know how many clients will approach
us. We have had to establish waiting lists because the funding is getting very
close to the bone.[39]
3.43
DoCS also provides recurrent funding to the Salvation Army Special
Service to assist older care leavers to locate their families. It also funds an
Indigenous organisation called Link-Up Aboriginal Corporation to provide
support to Aboriginal people separated from their families as children to
reconnect with family and kin.[40]
3.44
In March 2008, DoCS announced funding for CLAN to support its work in
advocacy support and information for care leavers.[41]
3.45
Ms Mallet advised that the New South Wales government was 'serious'
about examining existing funding arrangements in this policy area:
Justice Wood also brought matters to our attention during a
recent inquiry that he conducted into child protection in New South Wales in
relation to funding. The government’s has put on the record that it is serious
about taking a look at funding arrangements in New South Wales.[42]
3.46
Dr Penglase, however, questioned the extent of the State's funding
commitment to services for care leavers noting, for example, that CLAN had
received just $105 000 in total over the period of its operation. NSW's
performance also compared unfavourably with Victoria's recent allocation of
$7.1 million for a new care leaver service.[43]
Queensland
3.47
Forgotten Australians noted that the Queensland government at
that time contributed to the funding of four entities that provided specific
services for former residents: the Forde Foundation, the ARC (Queensland), the
Esther Centre and the Historical Abuse Network (HAN).[44]
On 3 May 2006 these four organisations were brought together in one premises in
South Brisbane, known as Lotus Place.
3.48
The Queensland government:
The Department of Communities currently provides approximately
$900,000 in funding on a triennial basis to support the delivery of support
services through Lotus Place...Lotus Place serves as a 'drop in centre' for
former residents and was established through the co-location of existing funded
services in May 2006. The department provided an additional funding allocation
of approximately $600,000 to facilitate the establishment of the centre.
Since the commencement of the Redress Scheme in October 2007,
Lotus Place services have been extended to include a centralised information,
referral and assistance service for people seeking to lodge a Redress Scheme
application. The department has made additional one-off funding allocations in
2006/07 and 2008/09 to support the provision of these services.[45]
3.49
The Forde Foundation is a charitable trust established in 1999 in
response to the report of the Forde inquiry. The foundation distributes monies
to former residents of Queensland institutions and to State wards who were
placed in foster care, with grant rounds taking place usually once or twice a
year. Eligible persons may apply for financial assistance for education,
health, family reunion and basic necessities. The foundation is not a
compensation fund and amounts paid to successful applicants are generally quite
low; the average grant in 2008, for example, was $563. Over $1.8 million has
been distributed over 12 grant rounds.[46]
3.50
Mr Terry Sullivan, Former Chair, Board of Advice, Forde Foundation,
advised that the foundation had more recently established a dental scheme for
care leavers:
[The] dental scheme, which we fund, which gives priority
access to former residents. I know from the way it works that we get more bang
for our buck out of that $500 per grant to former residents than would be
received through any other means.[47]
3.51
In relation to funding, the Forde Foundation advised:
In 2000 and 2001, the Queensland Government contributed a
total $2million to the Trust Fund. Church organisations contributed $90,000 and
there have been a small number of private donations. The Government gave a
further $900,000 in 2005 and $1.25million in 2006.[48]
3.52
The ARC is provided by Relationships Australia (Queensland). The ARC is responsible
for provision of direct and brokered counselling services in Queensland and
interstate (which enables counselling services to be provided to people outside
metropolitan areas), assistance with educational opportunities, record
searches, family reunions and advice on support groups.
3.53
In relation to funding for the ARC, Ms Rebecca Ketton, Manager, ARC,
advised:
...the Queensland government provided funding to Relationships
Australia Queensland to provide counselling and support to adults who had been
institutionalised as children in State-run homes and religious orphanages in
Queensland. The program known as the Aftercare Resource Centre has been
operational for almost 10 years and to date has 860 clients registered.[49]
3.54
Three-year State funding for brokered counselling was due to expire in
2009.[50]
3.55
The Esther Centre (Centre for Addressing Abuse in Human Services and
Faith Communities) provides support for people who have experienced physical,
sexual, emotional and spiritual abuse in church institutions, faith communities
and human services.
3.56
HAN is an informal network of former residents of church and government
institutions that was established to support people who had experienced abuse
within those institutions. It meets regularly, holds forums and provides
resources to support people.
3.57
In terms of service levels, Dr Wayne Chamley, Broken Rites, felt that
Queensland was the only State in which services had improved since publication
of the Forgotten Australians report.[51]
However, Mr Michael Collins felt that Queensland was not adapting its services
well to the needs of care leavers, particularly as they changed over time:
The Queensland government has not adhered to the spirit of
the recommendations of the Forgotten Australians inquiry. Indeed, it has
not the ability to adapt to the changing circumstances of the recommendation of
its own Forde report. Over time, former residents’ priorities will change.[52]
3.58
The Committee heard that the operation of the Queensland redress scheme
had led to growing pressures on existing services for care leavers. Mr Sullivan
advised that since the scheme began the number of care leavers registered with
the Forde Foundation had gone from 1300 to, potentially, 10 000.[53]
Similarly, Ms Ketton noted that the ARC's number of registered clients had
increased by 20 per cent in the last year.[54]
South Australia
3.59
The South Australian government submission outlined the range of
services available to Forgotten Australians and other care leavers in that State.
Services available through Families SA, Post Care Services, include:
-
information, advocacy, referral and support services to care
leavers over the age of 18 years;
-
assistance to individuals to access and view personal records,
conduct family searches and prepare for reunions;
-
assistance with negotiations concerning service delivery,
including accessing brokerage and financial assistance, counselling, housing,
having health and education needs met;
-
assistance in the development of life skills; and
-
case management assistance and brief counselling where referral
to an alternative service is not appropriate.[55]
3.60
Services for care leavers aged between 15 and 25 years—a range unlikely
to include most Forgotten Australians—were also provided through Families SA,
Youth Support Service, including:
-
holistic programs designed to develop young people's social,
emotional and financial support to transition into independence from State
care, such as practical life skills, further education advice, tenancy
training, housing and development of formal and informal community support
networks; and
-
priority access to service.[56]
3.61
In relation to funding and provision of counselling the South Australian
submission states:
-
the Department for Families and Communities provides funding for
care leavers to assist with counselling and to develop a pool of suitably
experienced counsellors;
-
Post Care Services will locate counselling for care leavers
regardless of their location;
-
provision of counselling is guaranteed for 'up to 12 months; and
-
the provision of a free call 1800 number facilitates access to
specialist support services for care leavers in regional areas.[57]
3.62
Commenting on the performance of Post Care Services, Mr Ki Meekins
reported:
They are grossly under staffed, under financed, under
resourced...The whole service demands a major boost in staffing, funding, and
resource levels enabling Post Care Service to cater for the large amount of
Forgotten Australians knocking on their door.[58]
Tasmania
3.63
Tasmania provided only a general comment on support services available
for care leavers in that State:
Staff of my Department continue to assist Child Migrants and
their descendants, who apply to have access to their files, or who want to
trace family members. My staff liaise closely with specialist Child Migrant
groups both interstate and overseas. It would appear that the numbers of Child
Migrants contacting my Department have dwindled significantly in recent years,
significant numbers contacted between 2003 and 2005.[59]
Victoria
3.64
Evidence to the inquiry indicated that provision of services for Forgotten
Australians in Victoria had been inadequate since the release of the Forgotten
Australians report. Mr Golding noted:
Thirty per cent of...[calls to CLAN] come from this state of
Victoria. The volume of calls makes it clear that, whatever state services are
available for care leavers, they are demonstrably not adequate for the demand...[60]
3.65
Ms Michele Greaves felt there was a lack of information on such services
in the State; and a dental scheme that had been established for Forgotten
Australians was not working effectively:
In Victoria there seems to be no information. You cannot find
out anything, even about a scheme that there is at the moment—the dental
scheme. People on our site have tried to access the dental system for forgotten
Australians, but you have to be extremely ill to be able to access it, so that
system really is not in place for us in Victoria. We had really bad dental
health care as children, if we had it at all, and a lot of us getting sick with
our dental, because it does have a physical effect on your body, but now there
is a system in place that is not working.[61]
3.66
While the Victorian government declined to make a submission to the
inquiry, the Committee notes that since 1997 the Victorian Department of Human
Services has funded VANISH—an existing organisation that provided search and
support services for people separated from their family of origin—to assist care
leavers. VANISH has since provided a number of services for care leavers
including conducting searches, support and counselling for accessing records,
providing one on one support, facilitating regular support groups and conducting
regional information and discussion groups for care leavers.[62]
Ms Maureen Cleary, Manager, explained the organisation's history of work with
care leavers:
...[In 1997 VANISH was] funded by the Victorian Department of
Human Services to provide services to forgotten Australians...Initially this was
to search for family members and to provide support for forgotten Australians
through that process. From 2003 the Department of Human Services provided
brokerage funding through VANISH that was specifically targeted for counselling
services for forgotten Australians...
The demand for these services increased considerably
following the formal apology made to forgotten Australians by the Victorian
parliament in August 2006. This increase in demand was recognised by a
significant increase in funding to VANISH in 2006 for counselling and support
services.[63]
3.67
VANISH also offers a number of other services such as a travel reunion
fund, social and support groups, and life and computer skills programs. VANISH
representatives emphasised that a great many other interactions occurred over
such things as late bill payments and police interactions—indicating the very
wide range of services required for care leavers.
3.68
However, following the Victorian government's 2008 announcement of new
funding for counselling and support services for care leavers (see below) the Committee
was advised that VANISH had decided not to tender for the funds, and would
cease provision of services to care leavers from 30 June 2009.[64]
Ms Caroline Carroll, Senior Forgotten Australian Worker, observed:
VANISH was set up for the adoption community. I think the
time had to come when forgotten Australians moved away from an organisation run
predominantly for adoption. Most of the board is from the adoption community
and it is time, I think, for forgotten Australians to look for a home where
they are recognised in their own right and the focus is on their needs.[65]
3.69
On 6 May 2008 Victoria committed $7.1 million in funding for services
for care leavers over the next four years, intended to 'support and assist care
leavers who have experienced significant disadvantage'.[66]
Ms Coleen Clare, Chief Executive Officer, Centre for Excellence in Child and
Family Welfare (CECFW) outlined the scope of the services to be covered by the
new Victorian funding:
It is a new service for people who grew up in care in
Victoria who may have suffered harm and abuse. It is for the coordination and
provision of assistance to address the needs of forgotten Australians. It will
provide a single access point for obtaining advice on accessing available
services, including housing, mental health, aged care, counselling, alcohol and
drugs, literacy and numeracy, dental and medical services, peer support and
support from professionals; search and support services, including locating
siblings; developing life skills; and support for families of carers, including
counselling and—this last and interesting point—information about claims
processes and referrals for assistance with legal claims.[67]
3.70
Mr Golding, however, noted that in comparison to some of the financial
commitments made by other States, the Victorian funding was relatively modest:
...many of the Victorian members of CLAN...take a pretty cynical
view of this initiative. If you place the total allocation of $7.1 million over
four years alongside the redress schemes of the other states, you see the
perspective.[68]
3.71
There was also some concern about what proportion of the funding would
be available for direct provision of services.
...it is not really a lot of money, because someone will have
to establish offices. It is not a lot of money to go around to us at all. A lot
more needs to be done. It is a nice start, but we need a lot more.[69]
3.72
The Committee heard that, since the announcement of the funding for
services, provision of services had remained poor; action on instituting new
services had been 'extraordinarily slow':
Since that announcement was made in early May of 2008 not one
single service has actually resulted from that announcement. There has been a
long period of consultation. Many of us felt the consultations had been
conducted through the Senate inquiry. Your recommendations 20 through to 33
deal in detail with those sorts of services that should be provided by the
states. Nevertheless, they said they should consult with care leavers about
this and we are no wiser and no better served at the present date, as I sit
here before you in March of 2009, than we were when the government announced
$7.1 million to be spent over four years.[70]
Western Australia
3.73
The Western Australian Department for Child Protection noted that, in
addition to the establishment of a redress scheme and some funding of support
groups, the department provides assistance to care leavers with access to
records. The department also provides counselling for people who experienced
abuse in out-of-home care, through departmental psychologists and social
workers or, in exceptional circumstances, through external counsellors.[71]
3.74
From 1997 to December 2005 a range of services was also provided to care
leavers by Christian Brothers Ex-Residents and Students Services (CBERSS), an
organisation established and funded by the Christian Brothers as an independent
organisation to provide for the needs of ex-residents of Christian Brothers
institutions, regardless of the State in which they reside. Its services
included family tracing, literacy classes, no-interest loans, counselling, and
funded travel for family reunification. In January 2006, in response to
declining demand from its members, CBERSS was changed to a part-time
consultancy, now known as CBERS Consultancy (CBERS). The new service model of
CBERS involves provision of ongoing counselling; maintaining a source of news
and information; and a separate social network organised and run by its members.[72]
3.75
Mr Frank Quinlan, Executive Director, Catholic Social Services Australia
(CSSA), praised the model of service delivery provided by the former CBERSS as
'best practice':
Regarding the provision of support services...there are several
examples of best practice, including...CBERSS, in Western Australia...It does not
hold records relating to the homes and orphanages, but does apply on behalf of
people who were in care to access these record holdings from agencies in
Western Australia. The CBERSS model of service provision relates to four main
areas: reunification with separated families, individual and family
counselling, financial assistance and adult literacy programs.[73]
3.76
In terms of funding, the CBERS submission explains:
CBERS provides services that are funded by the Christian
Brothers, the Sisters of Nazareth and the Sisters of Mercy as required. It also
gains funding through Redress WA, via the charitable institution the Edmund
Rice Centre Mirrabooka Inc. In its entire history, CBERS has never been able to
access Commonwealth funding and the State government funding only came about
with Redress WA.[74]
Churches and agencies
3.77
As with the original inquiry, the Committee received very little
information on past and current provision of funding for services by the
churches. However, it appeared that churches had continued to make relatively
modest contributions to services for Forgotten Australians. Ms Walsh advised:
There have been some small amounts of money given, through a
day that was marked to collect funds, but generally forgotten Australians and
other stakeholders have been disappointed at the lack of investment following
the Forde inquiry by any of the churches.[75]
3.78
As noted above, in Western Australia CBERS has provided a range of
services for ex-residents of Christian Brothers' institutions since 1997.
