2003-09-12 How we fail our innocents - The Age

September 12, 2003 Max Liddell is senior lecturer in the department of social work at Monash University. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/11/1063268512922.html If there is something positive to be said about Victoria's latest child protection crisis, it is that in Victoria we are consistent. Consistently slow and inadequate in our response to abused children, that is. The first research identifying the existence of child abuse, in the 1960s, was responded to by years of Liberal government denial of the problem. A forward-looking policy development process in the mid-1970s had to be followed by protracted lobbying before a welfare-based child protection system was developed. Victoria was the last state in the country to do this. The then Liberal government contracted the system out to a non-government agency in 1979 and serious problems ensued. As well, the government failed to fund a 24-hour service, allowing the notorious "dual-track" or police/welfare system to operate. It also developed at a snail's pace the support services needed, putting the child protection service in an exposed and no-win situation. The Cain Labor government elected in 1982 allowed the system to lapse further into chaos before resuming responsibility for it in 1985 - even though Labor's policy since 1978 had been that governments should deliver child protection services. That aside, the major reforms in those years involved public sector reform and the introduction of managerial practices, rather than the development of needed services. More intensive lobbying was required before the dual-track system was phased out. The long-awaited changes to the legislation (recommended in the Child Welfare Practice and Legislation Review Committee's report in 1984) were not made until 1989. But many children needing protection still received minimal or no service. Other systemic problems were not dealt with, leading to more reviews, most notably those conducted by Justice Fogarty, who charged the relevant department with virtually abandoning adolescents. Some minor reforms were made over those years but scandals continued. Remember Baby Kajal, Damien (the young man who "divorced" his parents), the Children of God, and Daniel Valerio? The latter's tragic death prompted the introduction of mandatory reporting by the new Kennett Liberal government. This was a dubious and panic-stricken response to media pressure. Every professional who needed to know about Daniel's situation had been informed. In any case, the government was already signalling its intention to further ration the system and its support services. It did so in spite of further protests from Justice Fogarty. It is not feasible to list all the other inquiries, but two warrant mention. The Auditor-General's review in 1996, which was highly critical, has been virtually ignored and his report on the Children's Court suppressed. The Community Care Review in 2000, conducted by Professor Jan Carter, was also virtually ignored. Problem after problem, scandal after scandal, inquiry after inquiry have been met with minimal action punctuated by the frequent shooting of messengers. Change has rarely happened except in the face of sustained pressure from outside government. The one consistent exception is the government obsession with management control and organisational restructuring. The Department of Human Services and its predecessors in the child welfare arena have been in the process of virtually non-stop restructuring since 1970. Frequently one restructuring is not complete before another starts. We would be much better off if the money and energy these processes consumed had been invested in service development and support. Both Liberal and Labor governments in Victoria are culpable for the abuse and neglect of abused and neglected children. Their records are shameful. The Bracks Labor Government has announced an inquiry into the legislation. As necessary as this is, it will fail to deliver most of what is required. It has been obvious for 10 years that only a thorough review of the philosophy, management, legislation, child protection and welfare services, the Children's Court, and the contributions of other parties (such as the police) will suffice. Not only are these areas problematic in themselves, the philosophies of the main groups - child protection, the Children's Court, and the police - are significantly different. It is impossible to have a coherent and effective system when the main players see the issues quite differently. Such differences in views have been obvious since the 1980s, sometimes longer. No government has dealt effectively with them; most have not tried. History shows that as a community we have inherited certain traditions on child abuse. They include denial that the problem exists, reluctance to intervene in family life, and governments that are both reluctant to intervene and reluctant to take on the "parenting" role that is required. The Bracks Government has been in power for four years. Already there have been three ministers responsible for child protection. This in itself is a signal of the low priority assigned to what surely should be one of the most important of all portfolios. If there is one thing above all that needs an inquiry, it is the attitudes of our political parties towards protecting children. They can focus all they like on "the system" or the legislation. These sound like machines that can be tinkered with. But confronting child abuse reflects the value we place on childhood and the importance we place on protecting these vulnerable beings. Until governments come to grips with their own entrenched and flawed attitudes to the protection of children, any examination of "the system" will do no more than rearrange the deckchairs.