I rise today to speak on the Children, Youth and Families Amendment (Stability) Bill 2025. This is a comprehensive and complex bill in that the issues that I have dealt with in my 11 years as a parliamentarian that involve child protection, that involve foster caring or that involve adoption, whether it is recent adoption or many decades ago, can and unfortunately, in my experience, usually do involve deep trauma. Children are never removed from their families unless there is a dire reason to do so, and it is very, very difficult to manage that. Whether it is child protection services, whether it is the family unit that is involved or whether it is the health services and the mental health services that do reach out and provide those supports, it is very difficult to minimise the mental harm that can occur when children have been exposed to trauma during those formative years. That cannot be ignored when we are making contributions to this debate today.
We are dealing with an enormously difficult situation where one size certainly does not fit all issues that arise. It certainly is a situation where I think everybody in this chamber would come to an agreement that we need to do whatever we can to ensure the safety of the child is put first and foremost. But unfortunately we cannot be idealistic about this and think that because a child is in this world and has a connection to a family that relationship will ever be normalised, perfect or even compatible or able to function, no matter how long a reunification process is open. Unfortunately, when children are exposed to trauma, sexual abuse, neglect, abandonment and not feeling safe and secure in their own family environment, there is no way that that can be undone. While I understand that in a perfect world there could be a way we could provide the mental health treatment, the health treatment and whatever other supports are required to help to build, mend and delete that trauma, I am not aware that it can be done.
While I understand the intent of this legislation, we do need to ensure that it is closely monitored when rolled out, and I assume the legislation will pass. We need to ensure that children are not being put at risk by seeking an ideal outcome that connections with family can be healed over time rather than trying to revert to a position where a child’s right to have safety and security on a long-term basis and a new forever home, with a side connection to community, is still allowable. I understand that this is not ideal for different cultures. Over particularly the past few months – the past few years, really, through the Yoorrook commission – we have learned so much about Aboriginal people’s connection to family, which is much different than the family connections that we know and understand, and I absolutely respect that.
I am following the Minister for Treaty and First Peoples, who I acknowledge has done an enormous amount of work in this area. What she has sought to achieve is noble and is informed by the Yoorrook commission and Aboriginal peoples, but we also need to look at other aspects of evidence, of people outside of Aboriginal culture who also are going through the child protection system. When you are working in the child protection system, it does not matter what your background is or what your culture is. You should not have child protection workers who are actively being predators and seeking to make contact with children who are on the child protection database. That is just wrong, and that is what we see under the Allan Labor government. We have seen media reports around this, where children who are in child protection have child protection workers who are looking to make linkages with them for the wrong reasons. That is disgraceful in this state.
We have got situations where child protection has absolutely catastrophically failed to intervene when children were known to have been at risk – when they were known to have been exposed to drug use and abuse, when they were known to have been exposed to sexual predators and when they were known to have been pimped out by their carer at the time. We cannot talk about child protection without talking about the ugly side. In my view, I think that we will learn over time that the collapse of the child protection system in Victoria at this generation’s time will require a royal commission. I hate to think what exactly is happening within child protection, and we do not know, because there is such a lack of transparency with the Allan Labor government.
I do note that the Minister for Treaty and First Peoples went through an extensive list of engagement and consultation that was undertaken in relation to this legislation, and I respect that long list, which does show a level of consultation. But there was one key group that was missing from the list, and that is stakeholders who have lived experience of being a child in child protection, of living with a foster carer, of being placed with an immediate family carer or of adoption. We know so well the times that adoption has not gone well, and it was catastrophic for so many Aboriginal people through the stolen generation. We understand that and we do not deny that in any way, but there are different experiences for different individuals who have gone through those various pathways.
We should have the same respect for those children who have got lived experience of going through the system as for the stakeholders who operate the system, who sit above the system and do not understand what it is like to be in a position where the family unit, which is where you should learn to feel loved and safe and secure, is not there. When you are relying and falling back on a government system to be there for you, to catch you and make sure you have a genuine and strong pathway into safety and security, that is so important. That is in my view more important than talking about the processes.
This is about the people. This is particularly about the children who have been failed in some way or another. It is not a situation that many people actually go through, but those voices must be heard. That is why I support the reasoned amendment by the shadow minister to ensure that lived experience stakeholders have the opportunity to have their say. They have something to give. So many times there have been decisions made for them without them. They deserve to have their voices heard now. I have concern around the impact that taking away the opportunity for adoption may have on some children.
There is no doubt that for some cultural groups that may be something that is absolutely not appropriate at all. But I know from speaking to some people who I know have been adopted that that gave them a sense of belonging that they did not have beforehand. It does concern me that taking away that option as part of the considerations may actually take away the opportunity for some people to have a sense of belonging.
As I said in my opening remarks, there is no simple solution to ensure that every child that is born in Victoria has a great upbringing, wonderful supports and a perfect family environment. We know that is not going to be achieved, but we need to ensure that the government of the day can provide that safety net, that security, to ensure that when the family unit is unable to support a child, the government system is there to be able to provide a pathway to continue connection with their family – absolutely – connection with their culture and their religion and connection with their community but to make sure, first and foremost, that every child feels safe and secure and understands that they are loved and that they belong. That is what we should be seeking in all of this, better outcomes for children, rather than tweaking around the edges with processes. I urge the government to consider the reasoned amendment put, particularly around ensuring there is consultation with those with lived experience as a child in this system, before this bill is debated in the upper house.