Commonwealth support for services
3.79
Ms Walsh felt there was a need for national frameworks and initiatives
to coordinate the delivery services to care leavers through the State systems :
We look forward to a much more national framework where we
are not operating as a service system in isolation from the other major
initiatives that are going on within government and where forgotten
Australians, as a target group of people with specific needs, can actually hit
the agenda a bit more with the Social Inclusion Board, with human rights
consultation and with the reforms that are happening under disability.[76]
3.80
Ms Cate McKenzie, Group Manager, Department of Families, Housing,
Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA), stressed that States and Territories
were responsible for child protection issues, and hence the 'development of
policies and service delivery processes' to implement recommendation 21 of Forgotten
Australians.[77]
However, she pointed to a number of Commonwealth service initiatives that,
while not specifically created or designed for care leavers suffering from
historical abuse, supported the Forgotten Australians 'more broadly'. These
included:
-
a new family support program; Forgotten Australians would be
consulted in the development of guidelines 'to ensure that their experience and
needs are recognised';
-
the Personal Helper and Mentors program (PHaMS), which recognised
Forgotten Australians as a 'priority group';
-
the Better Access to Psychiatrists, Psychologists and General
Practitioners program, a program that increases community access to mental
health professionals and team based mental health care.[78]
3.81
In addition, Ms Mackenzie advised:
Government support for Forgotten Australians also extends to
a range of Commonwealth payments. In addition, Forgotten Australians are able
to access a broad range of Commonwealth funded or provided services, including
health, housing and counselling support, and a range of concession cards.[79]
3.82
Ms Allyson Essex, Branch Manager, FaHCSIA, commented that Commonwealth
government programs offered a range of service choices for care leavers:
In relation to Commonwealth government programs, by providing
a diversity of providers and choice of provider—allowing people to choose the provider
that they access—we hope to give people a range of choices that allows them to
choose a suitable provider and a suitable range of services. It is important to
recognise that Commonwealth funded services also work with state and local
government funded services, and some services that are funded by the third
sector. It is important to see those services as a whole that are available to
people.
...There is a range of programs that are funded that aim to
support people in a range of different ways. Those programs are not restricted
to any one provider. In a geographical location, using the combination of state
and local government services—Australian government services and other
services, we see that there is a variety of choices open to most people. There
are geographical areas in which that might not be the case. For example, it is
difficult to have choice and multiple providers in some rural and remote areas,
but wherever possible we seek options for people.[80]
Involvement of perpetrator
organisations in service delivery
3.83
Many submitters and witnesses commented on the issue of delivery of
services by departments, agencies and organisations that had in the past been
perpetrators of abuse and neglect. Dr Chamley commented:
Some wisdom needs to prevail about the appropriate
non-government setting in which to offer access to new initiatives. It should
not be church based, because it excludes people that are in the room here.
Their post-traumatic stress disorder is such that they cannot even walk past a
church, so how are they going to go to Salvation Army housing services? They
will not even get up to the front step. That needs some very careful thinking
through.[81]
3.84
However, other witnesses felt that carefully weighted involvement of
such entities was appropriate:
It really seems appropriate to me that they come forward and
that they say...‘We want to work with you to make up for what happened to you in
the past.’ But they also have to recognise the importance of not, for instance,
insisting that people go to a church for the first support group meeting or
anything like that. They have to recognise that there are probably some
forgotten Australians who will find it very difficult to cross that boundary.
How such services are established would be tremendously important, but I do not
think we should rule them out altogether by any means.[82]
3.85
Ms Carroll observed that, on a practical level, the barring of entities
with histories of perpetrating abuse would remove many of the major
organisations involved with the delivery of health and other services:
...given that most of these organisations are still working in
the sector, it is difficult to imagine another organisation being able to work
with forgotten Australians.[83]
3.86
Further, the exclusion of such organisations could have a particular
impact on rural and regional areas or in the smaller States such as South
Australia:
...we have a particular problem in South Australia in
attracting other non-government organisations, particularly non-church ones, to
the state. The population basis here is quite small for a number of community
services.[84]
Forgotten Australians 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.
Implementation
3.87
Forgotten Australians found that only Queensland, New South
Wales, Victoria and Western Australia provided specific services for care
leavers, and that these services were limited. As shown above, there are still
marked differences in the scope and levels of services available across these States.
South Australia has since provided some services through Post Care Services. The
AFA observed :
...[Provision of services] is happening, if at all, very
unevenly. NSW gives funding to ARC for limited counselling but does not appear
to provide any other targeted services. Queensland, on the other hand, offers a
good range of services, including a drop-in centre, through Lotus Place in
Brisbane. The other States fall in between these extremes...[85]
3.88
In addition, the report found that services were generally limited to
people who had been residents of the particular institutions in a given State.
This had posed problems for care leavers who had moved interstate and could not
access services in their new State of residence.[86]
3.89
The current inquiry heard that the problem of inconsistent availability
of services for care leavers across the States persists, with services
generally restricted to people who experienced care in a particular institution
in a given State. For example, Ms Deborah Findlay explained:
I have family that live in Queensland that get no assistance,
no support, because they were raised here in Victoria, and vice versa. We have
forgotten Australians that live in Victoria that were brought up in New South
Wales or wherever and they are turned away. We should be supporting forgotten
Australians. It does not matter where you come from.[87]
3.90
Mrs Gloria Lovely, a member of HAN, provided a view that was also
typical of care leavers:
I would like to add what I feel, and I think that every
person that was in an orphanage as a child, should be able to get some services
from the Australian Government...[What] I'm saying is, if people were in Qld
homes or orphanages in other states, but they are living in Qld, they should be
able to get help in Qld, it does not matter what state they were brought up in,
they should get help wherever they are living now if services are available ...[and]
regardless of what state or orphanage they were brought up in.[88]
3.91
The AFA submitted:
One significant problem with the state-by-state response is
the difficulty survivors have in accessing services and support across state
boundaries. Each state sees its responsibility as being to its own survivors.
Forgotten Australians frequently move out of the state where they suffered
abuse, hoping to put the past behind them to some extent. They then find that
they cannot easily access the support technically available to them.[89]
3.92
In Queensland, Ms Ketton offered some insight into the processes
involved where clients were seeking access to services from outside the State
in which they received out-of-home care:
We have had a number of clients who have been
institutionalised in other states who have sought counselling and support from
our service. The existing pathways can cause confusion and delays for clients.
The process requires clients to first and foremost become clients of other
services in their respective states. This service will then contract us to
provide the counselling. This process can be prolonged and is not possible when
funding is not available in particular states. Clear pathways and access to
federal funding could ensure improved access to services in a more timely and
appropriate manner.[90]
3.93
Ms Ketton advised that there had been 'a couple of clients' that had
been unable to access services on the basis of such arrangements in
approximately the previous 12 months.[91]
The Department of Communities (Queensland) commented:
The primary focus of Lotus Place services is direct service
delivery to people who were in out-of-home care in Queensland. Interstate care
leavers who reside in Queensland can access information and referral services
and participate in Historical Abuse Network activities and events. Lotus Place
service providers also work with other Jurisdictions on a case by case basis,
to assist state wards from other jurisdictions who reside in Queensland to
access appropriate support services funded by the state of origin.[92]
3.94
In other cases, some State services continue to be available to those
who received out-of-home care in that State, even where a care leaver now
resides in a different State. For example, Ms Julieanne Petersen, Manager,
Policy and Strategy, Alternative Care, Families SA, Department for Families and
Communities, noted:
We have had a number of inquiries from people who have since
moved interstate for their background records, support or in fact therapeutic
counselling or medical care. It makes no difference to us where they live now.
If they were in care in South Australian then they are fully entitled to the
support services from Post Care Services.[93]
3.1
Where a person resident in SA had received care in another State, Post
Care Services would 'advocate for and facilitate service provision by the
respective State'.[94]
3.95
The response of the Tasmanian Minister for Human Services appeared to indicate
that care leaver services in that State were restricted to people who received
care in Tasmania:
My Department continues to support care leavers, (regardless
of when they were in care) who contact the Department seeking information...[95]
3.96
The NSW government offered support for national arrangements to
facilitate access to services across the States:
There may be merit in national or bilateral state reciprocity
protocols for care leavers who move to other states.[96]
3.97
Western Australia also offered 'in-principle support' for recommendation
22.[97]
Funding coordination through the Community
and Disability Services Ministerial Council
3.98
In relation to the implementation of recommendation 22 through the
Community and Disability Services Ministerial Council (CDSMC), FaHCSIA
submitted:
Jurisdictions were to complete a template, requesting
information on state government funded services and forward this to the QLD
Department of Communities. The template was completed, however contact needs to
be made with the QLD Department of Communities to progress this information.
FaHCSIA is not aware of further action.[98]
3.99
The submission of the Queensland government suggested that the
commitment to coordinating State delivery of services through the CDSMC had
stalled, if not been abandoned altogether. It noted that in response to Forgotten
Australians the State had 'committed to work through the CDSMC on the issue
of a national response to recommendations of ongoing cross jurisdictional
interest'. However, only 'limited outcomes' were achieved due to 'different
stages of jurisdictional actions and local issues impacting on the level of
involvement by jurisdictions'. The Queensland Department of Communities
advised:
The Department of Communities is interested in resuming cross
jurisdictional discussions on the Committee' recommendations, particularly
those that relate to whole of government policy areas...[99]
3.100
However, the NSW government felt that 'as the CDSMC does not have a
stand alone budget...[the CDSMC] may not be the most appropriate way to progress
this proposal'.[100]
3.101
On the failure of the CDSMC process to date, the AFA commented:
This issue was, we understand, discussed by CDSMAC, but there
has been no resolution. State and Territory Governments have made no apparent
effort to resolve the differences or to broker solutions. There is clearly a
role here for the Australian Government, and it goes beyond offering
in-principle support to playing an active role in brokerage, in establishing
agreed guidelines and in offering whatever support is necessary to achieve lasting
consensus on the issue of cross-border support.[101]
3.102
The AFA still saw a role for the Commonwealth in brokering solutions,
establishing agreed guidelines and offering support for the States to come to
agreement on the issue of cross-border provision of services:
An important role for the Commonwealth and for COAG is to
resolve this issue, preferably by ensuring that the highest standards of
service provision are available in each State and Territory and by implementing
a brokerage system or central funding body to enable Forgotten Australians to
access those services, wherever they live.[102]
3.103
Members of Wings for Survivors observed that services for care leavers
were particularly hard to access for people living in rural and regional areas,
such that there was generally inconsistent access to services even within a State.[103]
Ms Ketton also noted that rural areas tended to lack centralised services
offering convenient access for care leavers:
...if some of the other regional centres were to have a larger
funded service or at least something similar to what we have in Brisbane, I
think that would engage the former residents in the regional community much
more easily.[104]
Forgotten Australians 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
3.104
Forgotten Australians found that the provision of counselling
services was of critical importance to enable care leavers to deal with the
trauma of past institutional care experiences; the acute difficulties in
forming and maintaining relationships; difficulties associated with access to
personal records; and pre- and -post family reunion.[105]
3.105
The ACWA commented that the issue of counselling service provision is
'arguably the one of greatest significance to care leavers and their families'.[106]
However, the Committee heard that counselling services for care leavers remain
limited and inconsistent across the States and religious organisations.
3.106
CLAN submitted:
There are limited care leaver...counselling services in
Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia and Queensland. Western Australia
has no dedicated service for care leavers...[107]
3.107
The AFA submitted:
This is another issue where services are very uneven. Some
States insist that Forgotten Australians use a specific service provider;
others offer choice. Limits on sessions vary, but there are many reports of
people having to fund their own counselling in order to continue dealing with
their trauma.[108]
3.108
The NSW government submission states that there are limited counselling
services available for Forgotten Australians in that State, essentially
restricted to financial assistance for access to a 'specialist service,
presumably the ARC. There is no provision for access to counselling for the
families of care leavers:
The NSW Government continues to support children and young
people in care and those who have left care. However...some targeting of service
delivery is essential. This being the case, the NSW Government does not support
the provision of specific support services to the families of care leavers as
this may detract from the ability to provide support to...care leavers
themselves.
In NSW, while the majority of specialist services are
targeted to care leavers aged between 15 and 25 years, financial assistance can
also be made available to a person over 25 years to access a specialist
service.[109]
3.109
Care leaver organisations advised that the NSW's ARC offers a limit of
12 sessions, or 21 hours of counselling, within a set funding ceiling,[110]
in addition to phone counselling for one day a week. The AFA observed that many
NSW care leavers are able to access more counselling through their former care
providers, and that others simply source and pay for their own counsellors. It
noted:
The funded counselling generally just scrapes the surface of
the issues Forgotten Australians face.[111]
3.110
In Queensland, the ARC, based at Lotus Place, provides an Australia-wide
service for care leavers offering:
-
face-to-face counselling;
-
brokered counselling through Relationships Australia branch
offices Australia wide and approved private practitioners; and
-
telephone counselling via a 1800 telephone number.[112]
3.111
Ms Susan Kelly, Counsellor, advised that people unable to access
counselling because they were in care outside of Queensland had been able to
receive it through the victims of crime program:
In the past, when people who were institutionalised as
children in other states have not been able to access funding for counselling,
we have been able to put them through our victims of crime program in
Relationships Australia, Queensland. We have worked with them that way. We have
a victims of crime counsellor situated at the Aftercare Resource Centre at
Lotus Place.[113]
3.112
In theory, there is no limit placed on the ARC's counselling services.
However, in practice funding constraints limit the provision of the service:
There is no time limit for accessing our service at South
Brisbane. However, unfortunately, from when the money runs out until we get it
renewed the following year, sometimes we have to put a cap on how many
counselling sessions a client receives. That is unfortunate because research
suggests that, particularly for people who have experienced trauma as children,
it does need to be ongoing.[114]
3.113
In South Australia counselling services are provided through Post Care
Services to people who were in care for a period of six months or more in:
-
foster care;
-
State institutional care;
-
church-based institutional care;
-
government approved, funded and/or licensed institutional care;
and
-
alternative care and were under a care and protection order or
secure custody order.
3.114
The Department for Families and Communities (SA) advised that it provides
funding to care leavers to assist with the cost of counselling, as well as to
develop a pool of professional counsellors who are trained in the needs of
care-leavers.[115]
3.115
Further, South Australian assists care leavers regardless of their
location in Australia and specific to the care leaver's needs and requests. Counselling
is supported for care leavers for a guarantee of up to 12 months at any time;
and the provision of a free call 1800 number facilitates care leavers in
regional areas accessing specialist support services.[116]
The ACWA commented that South Australia is still to release details of funding
for its counselling service, but that it is likely to be capped.[117]
3.116
South Australia has previously provided funding for the CMT, which
offers specific support for former child migrants; and provides ongoing funding
for Anglicare to provide some counselling services:
The South Australian Government provided a grant of $30, 000
over three years from 2001 to the Child Migrant Trust for a specialised
visiting social work service to Adelaide from their Melbourne Branch. No
subsequent funding was requested after June 2004.
The South Australian Government provides ongoing funding to
Anglicare SA to provide a range of therapeutic services. The Government
supported Anglicare SA in the establishment of counselling and group work
interventions for former child migrants at the Loss and Grief Centre. The
Centre offers services for people dealing with loss, education for students and
practitioners working in the field, and opportunities for research.[118]
3.117
Mr Thwaites from the CMT advised the Committee that 'we certainly have
made representations to state governments, South Australia included'.[119]
Ms Petersen from Families SA subsequently gave a commitment to have discussions
with the Trust relating to funding and the accessing of services.[120]
3.118
The Tasmanian government advised that it had 'shown its ongoing
commitment to supporting care leavers by providing an increased level of recurrent
funding to the CREATE foundation'. However, the Committee notes that this is an
advocacy body which does not provide individual advocacy or support for
individuals. Beyond this, the Tasmanian government did not support the creation
of specialised services for Forgotten Australians, taking the view that this
'would run the risk of care leavers facing further discrimination'; and that
existing services were sufficient.[121]
3.119
Counselling services in Victoria are provided through VANISH, which uses
contracted counsellors with particular skills or experience in dealing with Forgotten
Australians. Care leavers are allowed $2000 of counselling per year, which may
be extended on the basis of individual circumstances, and subject to the limit
on the total funding available. Victorian residents who received care in
another State are referred to services in that State, where available. VANISH
will arrange and fund counselling for people who received care in Victoria that
live outside the State.[122]
3.120
As noted above, in Western Australian CBERS Consultancy provides
counselling services to ex-residents of Christian Brothers institutions. The
AFA advised that beyond this there are 'minimal' opportunities for access to
specialist counselling for care leavers in that State. While some church groups
and not-for-profit groups attempted to provide some services on no funding, the
only option for most care leavers is to access counselling offered by the
Department for Child Protection (DCP):
DCP...indicated that it would provide counselling for ex-wards.
The response from ex-wards, by and large, is that they do not want to go to see
a psychologist in the department which they fled from. And they can go to
private psychiatrists or, under the current Medicare arrangements, private
psychologists, who can now cover their costs for a certain number of visits.
But, by and large, the forgotten Australians that we know do not have anywhere
to go apart from CBERS.[123]
3.121
However, DCP submitted that in addition to the counselling provided
through departmental psychologists and social workers or, in exceptional
circumstances, external counsellors, there was specific provision for former
child migrants:
The Western Australian Department for Child Protection has
funded the Child Migrants Trust since 1999 including for the provision of
counselling services and therapeutic group work. The Minister for Child
Protection has recently approved recurrent funding of $77,425 per annum to 31
December 2011.[124]
3.122
Care leavers pursuing claims through Redress WA could also receive
counselling administered by the Department for Communities and provided by a
network of contracted and non-contracted service providers across Western
Australia.[125]
3.123
The Committee heard that churches and non-State organisations continue
to offer disparate and uneven levels of counselling services:
Religious organisations and other past providers also vary
considerably in the mount of counselling they provide. In WA, for example,
ex-residents of Christian Brothers, Sisters of Nazareth and Sisters of Mercy
institutions are eligible for long-term counselling free of charge at CBERS
Consultancy. Support for survivors of other institutions is not known.[126]
3.124
The Committee notes that, as part of its response to the Forgotten
Australians report the Commonwealth government provided one-off funding of
$100 000 to CLAN for 'professional counselling services to assist care
leavers dealing with personal or family trauma'.[127]
CLAN does not currently directly provide any counselling services.
3.125
ACWA called for the Commonwealth government to manage, or at the very
least oversee, the provision of counselling to care leavers in order to address
the issues of limited funds and inconsistent provision of counselling services
across the States.[128]
Forgotten Australians 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.
Implementation
3.126
Forgotten Australians found that care leavers were prone to
serious physical and mental health issues arising from childhood abuse and
neglect, and in many cases the subsequent outcomes of such treatment affecting
life prospects in terms of education, employment and socioeconomic status.
While the report recognised that Australia offers a range of programs in the
areas of mental health and aged care, and to a significant degree pursues
whole-of-government and integrated strategies, it concluded that the particular
and urgent physical and mental health issues of Forgotten Australians warranted
their specific recognition in the funding and development of health, mental
health and aged care programs.[129]
3.127
FaHCSIA advised that the Commonwealth government had provided AFA with a
$20 000 grant to greatly extend the publication of its booklet for service
providers, Forgotten Australians: supporting survivors of childhood
institutional care in Australia.
3.128
Commenting on the Commonwealth response, the AFA observed:
The Australian Government’s attitude, as well as that of
States and Territories, is that Forgotten Australians can access health care
and other programs which are available to all Australians. This attitude
completely ignores the multiplicity of issues confronting Forgotten Australians
and their need for holistic, targeted and understanding assessment and referral
for all their issues.[130]
3.129
The AFA felt Forgotten Australians required holistic case management as
well as 'multiple entry points' to a range of services in order to overcome the
many barriers they faced in terms of economic and social participation.[131]
In particular, it called for care leavers to be recognised as a specific group
and given access to health services through a specific health care card for
care leavers:
Governments should give Forgotten Australians priority access
to services similar to that provided...[by the] Gold Card [given to veterans].[132]
3.130
Mr Ted Mullighan QC, who conducted the South Australian Inquiry into
Children in State Care, agreed with this approach:
I mentioned...[earlier] the transportability of benefits. I
think that is important. We have two organisations that have done a fantastic
job for people who have suffered in the past. One is the Veterans’ Affairs
organisation of government, and the other is Legacy. Legacy has been a
fantastic model for providing sympathetic assistance to children who are in
need...I would like to see those models applied to children who have been abused
when in state care.[133]
3.131
The Forde Foundation Board of Advice submission noted that a gold card
model for care leavers was especially appropriate, given the ageing of the
population:
We believe that, if that could be looked at on a national
basis, it would be a long-term and significant assistance to all former
residents, who need help to get on with their lives...[The] health needs of
former residents will require increased attention as the client population ages
and as their health interventions become more complex and costly.[134]
3.132
In general, the AFA felt that such an approach could have additional
benefits in terms of contributing to the identification of Forgotten
Australians as a group:
...whether it is a gold card or a health care card...there is
another potential for this card...[Forgotten Australians are] a very fragmented,
fractured community of people...[and such] a card provides an opportunity for a
focal point for helping people to identify themselves as a group that we can
then get access to...
We do not know where the forgotten Australians are, but if
there were a carrot like this, it may well help us to identify a group of
people who want to be identified.[135]
3.133
Mr Errol Evans, Deputy Chair, Forde Foundation Board of Advice, felt
that, in addition to practical benefits, a health card for care leavers would
also serve as a significant acknowledgement of the experiences of Forgotten
Australians:
Such a response would recognise harm suffered through
childhood neglect, abuse and disadvantage and address existing and ongoing
health issues which have childhood health determinants.[136]
3.134
Mr Laurie Humphreys, WA Representative, Alliance for Forgotten
Australians, suggested that a health card for Forgotten Australians could be
administered through Centrelink.[137]
3.135
The State governments that provided direct responses to this issue
either explicitly or implicitly rejected the recommendation that care leavers'
needs be specifically recognised in the funding and design of health care and
prevention programs. NSW submitted:
The NSW Government funds a range of mental health and drug
and alcohol health promotion, prevention and early intervention initiatives.
These services are provided based on evidence of need and effectiveness for
different age and risk groups and, where appropriate, covering infants, families,
children, adolescents and young people. An increase in community awareness regarding
service access and what these services offer may have broader positive impact than
the development of services targeting a specific and narrow target group.[138]
3.136
The Tasmanian government indicated that, while it was committed to
providing ongoing support to care leavers, it did not support explicit recognition
of care leavers as a sub-group across a range of policy areas, including
health:
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 highest in need, [and] it
is felt that in Tasmania appropriate and effective support can be provided to
care leavers from within existing services.[139]
3.137
The Western Australian government advised that its Department of Health 'funds
a range of health care, health promotion and support programs that are
accessible to all Western Australians.[140]
Forgotten Australians 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 focusing 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.
Forgotten Australians 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.
Implementation
3.138
The Aged Care Innovative Pool (ACIP) is a program designed to trial new
approaches to aged care for specific population groups.
3.139
The Forgotten Australians report noted that care leavers were an
ageing group that would require a model of aged care that was sensitive to the
particular issues of those who suffered abuse and neglect as children in
institutions. Many of these people were suspicious and fearful of residential
style aged care, due to its institutional nature, and could be re-traumatised
by such settings.[141]
Miss Harrison explained:
We believe very strongly that forgotten Australians are going
to have a lot of difficulty with the current aged-care model in this country.
It is a model that is largely institutionally based...[Many forgotten
Australians] will find themselves in institutions, and some of them say they
would rather be shot first. This is quite understandable...[142]
3.140
The AFA stressed that the provision of appropriate aged care services to
Forgotten Australians, as well as the education of service providers, was a
'growing problem' that needed to be urgently addressed.[143]
3.141
Ms Walsh commented that the Commonwealth response to the Committee's
recommendation had merely affirmed the report's finding, and there remained the
need for research into models of aged care for care leavers under ACIP.
3.142
The AFA submitted:
To the best of our knowledge, no progress was made on the
Australian Government’s expressed willingness to test innovative models of aged
care service for this group under the Aged Care Innovative Pool. No agency
appears to have taken up this suggestion.[144]
3.143
FaHCSIA advised that the department 'is not aware of further action'
beyond the Commonwealth's acknowledgment of the potential for 'agencies' to
develop proposals relevant to care leavers under the ACIP.[145]
Home and Community Care program
3.144
The Home and Community Care (HACC) Program provides a range of basic
support services to frail older people and people with disabilities who are
experiencing difficulties in managing daily tasks but who wish to continue
living at home. It also supports their carers and families.[146]
3.145
FaHCSIA advised that the department 'is not aware of further action' on
the recommendation that the Home and Community Care program (HACC) recognise
the particular needs of care leavers.
3.146
Miss Harrison advised that, although HACC and 'other in-home services'
were improving, there was still a 'heavy reliance on family or relatives to
care for aged people at home. As many aged care leavers did not have partners
and children, HACC would not necessarily allow them to avoid being placed in
institutional care.[147]
3.147
The NSW submission indicated that care leavers' needs were not
explicitly recognised in the HACC program in that State. It noted that '
further research may be required to determine what particular needs care
leavers accessing the HACC program would require before this recommendation
could be progressed'.[148]
3.148
South Australia advised that 'HACC services are targeted to people with
special needs' but did not indicate that care leavers' particular needs were
recognised.[149]
3.149
Western Australia advised that for the HACC program in that State:
Consideration of applicants'
living and financial arrangements, mental and general well being are
taken into account when prioritising services. Generally, in most cases it would
not be known that an applicant for services is a care leaver.[150]
3.150
The Committee received no evidence that the HACC programs in Queensland,
Tasmania and Victoria had taken steps to explicitly recognise the needs of care
leavers. None of the HACC websites in these States carries information specific
to care leavers. As with health, the Tasmanian government indicated that it did
not support explicit recognition of care leavers as a sub-group across a range
of policy areas, including aged care and social welfare services.[151]
Forgotten Australians 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.
Implementation
3.151
The purpose of the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP) is
to provide transitional supported accommodation and related support services to
help homeless people achieve the maximum possible degree of self-reliance and
independence.[152]
3.152
Forgotten Australians found that care leavers commonly
experienced accessing affordable housing; and that, although this group made up
a high proportion of users of the SAAP, there was no explicit recognition of
care leavers' particular needs.
3.153
FaHCSIA provided an update to the original Commonwealth' response:
This recommendation has been supported by the Government.
The vulnerability of young people leaving care to
homelessness is recognised and raised in the Green Paper on Homelessness, Which
Way Home? A New Approach to Homelessness released in May 2008 to promote
discussion about how to reduce homelessness.
A White Paper on homelessness will be released later this
year and will be supported by a National Action Plan setting out reform
directions for four years.[153]
In June 2008, a feasibility study funded by the Community and
Disability Services Ministers’ Advisory Council, into ‘Linking SAAP, Child
Protection and Juvenile Justice Data Collections’ was produced by the
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. The study concluded that it is
feasible to begin linking the currently suitable and available data from the
juvenile justice and SAAP national data collections with future stages
including child protection data when these are available.
The SAAP National Data Collection (NDC) is a continuous
collection of information from July 1996 of the services provided to clients of
SAAP and of the agencies funded to deliver those services. The NDC aims to continuously
improve the quality and usefulness of data collection in order to provide a
valuable information resource for service development, management and research
into homelessness responses. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare is
currently contracted to carry out this task. Data on the usage of the Program
by care leavers is not currently specifically collected by the SAAP National
Data Collection Agency.
From January 1 2009 the Supported Accommodation Assistance
Program will be incorporated into the Housing Specific Purpose Payment (SPP).Care
leaver support and advocacy groups should be informed about SAAP services,
however early intervention and prevention of homelessness amongst young people
leaving care would be preferable to a crisis response through SAAP or other
homelessness services.
3.154
The NSW government extended 'in-principle' support to this
recommendation. It noted that currently care leaver plans must be developed for
care leavers leaving care. Care leavers are also given information about
services available to them. However, in relation to collection and
dissemination of information it notes:
While every effort is made to ensure effective data around
SAAP service usage, it should be noted that data collection is based primarily
on self disclosure, if the person has not been referred to the SAAP service by
the agency that previously provided care. Persons who have been in care may or
may not wish to disclose past care history. Making disclosure a requirement of
service usage may discourage some people from accessing SAAP services.[154]
3.155
The Queensland government submission did not directly address
recommendation 28.
3.156
As noted above, Tasmania did not support the specific recognition of
care leavers' needs across a range of social policy areas, including social
welfare services.
3.157
Victoria did not provide a submission to the inquiry. However, it
appears that its SAAP program does not appear to contain any reference to
specific needs of care leavers.
3.158
The government of Western Australia responded that it was working with
the Commonwealth on development of a 'comprehensive long term national approach
to tackling homelessness including early intervention, breaking the cycle of
homelessness and connecting the service system':
With the Australian Government's
release of the Green Paper and the development of the new National
Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA) which will incorporate funding for the
joint Commonwealth/State Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP),
there is a changing landscape regarding future responses for homelessness. The
importance of a broader service system to address homelessness and improve
integration and coordination with mainstream services is also recognised.[155]
3.159
In relation to collection and dissemination Western Australia concurred
with the view of NSW regarding self-disclosure and the potentially negative
effects of compulsory disclosure on participation in the SAAP. Further:
The issue of data collection on the usage of SAAP services by
care leavers was considered by the SAAP Information Steering Committee. It did
not recommend making any changes to the national data collection as there would
be some difficulty in formulating appropriate questions and, potentially, some
difficulty in asking people about their history in State care.[156]
Education
Forgotten Australians 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.
Forgotten Australians 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
3.160
Forgotten Australians found that many care leavers had left
institutional care with 'a serious lack of literacy and numeracy skills'.[157]
3.161
FaHCSIA advised that it was 'not aware of further action' on the
implementation of this recommendation.
3.162
The AFA criticised the Commonwealth government's response on the grounds
that it 'failed to acknowledge the issues of adult literacy facing adult speakers
of English who cannot read or write their own language'; and that the majority
of adult literacy programs are targeted at migrants whose first language is not
English. The AFA advised that it had raised the issue of the need for more
courses targeting native speakers of English with the Department of Education, Employment
and Workplace Relations but was 'not aware that the situation has improved
significantly'.[158]
3.163
The NSW government responded that there is 'a range of adult education
courses are provided in NSW, and these are widely publicised'.[159]
3.164
The Queensland government did not directly respond to this
recommendation.
3.165
South Australia advised:
Families SA, Post Care Services assist and promote care
leavers to access adult literacy and numeracy services in their local areas and
through adult education provided by TAFE SA by advocating for fee waivers from
the educational organisations, or accessing funding from the Wyatt Benevolent
Institution Inc or on occasion may fund or partly fund some tertiary courses. The
Rapid Response TAFE fee waiver for young people up to 25 years is widely
publicised in University and TAFE guides.[160]
3.166
While it did not respond directly to this recommendation, the Tasmanian
government indicated that it did not support explicit recognition of care
leavers as a sub-group across a range of policy areas, including social welfare
services.[161]
3.167
Victoria did not provide a submission to the inquiry. The Committee is
not aware that the State makes any provision for adult literacy or alternative
entry pathways to education for care leavers.
3.168
The Western Australian government advised that a range of adult
education courses, including literacy and numeracy are available in Western
Australia and are publicised on the internet and in print media.[162]
Alternative entry pathways to higher
education
3.169
The AFA submitted that there 'there has been no apparent response from States
and Territories to recommendation 30'.[163]
3.170
The NSW government submitted that 'pathways to and assistance for higher
education are primarily a matter for institutions and the Commonwealth
Government'. Further, there was a need for research to determine whether there
is 'any clear indication that existing pathways to education are inadequate or
whether care leavers have different access needs to other disadvantaged groups'.
In the absence of such information NSW did not support the recommendation.[164]
3.171
The Queensland government did not respond directly to this
recommendation.
3.172
South Australia advised:
The CREATE Report Card 2008: Transitioning from Care,
authored by Dr Joseph McDowall identified the South Australian Government's
Rapid Response: Whole of Government Services initiative as "outstanding"
in its commitment to improving educational opportunities for care leavers.[165]
3.173
However, the Committee notes that most of the educational initiatives
for care leavers offered in South Australia are restricted to care leavers who
'commence studies prior to their 26th birthday' and, as such would exclude the
majority of not all of the Forgotten Australians. For care leavers not eligible
for such assistance:
...TAFE SA and/or Post Care Services may assist care leavers to
make application for educational support through the Dame Roma Mitchell Trust
Fund or the Wyatt Benevolent Institution Inc. The South Australian Government
and South Australian Council of Social Service initiated the Dame Roma Mitchell
Trust in 2003 to provide funds administered by the Public Trustee to make
grants available to children and young people who are, or have been, under Guardianship
of the Minister. The Wyatt Benevolent Institution located in Adelaide also provides
financial assistance and education grants on referral from a health, education
or welfare professional.[166]
3.174
The Tasmanian government indicated that it did not support explicit
recognition of care leavers as a sub-group across a range of policy areas,
arguing that the number of care leavers in Australia did not warrant the
creation of specialised services; and that such an approach carried the risk of
care leavers facing further discrimination.[167]
3.175
The Western Australian government did not support the recommendation on
similar grounds:
Western Australia considers that existing entry pathways to
higher education courses take into account a range of circumstances of
applicants...Not all ex-residents would necessarily wish to be identified as
such.
Western Australia considers that existing entry pathways to
higher education courses take into account a range of circumstances of
applicants, and does not support introducing an alternative pathway
specifically for ex-residents of institutions and their children. Not all
ex-residents would necessarily wish to be identified as such.[168]
Identification and access to records
3.176
Both Lost Innocents and Forgotten Australians made a
number of recommendations going to the identification and preservation of
records, as well as to the provision of appropriately supported access for care
leavers to their personal records.
3.177
Given the similar experiences of former child migrants and other people
who spent time in out-of-home care as children, issues concerning records were
central to both inquiries. Many of the recommendations of Forgotten
Australians in particular are equally relevant to former child migrants and
indeed to all care leavers. The location, preservation and access to records
are critical to people seeking to discover their own identities, their
families, and to piece together the stories of their childhoods. Further,
records can be important to the identification of perpetrators and the
collection of evidence relevant to both the prosecution of crimes against care
leavers and to base claims for compensation either civil claims or through
redress schemes.
3.178
Throughout the course of this inquiry, the importance of access to
records for care leavers was again emphasised by many submitters and witnesses:
As adults, care leavers can struggle with a sense of identity
but can find healing in being able to locate themselves in childhood photos and
institutional records.[169]
3.179
Similarly, the Healing Way for Forgotten Australians noted:
Healing that takes place when people connect to their records
and then go further to find their families is profound.[170]
3.180
Mr Frank Golding described why he thought that access to personal
records was so important. He gave as reasons: to bring about delayed justice,
to repair personal damage and help with identity and to reconnect with family
and outlined how these reasons interconnect to improve and sustain quality of
life. Mr Golding provided his personal experience in searching for and
accessing records over more than 15 years that involved lengthy delays,
applications to five State government agencies, three Commonwealth agencies and
four private agencies - in addition to public sources and showed that
considerable costs are involved and that agency fees vary and concessions are
allowed inconsistently.[171]
3.181
The issue of the difficulties for care leavers in accessing their
records, in addition to its emotional costs and benefits, was outlined in the Committee's
previous reports. The submission of Ms Joan Fawcett to the present inquiry also
provided a helpful and comprehensive account of the continuing administrative
and emotional problems faced by those seeking access to records from State
agencies and other organisations.[172]
3.182
Ms Angela Sdrinis advised the Committee that the issue of record-keeping
and access to records 'has been and continues to be a real issue'.[173]
Similarly, Mr Andrew Murray, the former federal senator who was instrumental in
the establishment of the Committee's previous two inquiries, observed that
despite some progress many of the problems in relation to care leaver records remain:
Although freedom of information legislation and a greater
willingness of some organisations to make records available have improved
access, problems still include the destruction and fragmentation of records,
poor record-keeping and privacy restrictions.[174]
Who should have responsibility for
care leaver records?
3.183
Some submitters and witnesses questioned whether care leaver records
should remain the responsibility of the agencies and organisations that
provided/or provide care leaver services. It was suggested that the holding and
preservation of records, and hence access regimes, should be a State or
Commonwealth responsibility. Mr John Murray, Foundation Member, Positive Justice
Centre, submitted:
...it is essential that a scheme for [the collection and
dissemination of records]...should follow best practice and be run...by existing
government agencies that already provide archiving services across the country.
This scheme, given its importance, could even be run nationally or under
federal powers or at least be coordinated by federal guideline legislation.[175]
3.184
Mr Murray believed that existing agencies possessed the expertise in
relation to record-keeping rules and legislation, and already had in place the
appropriate processes and services, such as counselling, to support care
leavers accessing their records.[176]
In contrast, the Committee's recommendations on issues concerning records—which
were premised on the assumption that agencies responsible for institutions
would, in the main, retain responsibility for care leaver records—would lead to
duplication of services as well as:
...fragmented service delivery by a myriad number of agencies
with little, if no expertise in the management, archiving and cataloguing of,
and provision of access to such documents.[177]
3.185
Origins Inc. called for all records pertaining to State wards, adoptees
and the stolen generation to be housed in the National Archives for
preservation as part of the nation's history.[178]
3.186
Other witnesses, while supportive of the need for States to set
consistent guidelines for the treatment and provision of records, disagreed
with proposals for centralised records collections and management While not
commenting directly on Mr Murray's view, Mr Quinlan noted:
...the notion of a single central repository is seldom if ever
achieved and seldom if ever the best or most efficient path. It will always be
the case that states will hold particular records, churches will hold
particular records and other organisations will hold particular records.
Ensuring that the data standards and the protocols are appropriate for the
movement of information between those various sources is more likely to be a
realistic pathway to ensuring that people get appropriate access to records.[179]
3.187
Mr Andrew McCallum, Chief Executive Officer, ACWA. supported this view,
and observed that some non-government organisations provide levels of support
not necessarily offered by government agencies:
...it is a state responsibility. I think the state should set
the guidelines. The organisations still need to hold the records...There are some
very good services that would probably go if all records were put with the
state in some particular way. There are some very good after-care and long-term
services provided by some non-government providers which would probably go if
it was all centralised. Setting minimum standards is a state government
responsibility.[180]
3.188
Mr Bill Hoyles, Senior Manager, Youth Affairs and Aftercare, Barnardos,
advised that in his experience people had difficulties obtaining information
from the State rather than from organisations such as Barnardos, which did not
have difficulty storing, accessing and retrieving files.[181]
Lost Innocents Recommendation 8
That the Commonwealth Government urge all State
Governments to co-operate to establish a national index of child migrants.
Government response
The government supports this recommendation and will
refer it to the Community Services Ministers Advisory Council for consideration
by State and Territory governments.
Lost Innocents Recommendation 9
That the Commonwealth Government urge State and Territory
Governments to publish directories of information to assist all former
residents of children’s institutions to access records similar to the
directories published by the New South Wales and Queensland Governments.
Government response
The government supports this recommendation and will
refer it to the Community Services Ministers Advisory Council for consideration
by State and Territory governments who have not published such directories. The
government notes that there are already several directories in existence:
-
Good British Stock: child and youth migration (Barry Coldrey,
National Archives of Australia 1999), which describes records held by the
National Archives of Australia about child migration and provides information
about how to access them;
-
Connecting Kin Guide to records: a guide to help people
separated from their families search for their records, (NSW Department of
Community Services, 1998); and
-
Missing pieces: Information to assist former residents of
children’s institutions to access records, (Families, Youth and Community Care
Queensland, 2001).
Implementation
3.189
The submission of DIAC did not provide any update on the progress of the
Commonwealth government undertaking to progress these recommendations through
the Community Services Ministers Advisory Council (CDSMAC). However, it appears
that they have not been raised in that forum. The Committee is not aware that
there has been any steps toward a national index of child migrants.
3.190
The CMT, commenting generally on the development of child migrant
databases, submitted that no State governments had responded to this issue.[182]
3.191
As noted in the original recommendation and the Commonwealth government
response, both New South Wales and Queensland have put in place information
directories for care leavers. The New South Wales directory, 'Connecting kin',
was published in 1998. The Queensland directory has been in place since 2001:
In 2001, the Queensland Government consulted with non-government
organisations which formerly operated children's homes to develop an
Information directory entitled Missing Pieces. This directory includes
detailed information on the types and location of records held by the
Departments of Child Safety and Communities and religious authorities and is
available on the Department of Communities' website.[183]
3.192
South Australia advised that it had released a guide for care leavers in
2005:
SA Link-Up's 'self help' guide was launched on 7 July 2005.
The guide titled Finding Your Own Way is a comprehensive resource to
assist people to access existing records of South Australian children's homes
and institutions. The guide describes all the records of institutions that were
located as at December 2004 although the amount and quality of records varies
greatly with each institution and with each managing agency.[184]
3.193
Additionally, State Records of South Australia provide services through
their archives website and through publications such as Ancestors in archives,
Aboriginal resource kit: an introduction to primary sources held by State
Records and 'A little flour and a few blankets': an administrative history
of Aboriginal affairs in South Australia 1834-2000.[185]
3.194
Tasmania provided a general response noting only that the Department of
Health and Human Services continues 'to assist child migrants and their
descendants who apply to have access to their files'.[186]
3.195
Western Australia advised that it publishes a number of directories of
information to assist all former residents of children's institutions, out-of-home care and supported accommodation,
and adoptees. These are:
-
Signposts: A Guide for Children and Young People in Care in
Western Australia from 1920: a publication to assist people who were placed
in residential care as children, or who lived in supported accommodation as a
young person, to find records and other documents;
-
Looking West: A Guide to Aboriginal Records in Western
Australia: a publication which provides details on the location of records
and contact details;
-
ROADS: an index of locations and access to adoption
records.[187]
3.196
The identification and location of records relating to out-of-home care
was also being achieved through a number of indexes and databases, including:
-
Family Information Research System. This database holds all the
native welfare, and some community welfare, records plus 43 indexes from church
groups and non-government agencies; and there is over nine million images
stored in FIRS. It also holds the Adoption Information System, which is a
register of inquiries received about Western Australian adoptions from 1896 to
the present day;
-
Former Child Migrant Referral Index. This index holds 2,941 names
of former child migrants who came to WA from the United Kingdom and Malta from
1913 to 1968; and holds information relating to the sending and receiving
agencies; and
-
Children-in-Care Database. This database contains names, aliases,
dates of birth and placement details. There are in excess of 106,000 entries on
the database comprising approximately 58,000 names.[188]
3.197
In addition, CBERS Consultancy has established a referencing for former
child migrants, known as PHIND, the Personal History Index for Former Child
Migrants. The index details the location of records held in Australia for
former child migrants resident in Catholic Homes between 1938 and 1965. PHIND has
been sponsored and funded by the Catholic religious orders and agencies
involved in child migration.[189]
3.198
Ms Humphreys observed generally that the Committee's previous inquiries
had led to improved procedures and guidelines to enable former child migrants
to locate family:
It is certainly much improved on what it used to be. That is
for sure. Both inquiries have made quite a substantial difference to the
attitude about records. I think it is important for us to say that, because it
has made a difference. There are procedures and protocols in place for the
trust to work with all agencies that were involved in child migration.[190]
Forgotten Australians 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.
Implementation
3.199
The responses of the State governments to this recommendation indicated
that few if any programs have been put in place to specifically identify and
preserve care leaver records. However, there is a program dedicated to
assisting members of the stolen generation in South Australia; and in other States
there are programs of a more general scope that have apparently improved
outcomes in terms of identifying and preserving records, which include records
pertaining to care leavers.
3.200
The NSW government advised that it had in place a program for the
preservation of the files of former State wards. However, a significant number
of records had been destroyed in the past.[191]
In relation to other records:
The Department of Community Services does have some other
types of surviving historical records. These records had been inaccessible for
many years as they had not been indexed by State Records. In 2005, a program
commenced to identify and index types of records which include some personal
information about former wards, other former clients and the estimated 100
children’s homes the Department formerly operated. To date, approximately
61,000 “new” client records have been indexed.[192]
3.201
Queensland advised that, in response to the Forde inquiry, Queensland
had taken steps to identify, locate and preserve client files and departmental
records relevant to the administration of church run children's homes and departmental
facilities. This includes requirements that all Queensland government
departments:
3.202
Further, retention and disposal schedules apply to the former Department
of Families, Youth and Community Care client files; these schedules are
currently under review.[193]
A large number of original client records relating to youth detention
institutions have been identified, catalogued and scanned electronically to
provide easier access and to preserve these valuable documents.
3.203
South Australia advised:
The Department for Families and Communities, in conjunction
with State Records of South Australia, continues to undertake discovery and
consignment listing of records relating to children in State care. State
Records of South Australia and Link-up SA provide dedicated support services to
Aboriginal care leavers and their families in the task of locating and viewing
records. The Department for Families and Communities, Families SA Post Care Services
provide support services to care leavers to assist them in the task of
identifying, locating and viewing personal records.[194]
3.204
The Tasmanian government submission did not advise of any specific
programs relating to identification and preservation of care leaver records.
3.205
In relation to Victoria, FaHCSIA advised that the Commonwealth had
provided a grant of $550 000 to fund the 'Who am I' project. The FaHCSIA
submission explains:
...to acknowledge the ongoing need to help uncover lost and
incomplete personal histories, the Government has provided an Australian
Research Council grant to assist several Victorian based organisations
undertake a study on children and adolescents who formerly lived in foster or
institutional homes. This project is providing information to people who have
been in care, offer a history and set of resources to people currently in care,
and inform current organisations on best practice models.[195]
3.206
The Committee heard that the 'Who Am I? Making Records Meaningful'
project is a complex project involving government, community sector
organisations and the Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare. The
project is being undertaken by an interdisciplinary team of researchers, and
its purpose is:
...to investigate archiving and record-keeping practices to
support current care leavers and forgotten Australians, or past care leavers,
in the construction of their identity.[196]
3.207
The final outcome of the project is intended to be an online resource
for care leavers, which would include digitised records and a wide array of
information on such things as care institutions, relevant legal regimes and
political and social context. Particular items of information—for example, a
record indicating that a person was present in a given institution at a given
time—are to be presented in a full historical context, which can be intuitively
searched or negotiated.
3.208
The project is funded by the Australian Research Council, 12 community
sector organisations, the centre for excellence, Victorian Aboriginal Child Care
Agency, and the Victorian State government. Total funding amounts to
$800 000 over three years.[197]
Professor Cathy Humphries, Alfred Felton Chair of Child and Family Welfare,
advised that the project would be activated online in stages over the course of
its three-year development.[198]
However, funding and administrative arrangements beyond the three-year
development phase of the project was uncertain.
3.209
Ms Clare noted that the scheme—particularly if it were to be pursued at
a national level—could significantly address the Committee's previous recommendations
concerning the identification preservation of, as well as access to, care
leaver records.[199]
3.210
Western Australia advised that it had put in place a specific program
for records relating to Indigenous people:
In response to Recommendation 23 of...[the Bringing them
home report] the Western Australian Government established a Records
Taskforce to identify, locate and preserve government and non-government
records relating to Aboriginal people in Western Australia.
Forgotten Australians 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.
Implementation
3.211
Forgotten Australians found that there had been considerable
destruction of care leaver records in both government and non-government
agencies, due to inadequate retention policies as well as failures to properly
store and preserve records.[200]
3.212
The AFA believed there were still disparate practices across the States
and non-government organisations in terms of records preservation, and called
for national legislation to prevent any further destruction of records:[201]
AFA believes that only national legislation will stop the
practice of destroying records, as some organisations would rather destroy
records than spend the time and money logging them and creating access to them.
AFA members had reported that churches in particular remained
slow to respond to requests for information.[202]
3.213
Ms Mallet advised that records had not been destroyed in NSW since the
passing of the Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1988. This Act
had also been amended to allow former wards of the State to be given original
materials contained in files, such as birth certificates, school reports and
medical reports.[203]
The NSW submission advised:
The NSW State Archive has a program for the preservation of
the files of former State wards. Regrettably, in accordance with past
record-keeping practices, the Department routinely destroyed records throughout
much of the twentieth century, with the concurrence of State Records NSW. The
Department therefore has no surviving wardship records for approximately 16% of
the mature-age care-leavers who apply to access departmental records about
themselves.[204]
3.214
Queensland advised:
All Queensland Government departments are required to meet
the record keeping obligations prescribed in Public Records Act 2002 and
the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977 and comply with
Information Standard 40 (Recordkeeping). Retention end Disposal Schedules are
in place for the former Department of Families, Youth and Community Care client
files. These Schedules are currently under review.[205]
3.215
South Australia, which had destroyed records in the past in accordance
with then government policies and practice, acknowledged that the State had an
ongoing duty of care to care leavers that extended to the proper management and
preservation of records. Accordingly, care leaver records were now permanently
preserved:
Client files and sub-files relating to children in care must
be retained for at least 105 years under the SA State Records Act 1997.
Care leaver records, or historical records relating to out-of-home and
institutional care are held permanently [at State records of South Australia].[206]
3.216
Tasmania advised that no departmental files relating to children in the
care of the State of Tasmania have been destroyed.[207]
3.217
The Western Australian Department for Child Protection submitted:
[The department]...has not knowingly destroyed any client
records since the 1980's. Current policy does not allow destruction of original
records i.e. microfilm and paper records even though they have been imaged
electronically. Therefore it is possible that three types of media exist of the
same record.[208]
Forgotten Australians 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.
Forgotten Australians 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.
Forgotten Australians 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.
Forgotten Australians 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.
Implementation
3.218
Forgotten Australians recommendations 14, 15 and 16 went to the
issue of providing dedicated and comprehensive directories and services, as
well as uniform guidelines, to assist care leavers to locate and access
records. Recommendation 17 sought to ensure that governments and non-government
agencies made adequate provision for support and counselling services for care
leavers when accessing and viewing records. Aspects of recommendations 14
through 17 are addressed above, particularly in the discussion of
recommendation 9, in relation to directories, and recommendation 23, in
relation to counselling.
3.219
The issues of access to records and related support and counselling
services are also relevant to the design of redress schemes in those States
that have so far introduced such schemes. Redress schemes are considered above
under the discussion of Forgotten Australians recommendation 6.
3.220
The AFA submitted that that there are still disparate practices across State
and non-government organisations in relation to access to records:
...there are still very different practices, in terms of
preservation of and access to records, across all States and Territories and
among past providers as well. AFA members report that some churches are slow to
respond to requests for information and appear to conceal incriminating
evidence; or they may tell the inquirer that records have been destroyed.[209]
3.221
The AFA called for greater involvement by the Commonwealth government,
on the grounds that only such an 'intervention' could achieve 'greater national
consistency' of access to records, and ensure an appropriate investment of time
and skill in making records available.[210]
3.222
However, Ms Annette Michaux, General Manager, Social Policy and
Research, Benevolent Society, noted that guidelines should not be overly
prescriptive, to ensure that specific protocols and processes could remain
sensitive to the circumstance of both organisations and individuals:
This is a really difficult area. There is the idea of having
some guiding principles, federal or state based, but it is important to have a
kind of flexible, grounded approach to each individual who is approaching the
service so that they can navigate through the reveal of the file sensitively
with that person. That is very hard to put into policies and processes, but I
think there are ways to use benchmarks and guides and then have a very flexible
grounded approach.[211]
New South Wales
3.223
There is no dedicated information and search service for care leavers in
NSW. The NSW government submission advised that a legislative framework exists
to ensure care leavers are given supported access to records by State agencies.
Former wards of the State do not need to apply for access to their records under
the NSW Freedom of Information Act 1989, with access granted in accordance
with the provisions of the NSW Children and Young Persons (Care and
Protection) Act 1998 and the NSW Privacy and Personal Information
Protection Act 1998.[212]
This legislation ensures enables:
...all persons who were in care to have access to any personal
information held by the designated agency that provided care or the carer. The
agency must also provide appropriate support to the person accessing the
information.[213]
3.224
Barnardos and CLAN also referred to NSW's 'publication Connecting
kin: a guide to help people separated from their families, a guide to help
people separated from their families search for their records. CLAN noted that,
while there was considerable variation from State to State in assistance with
processes for access to records:
NSW led the way with their 1998 guide, Connecting Kin, and
other states now also have a guide to records, but others do not.[214]
3.225
However, the AFA described the processes to be followed by care leavers
wishing to access records in NSW as lacking any specific protocols or support
for care leavers:
The usual process in NSW is that Forgotten Australians go to
their local DOCS office and request their state ward file. There is no extra
training for staff to help them understand whom they are dealing with when
Forgotten Australians turn up with this request. People who are out of state go
through FoI.[215]
3.226
NSW contended that it did in fact provide 'significant levels of support
and assistance to care leavers accessing records' held by the Department of Community Services:
...arrangements are already in place to assist former wards to
access departmental records about their time in care. This access is arranged
by experienced casework staff at local DoCS Community Services Centres. Access
for former wards who live outside NSW is arranged by DoCS’ Freedom of
Information Unit. A dedicated Records Officer is responsible for locating
relevant departmental records about former wards.[216]
3.227
In relation to former child migrants, the CMT submission observed that NSW
had developed a child migrant database 'similar to that already in existence in
Western Australia'. However, by limiting access to this resource to government
agencies, it was of only limited usefulness for former child migrants.[217]
3.228
As noted in the discussion of the response to recommendation 12, NSW has
implemented programs which, while not specifically targeted at care leaver
records, have improved to some extent their identification and preservation.[218]
3.229
There did not appear to be any provision for discrete or separately
funded counselling services for care leavers accessing or viewing their
personal records in NSW. The issue of counselling services more generally,
which could be accessed for the purposes of such support, was considered in the
discussion on delivery of services above, particularly in relation to
recommendation 23 of Forgotten Australians.
Queensland
3.230
There is no dedicated information and search service for care leavers in
Queensland. Access to care leaver records is governed by the freedom of
information (FoI) legislation and principles that apply to the public in
general, and certain administrative processes:
Under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act
1992, members of the public have a legal right to apply for access to
documents held by a government department and to amend documents which relate
to their own personal affairs. There are no fees or charges to access or copy
documents which relate to an applicants personal affairs. Charges apply for
access to non-personal affairs documents. Information about relevant fees and
charges is available from the Department of Communities' website.
The Department of Communities offers former children in care
access to personal information through the freedom of Information (FoI) process
or administrative release access arrangements. During the processing of
applications, departmental officers will link individuals to other agencies,
which might hold relevant information and to support agencies as required.
Applications may be transferred in full or in part to other agencies for
processing with the knowledge and consent of the applicants.[219]
3.231
However, Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders are able to
access a dedicated service:
In addition, the Community and Personal Histories unit with
the department's Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnership
provides assistance to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to locate
state government records about themselves and their communities.[220]
3.232
Ms Ketton offered praise for the delivery of processes available to care
leavers in Queensland:
We note that accessing childhood care records in Queensland
has mostly become a streamlined process for care leavers and that this service
is provided in a most respectful and sensitive manner.[221]
3.233
There did not appear to be any provision for discrete or separately
funded counselling services for care leavers accessing or viewing their
personal records in Queensland. The issue of counselling services more
generally, which could be accessed for the purposes of such support, was
considered in the discussion on delivery of services above, particularly in
relation to recommendation 23 of Forgotten Australians.
South Australia
3.234
There is no dedicated information and search service for care leavers in
South Australia. South Australia disagreed there was a need for a dedicated
information and search services in each State. On the grounds that the
opportunities for assistance and guidance for care leavers in locating and
accessing record were sufficient, it felt that recommendation 15 would not 'add
value to the provision of services' in South Australia.[222]
3.235
Access to care leaver records in South Australia is governed by the State's
FoI legislation:
The South Australian Government recognises the personal,
historical and legal value of client records and facilitates...access to these
records through provision under the Freedom of Information Act 1991...[with
requests processed] by an accredited Freedom of Information Officer.
3.236
South Australia advised that people accessing records are assisted by
Post Care Services, which:
...provides a flexible and compassionate interpretation of
privacy principles and other legislation to enable care leavers to identify
family background, but without releasing information that contains the details
of other people...[and] supports care leavers or their family to find relatives
and mediate re-connection where possible...[223]
3.237
FoI fees and charges are waived where requests relate to personal
records.[224]
Post Care Services also provides support and advocacy for access to records
held by another State or non-government organisation.
3.238
Social worker support is provided to people accessing their records
under FoI; and funding and referrals are provided for 'appropriate independent
counselling services to support the viewing of records or following viewing'.[225]
The counselling services provided by Post Care Services are also discussed
above under the consideration of recommendation 21 of Forgotten Australians.
Tasmania
3.239
There is no dedicated information and search service for care leavers in
Tasmania. However, the Tasmanian Minister for Human Services advised:
My Department continues to support care leavers, (regardless
of when they were in care) who contact the Department seeking information
and/or access to their files.[226]
3.240
Ms Alison Jacob, Deputy Secretary, Human Services, Department of Health
and Human Services (DHHS), explained that the department's After Care Support
Program provided assistance to care leavers to access their records, support
for viewing the file and referrals to counselling. Ms Una Hobday, Manager,
Adoption and Permanency Services, DHHS, described the operation of that
program:
For...[older care leavers] we can search their records for
them. We can try to find family members, if that is what they want. We can give
them copies of their full records. We can talk them through the kinds of
differences there were in communities at those times, which seems to be the
thing we do most. We talk to them about what it was like in the sixties and
seventies for families, so that we put their file into context...Then we offer
them opportunities to go and get more thorough counselling, if needed, through
a raft of psychologists or counsellors around the state.[227]
3.241
The Committee heard suggestions that applicants in Tasmania had been
refused access to personal records. The AFA submitted:
Waiting times to access records can be up to a year; in some
cases, records are sealed for the life of the survivor in question. Tasmania is
a case in point, where some Forgotten Australians have been told they can never
access their files.[228]
3.242
However, Tasmanian government representatives were unaware of any recent
or significant complaints in relation to refusals, either by government or private
agencies, to provide access to records.[229]
In terms of facilitating access to records from non-government organisations:
If we have a claimant under our current round that comes
forward and wants to access information which might include a mix of state government
welfare files and/or files from outside organisations, we will work with them
to assist them in getting access to the forms, help them to fill out the forms,
or even on occasion write to the organisation on their behalf. We do that on
behalf of people that come to see us.[230]
Victoria
3.243
There is no dedicated information and search service for care leavers in
Victoria. The AFA advised that care leavers seeking to access records in that State
must work within the parameters of FoI and privacy legislation; and are
confronted by a number of processes that offer varying degrees of assistance:
In Victoria, Adoption Family Record Service (AFRS), who hold
the state ward records, are reported as being reasonably approachable. However,
many former wards still need to chase their files through several agencies that
dealt with them as children. No advice is given to applicants by [the
Department of Human Services] about what other sources of information about
their families might be worth investigating...Support varies according to which
agency people apply through. Working within the Privacy Act, AFRS try to give
as much information as possible; however, many Forgotten Australians are not
happy that they still cannot access family information, including information
on siblings.[231]
3.244
Further, there were anecdotal accounts of serious delays in the
provision of information in response to FoI requests, which in some cases were
taking 'up to eight or nine months' instead of the prescribed time limit of 45
days.[232]
3.245
Mr Golding advised the Committee that there had been 'some improvement'
by individual care providers in allowing access to records; however, there was
'still a long way to go'. In particular, a project to produce a comprehensive
guide to out-of-home records, the 'Who Am I?' project, remained unfinished, and
was not expected to be complete for another three years.[233]
Western Australia
3.246
There is no dedicated information and search service for all care
leavers in Western Australia. However, a specialist service, the Family
Information and Records Bureau (FIRB), is in place for Indigenous Australians.
The FIRB was established in response to the Bringing Them Home report in
1998. In terms of staffing and the scope of its work:
FIRB employs six Aboriginal Information Officers who provide
personal information and work with Linkup and Bringing Them Home Group, a
System and Information Officer who manages the database and an Information
Officer who provides information to non-Indigenous persons including former
child migrants.[234]
3.247
Other care leavers seeking access to records must generally apply for
records held by the Department for Child Protection (DCP) through existing
administrative arrangements or FoI processes. Since 1985 the department has
employed an information officer, who can assist people seeking information
about themselves.[235]
The department can also provide assistance with locating and accessing records
through the FIRB and Adoptions Services.[236]
3.248
The DCP advised that it encourages care leavers seeking access to personal
information held by the department to do so through informal processes.
However, any release of information must comply with FoI Act principles and
guidelines, and applicants could make applications under the act of
dissatisfied with the informal processes. No fees or charges are payable for
individuals seeking access to their personal information.
The Department does not allow persons to view original
information relating to themselves. Information is edited and copies provided,
as there is often third party information entwined with a person's personal information.
Information about a person's
personal and family history is provided face-to-face unless otherwise
requested by the individual, and support and counselling is available if
required or requested.[237]
Non-government agencies
3.249
In relation to the identification, location and preservation of records
by non-government agencies, as well as the provision of supported assistance
for access to records by care leavers, the Committee heard that a number of non-government
agencies, mainly church and religious organisations, had taken significant
steps.
3.250
The Committee heard that MacKillop Family Services—established in 1997
by its three founding religious congregations: the Sisters of Mercy, the
Sisters of St Joseph and the Christian Brothers—had developed a database
listing the names of children who were resident in homes run by that
organisation. This database was established to help former residents and their
families access information from their time in care, and contained
approximately 150 000 names.[238]
3.251
The Benevolent Society advised that it had instituted record-keeping
procedures and access protocols in direct response to the Forgotten
Australians recommendations. The society conducted a search for historic
records, which it reported was unfortunately inconclusive concerning the
existence and possible destruction of pre-1970 records. Since then, the society
had published a history of care, and confirmed records processes that appeared
to be consistent with the recommendations of Forgotten Australians.[239]
3.252
Mr John Kennedy, Chairman of Council, Fairbridge Foundation, provided an
example of how, as a smaller organisation of limited means, the Fairbridge Foundation
ensured appropriate counselling services were available to people accessing
records:
In our situation...[because the Fairbridge Foundation is a]
small group, we do not have the resources...[Therefore we] draw on the resources
of the Child Migrants Trust, who do have the professional assistance. If we
felt that there were things in a file about which the applicant really needed
some counselling, we would refer the applicant to the Child Migrants Trust to
get that help if they felt they needed it.[240]
3.253
Mr Quinlan advised that, in response to the Committee's recommendations,
CSSA had been commissioned to undertake a national project to:
...identify the extent, location and access arrangements for
care-leaver records held by the church, its agencies and ministries, and the
best models for the future support of care leavers by the Catholic Church.[241]
3.254
Mr Quinlan noted that a substantial level of consultation had already
been undertaken with Catholic organisations and religious orders in possession
of records and/or providing services to care leavers. Limited consultation with
care leaver groups and individual care leavers had also been undertaken.[242]
3.255
While the final report of the project was not due until later in 2009,
Mr Quinlan advised on the likely direction of its findings. First, there was a
need to update the Church's directory of the location of records across
Australia, A piece of the story: national directory of records of Catholic
organisations caring for children separated from families. The directory
was originally published in response to the Bringing them home report,
which called on churches to identify all records relating to Indigenous
children; the project was eventually broadened to include all Catholic
institutions:
A piece of the story is a directory of the location of
records across Australia, a description of the holdings and a description of
how to access the records. The directory is acknowledged as an excellent
resource for people who were in care and who are now searching for records. It
is, however, in need of revision and updating...[243]
3.256
Second, there was still a need to develop a 'systematic policy and
practice of records management development across the Catholic church and its
various agencies and religious congregations' to provide appropriate services
and support for care leavers. This was necessary because
there were still divergent policies and procedures in place concerning the
location and storage of records, as well as the provision of supported access
and support.[244]
While there was a need to ensure the input of care leavers and support groups,
Mr Quinlan indicated that the design of services would be based on certain
principles:
Care leavers have clearly expressed a preference for services
that are not laden with cumbersome application procedures to access records.
Services to people who are in care need to be staffed by people who are highly
skilled and experienced and professionally trained, with some kind of social
work or similar qualification. There is a role for archivists and people with
records management training...Organisations providing services to people who are
in care need to be well resourced and workers need to be supported through
supervision and training[245]
3.257
Due to fact of so many institutions making up the broader Catholic Church,
it was likely that the model of records preservation, access and support would
be a form of distributed network, in which a single or standardised point of
entry to a database would provide access to multiple individual holdings.
Common guidelines and standards would ensure appropriate access and support for
care leavers.[246]
3.258
This model of record retention and access was effectively endorsed by Ms
Janet Henegan, Manager, Post Adoption Resource Centre:
The Benevolent Society has their own records, which are
stored with us. When people access their files they have an opportunity to have
a counselling session to understand what was happening historically. It is an
option for them and there is support and further search information available
to them. While I would like some things to be standardised I would be really
concerned about records being held centrally...[247]
3.259
However, Mr Graham Hercus, After Care Support, United Protestant
Association of New South Wales, felt that some form of centralised control or
guidance of church records was necessary, due to both the limited means of many
such organisations and that fact that many were no longer in existence:
...in an ideal world you would have the past provider making
sure that...[access to records] was being delivered in a compassionate and caring
manner. But, given that quite a large number of the past providers no longer
exist and that a lot of the forgotten Australians will not have anything to do
with the past provider...you have a number of intractable problems there.
Probably the only way to manage this is through some external agency. Whether
that is governmental or some sort of non-government agency that was appointed
by government and financed by government is a matter to be resolved.[248]
Forgotten Australians 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
3.260
Forgotten Australians report found that care leavers had
experienced problems with FoI legislation. This included both difficulties in
gaining access to information, particularly third-party information; and only
partial information being released once access was granted, due to privacy
restrictions on viewing information related to third parties. As noted above under
the consideration of State regimes and processes for access to personal
information, all States possess FoI legislation which in most cases directly or
indirectly governs the release of information to care leavers.
3.261
Mr Hercus observed that in some cases the complex and bureaucratic
nature FoI was still operating as an effective barrier to care leavers:
Experience to date seems to show that if you were a state
ward and you want to get access to your state ward records you have to go
through a freedom of information process that is really quite complex,
bureaucratic and slow, and people often give up in the chase.[249]
3.262
In addition, the AFA believed that people making FoI applications were
not being properly informed about their rights under such acts:
Our understanding is that applicants are not usually informed
of their rights under s30.3 of the FoI Act (under which, if it is .reasonable.
to do so, the Department may contact a third party to see if they have
objections to information about them being released to an applicant).[250]
3.263
Many submitters and witnesses emphasised the ongoing problems of the
privacy restrictions on viewing information related to third parties, which,
for care leavers, meant that they were often prevented from accessing
information related to members of their own families. Mr Andrew Murray
identified the tension between privacy considerations and the needs of care
leavers:
Privacy restrictions can mean that people finally access
their records, only to discover that substantial information has been withheld,
especially when attempting to access records of other family members. In some
cases these records are bound to contain vital information in the quest to
trace family members or the person’s history. Under privacy legislation, family
information is considered information about a third party and is treated
differently to the personal information of the searcher. Overall, third party
privacy restrictions pose a frustrating barrier to care leavers.[251]
3.264
Ms Ketton believed that current arrangements placed undue emphasis on
the privacy considerations of third parties at the expense of care leavers' and
their families' right to know. This led to lasting detrimental effects on care
leavers' 'sense of self and emotional wellbeing'.[252]
3.265
Ms Diane Tronc commented on the frustration of such restrictions on
personal information:
I feel very disappointed with the FoI system...A lot of our
files are blacked out. I lost my real mother and father when I was very young,
and I did not get to spend that much time at all with my real family that I can
recall. I feel that now is the time to lift the blackness and to give me the
truth about my life now that both parents on each side have deceased. I would
like my next of kin to have those rights and the blackness lifted on my files.[253]
3.266
Mr Frank Golding also spoke of the frustrations arising from his
personal searches for immediate family records:
The stories of accessing the files of my mother’s sisters
demonstrate that taking a narrow view of entitlement to records - that access
is to the person’s own files and no more – is short-sighted and ill-conceived.
Firstly, former inmates need to know the full story of their extended family
not just the parts of the story connecting one individual to the welfare
system. The better they understand the bigger picture the better they will
understand their particular piece of the mosaic.[254]
3.267
Mr Andrew Murray called for changes to privacy legislation, and urged
the Committee to:
...campaign for...greater and more sympathetic access [to information
for care leavers], including ending the misuse of privacy rules to prevent
proper-purpose access.[255]
3.268
The AFA believed there was a need for particular legislation to allow
care leavers to access identifying information about their families.[256]
3.269
Updating the Commonwealth government's response to recommendation 18,
the FaHCSIA submission states:
The then Australian Attorney General wrote to state premiers
in May 2006, but did not suggest referral to the Standing Committee of
Attorneys- General (SCAG). All jurisdictions responded saying that they were
investigating the matter.
Jurisdictions were to complete a template, requesting
information on current practices in relation to information release and care
leavers accessing records and forward this to the QLD Department of
Communities.
The template was completed, however contact needs to be made
with the Queensland Department of Communities to progress this information.
FaHCSIA is not aware of further action.[257]
3.270
New South Wales advised that it supported this recommendation
'in-principle, and noted that in NSW former wards of the State do not need to
apply for access to their personal information under the NSW Freedom of
Information Act 1989, but are granted access in accordance with the
provisions of the NSW Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act
1998 and the NSW Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998.[258]
3.271
In August 2008, Queensland announced that it intended to 'overhaul' of
its FoI laws in response to the recommendations of the FoI Independent Review
Panel, with the aim of 'providing the public with greater accessibility to
information and better transparency'. This would include the implementation of
a new legislative framework known as the Right to Information Act.[259]
While it was not clear whether the act would specifically address the privacy
issues that present problems for care leavers, Mr Andrew Murray noted with
approval that Queensland was considering privacy legislation as part of its FoI
review:
The Queensland government has issued two draft bills for
simultaneous public consultation—the Right to Information Bill 2009 and the
Information Privacy Bill 2009—for the very good reason that privacy is the flip
side to public disclosure and one should not be considered in isolation of the
principles and practices of the other.[260]
3.272
South Australia advised:
The South Australian Department for Families and Communities
currently processes Freedom of Information requests through an accredited
Freedom of Information Officer.[261]
3.273
Tasmania did not provide any comment on FoI issues.
3.274
Western Australia considered the implementation of this recommendation
as being 'a matter for the Commonwealth Government',[262]
but noted that third-party FoI restrictions continued to operate in relation to
care leavers:
The Department does not allow persons to view original
information relating to themselves. Information is edited and copies provided,
as there is often third party information entwined with a person's personal information.[263]
In Western Australia descendants of former child migrants may
apply to have access to records held by the Department for Child Protection.
Any information released must comply with the principles and guidelines for
release of information under the Freedom of Information Act.[264]
3.275
Ms McKenzie advised the Committee that the Commonwealth had recently
undertaken reform of the FoI regime:
On 3 April 2009 Senator John Faulkner launched the draft
exposure bill for the freedom of information reform. Consistent with
recommendation 18, the amendments proposed in the two draft bills represent the
first significant reform to the FoI Act since its commencement in 1982. It is a
reform which will reposition the act as a cornerstone law in Australian
government accountability legislation.[265]
3.276
Ms Essex indicated that the proposed changes to FoI legislation could
improve access for care leavers:
One of the things that Forgotten Australians speak about
regularly is the difficulty of accessing their own records, or records that are
relevant to them, particularly in relation to siblings, their history and their
identity. Our understanding is that the changes proposed to the freedom of
information laws may make that process simpler for them, less costly, and give
them better access to government records.[266]
Role and operation of support groups and other bodies
Advocacy and support groups
Forgotten Australians 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.
Implementation
3.277
Forgotten Australians found there was a need to establish a
'professional advocacy and support group' to operate nationally in the
interests of care leavers; the Committee envisaged that if such a group were
established it should be funded by the Commonwealth and State governments as
well as churches and agencies.[267]
3.278
The FaHCSIA submission advised that the Commonwealth had acted on the
commitment expressed in its original response by providing a grant of
$100 000 'to assist people who were in institutional care as children
through advocacy and support groups'. It was intended that the allocation of
this money would be decided in conjunction with the planning and holding of the
national conference of service providers and advocacy groups.[268]
3.279
The national conference was convened by the Commonwealth government in
June 2006. It was attended by representatives of government, churches and religious
organisations, support groups, service providers and people who have
experienced out-of-home care as children.
3.280
FaHCSIA noted that the conference had 'identified the ongoing needs of
Australians who experienced institutional care as children and made
recommendations about the most effective way of meeting those needs'.
Participants agreed that there was a need for a peak body to represent and
advocate for the needs of Forgotten Australians at a national level.
3.281
Following the conference, the Alliance for Forgotten Australians (AFA)
was established. The AFA was launched on 16 October 2007, with FaHCSIA
providing 'substantial guidance and assistance during its initial establishment
period'.[269]
3.282
The AFA has a steering Committee comprised of Forgotten Australians and
an advisory group, with Families Australia providing auspicing and secretariat
support. This structure was described by one witness as being 'fair, sound and
robust'.[270]
3.283
The AFA acts as a national advocacy body that aims to broadly represent
existing support and service organisations; and promote the interests of people
in all States and territories who experienced institutional or other
out-of-home care as children. The AFA membership includes Forgotten Australians
as well as former child migrants and foster children and members of the stolen
generations. The AFA submission states that it works with the 'knowledge and
cooperation' of its members, and works to advance its objectives at all levels
of government. Its goals are:
Obtaining adequate acknowledgement, accountability and
redress for past wrongs.
Achieving the full implementation of the recommendations of
the Senate Report, overseen by a National Watch Committee that would include
Forgotten Australians (at least 51%).
Supporting current efforts to highlight child protection
issues, including those relating to Indigenous people and child migrants.[271]
3.284
Ms Harrison provided the following description of the AFA's advocacy role:
We are not a support group and we do not operate as a support
group. We operate as a peak body, so the opportunities for us to contact and
deal with individual forgotten Australians are through our members who are
operating in the different states...[272]
3.285
The AFA submission expressed the alliance's commitment to working
cooperatively and productively with all care leavers and support and advocacy
groups:
AFA will develop and enhance its links to the Stolen
Generation and Child Migrants and will work productively with all organisations
representing people who grew up in institutional or other out-of-home care in
the 20th Century, regardless of how those children came to be in care. Links
are already in existence between groups representing these three categories,
and cooperative work will ensure that, while differences between the groups are
recognised and respected, they do not impede the common cause of improving the
lives of survivors.[273]
3.286
Ms Ketton commented:
...we believe that the establishment of the Alliance for
Forgotten Australians has been a positive development towards promoting the
interests of care leavers on a national level. This has also allowed for the
exchange of important information between states and territories regarding
responses and services for care leavers.[274]
3.287
Micah Projects Inc. saw an important role for the AFA in the
coordination of the Commonwealth's interest and role in ensuring the
implementation of the Forgotten Australians report:
The Esther Centre asks the Australian Government to reconsider
the findings and recommendations of the Senate Committee report to establish
dialogue at a national level through the Alliance for Forgotten Australians (AFA)...[275]
3.288
The Committee heard that additional funding of $100 000 has been
provided to the AFA during 2008-09.[276]
The AFA submitted that in total it had received $204 000 of Commonwealth
government funding over two years which had covered its operation.
3.289
The AFA had also received funding for the production and distribution of
an information booklet, Forgotten Australians: supporting survivors of
childhood institutional care in Australia.[277]
FaHCSIA advised:
...[The Government] provided AFA with a $20,000 grant to
greatly extend the publication of its booklet for service providers. AFA’s
information booklet was designed to improve community awareness and provide
support services the background information they need to recognise, relate to
and address the unique needs of people who spend their childhoods in
out-of-home care.[278]
3.290
Despite funding to date, the AFA submitted that it required a more
substantial funding commitment to continue its work:
The Australian Government should provide ongoing three year
funding for the continuation of AFA. AFA has made good initial strides but,
without ongoing financial support, it is highly unlikely that the Alliance will
be able to continue to advocate on behalf of the Forgotten Australians, raise
awareness amongst the general public about the issues facing Forgotten
Australians and provide a national, coordinated voice in advising and
consulting with government/s.[279]
3.291
Ms Cherie Marian observed that the AFA's funding was insufficient for it
to provide an appropriate level of resources and staffing to properly function
as a the national advocate for care leavers:
Currently...AFA is staffed by one person for only 1.5 days a
week (not inclusive of secretariat / administration support)! This level of
staffing to advocate on behalf of a population comprising half a million
people, is grossly inadequate. AFA’s
lack of resources means that the ability to advance the cause of Forgotten
Australians...in vital areas such as research and policy development is very
limited...In order to maximise accessibility and efficacy AFA must be
expanded to have a minimum of at least 1 EFT worker ‘on the ground’ in each state and territory.[280]
3.292
The AFA also identified funding of service provision organisations as
being critical to the AFA's effectiveness:
...the maintenance of both AFA as a peak body and of service
provision organisations...is crucial to achieving improvements in meeting the
needs of Forgotten Australians. To have AFA and the service providers working
cooperatively to promote the interests of Forgotten Australians is of enormous
use to the Australian Government as it devises an improved response to the needs
of Forgotten Australians.[281]
3.293
Ms Walsh felt that, given its current level of funding, there was a need
to carefully consider how the AFA could best work and integrate with
organisations providing services to care leavers at the State level:
It is really important to have a national approach, and
therefore the alliance plays an important role in that. There probably needs to
be more discussion about how that actually operates, because the money for its
operation is minimal. In order for the expectation of forgotten Australians
that their participation will feed into a national alliance, the states have to
have the capacity to do that locally. At the moment that is not the case. A lot
of work by forgotten Australians is done voluntarily.[282]
Forgotten Australians 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
3.294
The Forgotten Australians report received a considerable amount
of evidence establishing the valuable support and advocacy provided by CLAN and
the many other groups around Australia accessed by care leavers. The Committee
found that 'all advocacy and support groups play an important role in providing
assistance to care leavers' and should be supported by governments as well as
non-government agencies by the maintenance of existing funding; with additional
funding; and with funding provided on a recurrent basis.[283]
3.295
In both the past and present inquiries CLAN was identified in particular
as providing an extremely valuable support and advocacy service for older care
leavers on limited funding; and as a group that enjoyed widespread support from
care leavers as well as other organisations.
3.296
CLAN's services include:
-
telephone support and information to individuals and families in
all States;
-
face to face support where clients can visit the CLAN office;
-
assistance with accessing State ward files and records of
residence in an orphanage or children’s home;
-
email support and information;
-
maintenance of a website with information relating to care leaver
issues including an expanding gallery of homes photos;
-
bi-monthly newsletter with information relating to care leaver
issues, which also provides a forum in which care leavers can exchange views
and have their personal history published;
-
a library service for care leavers,
-
a research service for academics and students;
-
a central archive and museum of care leaver history and
experience;
-
support at reunions;
-
social gatherings in all States;
-
advocacy on all care leaver issues; and
-
establishment of the National Museum of Orphanage Life, a unique
collection of artefacts, photographs and other memorabilia which will be
featured early in 2009 on the ABC TV program Collectors.[284]
3.297
Mr Golding observed that support groups generally provide a variety of
services for members, such as access to records, counselling, an opportunity to
tell stories, to be in groups of like-minded people, to share experiences'.[285]
However, the level of funding CLAN's antecedents could be traced to groups
formed in the 1990s and, as such, had been pursuing the objectives of the Committee's
recommendations for a considerable period without government funding.[286]
3.298
As indicated in its response, the previous Commonwealth government
declined to provide on-going or recurrent funding to CLAN. However, in
recognition of CLAN's work, the government provided a one-off grant of $100 000
for professional counselling services to assist care leavers dealing with
personal or family trauma.[287]
3.299
The CLAN submission urged the Commonwealth government to provide
recurrent funding for CLAN, in-line with recommendation 20, to operate as the
national support body and as a 'counterpart' to the AFA as the national
advocacy body. It stated:
CLAN...has to find its own funding each year. CLAN has no
guaranteed ongoing funding, and it never has had.[288]
3.300
This request was repeated by numerous submitters and witnesses. Mr
Golding, in a private submission, noted that while the AFA was an 'excellent
concept' that should continue to be supported, the alliance 'is not a
substitute for CLAN and the other support groups which provided direct services
to Forgotten Australians'. He continued:
In the light of the poor track record of conventional
agencies in dealing with these matters which has led the nation to the state of
'shame for this country' it
is important that an ongoing grant be made available to CLAN - the one
organisation that has 'effectively
reshaped the nation's history' - and to other organisations at the coal face.[289]
3.301
However, Origins Inc. criticised CLAN's membership model on the grounds
that it effectively restricted the provision of services to people who were
inclined and/or able pay a membership fee. Origins Inc. therefore believed that
Commonwealth funding, as well as any State funding, should be 'designated' for
all Forgotten Australians and not restricted to CLAN members alone.[290]
It reported:
...[Origins] has been approached by a number of clients who
complained that support was not offered unless they became CLAN members.[291]
3.302
Mr Meekins was also critical of CLAN's membership fee:
How is it possible for any State Ward on the streets to find
extra money to join CLAN so they can access information and, it is a further
insult asking any State Ward to pay for their own information. This JOINING FEE
must be abolished.[292]
3.303
In response to this criticism, CLAN argued that it was necessary to
charge membership fees, given the insecurity of its funding and the scope of
the services it provided, as outlined above. CLAN advised that in addition to
membership fees its funding was comprised of:
-
a one-off payment of $85 000 from the Victorian government as
part of a package for care leaver support associated with the Victorian
apology;
-
with the exception of Queensland and Western Australia,
(non-recurrent) annual grants from State governments generally between$10 000
and $15 000;[293]
-
a small number of 'past provider' grants, usually around $5000
but occasionally $10 000;
-
in relation to services provided as part of the Redress Western
Australia, payment on a fee-for-service basis by the Western Australian
government; and
-
donations.
3.304
CLAN observed that because the nature of all its funding sources was
unpredictable, as well as being modest in extent, it was therefore necessary to
continue to charge membership fees for the present:
Membership fees make a difference to CLAN because they help
to keep our service going, but we look forward to the day when we can drop
them, because that would mean we had real, and realistic, funding.[294]
3.305
The New South Wales submission states that in March 2008 CLAN was given
funding of $70 000 over two years.[295]
3.306
Queensland did not comment directly on this recommendation. The Committee
understands that the State does not currently provide direct funding for CLAN.[296]
3.307
South Australia advised that in addition to funding of $5000 in 2004-05
it had now committed to provide $15 000 in recurrent funding. [297]
3.308
Ms Jacob advised that Tasmania provided $10 000 per annum in
funding to CLAN.[298]
3.309
In 2006, Victoria provided $1.4 million over three years to be shared by
CLAN and VANISH.[299]
3.310
Western Australia advised that it had provided one-off funding of
$10 000 to CLAN in 2004-05 as well as $5000 to its WA 1800 number. [300]
3.311
Ms McKenzie advised that the Commonwealth had recently approved
$50 000 in funding for CLAN; the National Archives of Australia had also
agreed to provide a number of relevant Defence service records to the
organisation free of charge.[301]
3.312
In relation to future and recurrent funding, Ms Essex stated that the
department was committed to continued engagement with CLAN concerning its
funding needs.[302]
3.313
Many submitters and witnesses identified the need for adequate recurrent
funding for CLAN to allow it to continue to provide its specialist services.
The ACWA described CLAN as the body that best helps the care leaver population
and called on the federal government to take on the responsibility of funding
'this essential national organisation'.[303]
Mr Golding, for example, observed that the present funding arrangements made
CLAN's year-to-year operation difficult:
CLAN, the leading support organisation at a national level,
is not assured of ongoing funding and must go cap in hand to ask for money just
to keep their doors open.[304]
3.314
Mr James Luthy submitted that recurrent funding for CLAN should be
adequate to allow it to expand its services nationally:
CLAN is doing what the Government and churches won't do, and
that is deal with those affected persons in a compassionate and caring manner...[CLAN's]
importance as an organisation which deals with 'homies' cannot be overly
emphasised. Recurrent Government and church funding should be an on-going
process for at least ten years. Proper funding for CLAN should enable the
organisation to establish offices in each capital city with an allowance to
enable representatives to also visit rural communities and cities.[305]
Other groups
3.315
Recommendation 20 also calls for other advocacy and support groups to be
funded to enable them to continue to deliver services and support to care
leavers. However, the Commonwealth government response offered no such commitment,
indicating only that the government expected the ongoing roles of other groups,
as well as the appropriate structures and sources of their funding, to arise
from the Forgotten Australians national conference in 2006.
3.316
As with the previous inquiry, the present inquiry found that, beyond the
groups with a national focus such as the AFA and CLAN, there is a number of
support groups for care leavers that provide a broad range of types of advocacy
and support for care leavers to access. These groups may have diverse origins
and distinctive aims and philosophies underpinning the support offered.
However, all such groups share a desire to promote the interests of the
survivors of abuse and neglect in institutional care. An example of one such
group is Origins Inc. which provided a submission to the inquiry:
Origins Inc was formed in 1995 by a small group of mothers
who had lost children to adoption, not only in Australia but also from other
parts of the world. This group of women had been previously involved with other
groups including Jigsaw, Mothers for Contact, before they formed Origins with
the intention of exposing the mental health and legal issues of adoption, and
family separation.
Origins being the forerunner and the only independent
organisation of its kind in the early 1990s also attracted, supported and
counselled with outreach programs for people separated from their families
through various forms of confinement in State and religious institutions
including ex-foster care leavers. These activities of necessity broadened our base,
apart from those people affected by adoption which was our original charter.[306]
3.317
Origins Inc. provided a range of services including:
-
counselling and advocacy;
-
searching advice and help and also mediation with family
reunions;
-
welfare relief such as food, clothing and furniture;
-
information and referral to other welfare organisations;
-
online chat forums and newsletters; and
-
social events.
3.318
Another group which provided a submission was Wings for Survivors. This
group offered a form of collective support for Forgotten Australians, and
provided an opportunity for them to access a social network of people with
similar life experiences. As many care leavers were often wary of social
interaction, the Wings for Survivors website represented an opportunity for
social interaction and communication. Ms Findlay explained:
Wings for Survivors...was set up by a forgotten Australian who
creates websites herself. It was her dream to open up a website so we forgotten
Australians could come together to be creative, to tell our stories, to get
support from other survivors, to have an opportunity to say what we want to say
to each other, to find families or best mates that we grew up with and to put
down information that many of us have been left in the dark about...
...[We] are 75 members and growing. We get a lot of
satisfaction and a lot of support from each other. Our stories are being told,
and we listen and we acknowledge and we support each other, and that is what
the site is all about.[307]
3.319
Mrs Lana Syed-Waasdorp also described her involvement with support group
activities operated by HAN in Queensland:
With the historical abuse, we have what we call the ‘empower
arts’. We are a small group that is run under the Historical Abuse Network, and
we do help people to try to help themselves by being active. We do lots of
things such as making Christmas cards and calendars for the new year. We try to
get people involved in art or some kind of work so that they can improve
themselves and become independent.[308]
3.320
Mr Andrew Murray noted, as a generalisation only, that many care
leavers, due to the abuse and neglect suffered in childhood, had psychological
and other characteristics that caused them difficulties in dealing with not
only individuals but also organisations. For this reason, a multiplicity of
support groups was desirable, as it gave care leavers a choice of which support
group or groups to attend, depending on which groups they felt comfortable
with.[309]
3.321
The Committee heard that a number of other support and self-help groups
of varying sizes have been formed since the earlier inquiry. In addition to
Wings for Survivors noted above and the fledgling Forgotten Australians Coming
Together in WA, the Committee took evidence from representatives of the Healing
Way for Forgotten Australians in Sydney. This group offers workshops and
retreats for small groups of people that provide a range of informal activities
and services.[310]
3.322
Another group, Forgotten Australians of South Australia has been formed.
The group is an incorporated body with a constitution and is not restrictive on
who can become involved. They prefer to use the expression 'system leaver'
rather than care leaver arguing that 'care' is what they were not provided with
as children. The group provides advocacy and self-help services and are in the
process of establishing premises in Adelaide from which to operate. Families South
Australia has provided some assistance and the group has held brainstorming
sessions with the Department which has proved valuable in identifying the needs
and concerns of care leavers and the directions for future services. The group
is pushing for broader and more specialised services.[311]
3.323
The Committee received little evidence to suggest that the funding of
any care leaver advocacy or support groups, apart from the AFA and CLAN, has
received significant consideration by the Commonwealth or any State
governments.
3.324
New South Wales advised that it funded a number of care leaver support
and advocacy groups:
-
Relationships Australia: to operate a helpline for older care leavers;
and to assist care leavers to make contact with family members;
-
Link-Up: to assist Aboriginal adults who were separated from
their families as children through wardship, adoption, fostering or
institutional care; and
-
The Salvation Army Special Search Service: to help care leavers who
were separated from their child or family through the intervention of the NSW
Government locate family members.[312]
3.325
Queensland noted the funding. development and company-location of care
leaver services through Lotus Place, including the Historical Abuse Network,
the Esther Centre and the Aftercare Resources Centre.[313]
3.326
South Australia advised that it promoted the existence of advocacy and
support groups through its face-to-face and phone contacts. Further, Post Care
Services was running a pilot support group for people formerly in State care
who suffered abuse. FaHCSIA had provided three year funding to Relationships
Australia SA to provide training to practitioners leading groups of this
nature.[314]
3.327
The Tasmanian government advised:
The Tasmanian Government has shown its ongoing commitment to
supporting care leavers by providing an increased level of recurrent funding to
the CREATE Foundation.[315]
The Committee notes, however, that the CREATE Foundation is
'a club for children and young people in care, or with a care experience' and
would not appear to offer support and/or services for older care leavers.[316]
3.328
Submissions across the spectrum of stakeholders called for more funding
of groups involved with advocacy, support and service provision for care
leavers. Evidence generally indicated that present funding arrangements for
such groups was inadequate:
This recommendation has not been enacted to its full
integrity, and to our knowledge apart from CLAN and maybe one or two other
support organisations there has been no funding to other support groups for
their most basic needs to service clients.[317]
3.329
Mr Andrew Murray observed:
...the fact is that the CLANs of the world, the Child Migrant
Trusts of the world and the voluntary organisations are terribly badly funded
and supported, and bureaucrats make them jump through hoops...[318]
3.330
Origins Inc provided a typical example of the difficulties and ongoing
uncertainty around securing funding for such groups:
Origins has approached local, State and federal governments
for funding on a number of occasions and has been rejected each time. We have
been fortunate to get funding on 3 occasions from local Sports Clubs, the first
time in 2003 getting funding of $24,000 for a part-time worker and
administration costs. In 2005 funding of $2000 dollars for rent and
administration was received and in 2007 we received a grant of $4000 for rent
and administration costs.[319]
3.331
Professor Maria Harries, Associate Member, AFA, commented on the
difficulty of securing funding to institute a new support group in Western
Australia:
We have also been trying very hard to set up an organisation
in Perth called FACT—Forgotten Australians Coming Together—which will be the WA
equivalent of the other state organisations...[We] have been struggling to do
that. We are currently in the position where...our letters are not being
responded to at all in terms of getting some sort of funding to do that. We
cannot do it without resources.[320]
3.332
The AFA observed that the proper funding of a range of groups offering
support and services was important to complement its advocacy work:
...the maintenance of both AFA as a peak body and of service
provision organisations (including HAN, VANISH, CLAN and Origins) is crucial to
achieving improvements in meeting the needs of Forgotten Australians. To have
AFA and the service providers working cooperatively to promote the interests of
Forgotten Australians is of enormous use to the Australian Government as it
devises an improved response to the needs of Forgotten Australians.[321]
3.333
Adequate funding of other support groups would also ensure that care
leavers were not excluded from assistance by the need for organisations to
charge membership fees.[322]
3.334
Origins Inc. cited anecdotal reports of care leavers feeling or being
excluded from some support groups or services, on the grounds of discriminating
definitions applied to different groups of care leavers:
...some support organisations are trying to marginalise groups
of former care leavers from being identified as Forgotten Australians. This
includes both indigenous and non-indigenous care-leavers, foster care, persons
who have spent short times in care or detention, long term training centres and
unadoptable disabled children, etc.[323]
3.335
Accordingly, the group called for greater transparency and
accountability in government funding, as well as appeal rights for applicants
who are denied support or services. An independent body was also required to
receive complaints about discrimination and unfair treatment.[324]
3.336
Ms Walsh noted that some level of dissatisfaction was common where
bodies were required to make operational decisions in the context of limited
funding and resources:
There are major dynamics of how people understand and use
power both within themselves and within us as professionals, and we try to
reflect seriously so that we do not misuse our role and disempower people, but
we understand that we do not agree with everybody and that at times we have to
make decisions based on what have become very scarce resources for a population
group that has grown overnight.[325]
3.337
The Committee's original recommendation also called for government and
non-government sectors to 'widely publicise' the availability of services
offered by advocacy and support groups. However, CLAN cited evidence of a
survey of mental health services in the Sydney area which found a very poor
level of knowledge of the Forgotten Australians report as well as the
existence and particular needs of 'older care leavers'.[326]
3.338
The main support and advocacy body for former child migrants is the CMT.
Funding for this body is discussed above under consideration of delivery of
services, Lost Innocents recommendation 5.
3.339
Discussion on the implementation of the recommendations addressed in
this chapter and the Committee's conclusions and recommendations are contained
in Chapter 6.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page