Mr ANTHONY (Minister for Children and Youth Affairs) (4:01 PM) —I would like to recant some of the arguments that the shadow minister, the member for Gellibrand, put forward. But, before I do that, I will say that all of us in this House, no matter what our political persuasion, are absolutely appalled by the increasing level of child abuse in this country and, in particular, by the issue of child sex abuse. No-one of any right mind can give any type of sympathy to those individuals who abuse children or who follow a path of paedophilia. If there is anything good to come out of the situation of the last couple of weeks, which was put in train many years ago, it is that this issue of child abuse is now on the national radar screen, because it is not just an issue that is in the jurisdiction of governments—although, if the opposition shadow spokesperson was going to be really fair dinkum, perhaps the MPI would have read: the failure of the state and territory governments to adequately protect Australian children from abuse, in particular child sex abuse. I will address that in a minute. If anything good has come out of this, it is a recognition by state governments, communities and, most importantly, individuals and families within the community that, if we are to make a lasting and substantial impact on reducing child abuse, whether the abuse is neglect, emotional, physical or sexual, each and every one of us has a role to play to ensure that children are protected in the communities that we live in.

When it comes to the substantive issue of child protection, the Commonwealth government is extremely concerned. That is why I invited the shadow spokesperson to join with the government—which is most unusual and unorthodox—in developing a national childhood agenda, because that is all about focusing on early intervention and prevention to ensure that children do not get into vulnerable situations and, more importantly, to educate their parents so they have a better outcome when it comes to their health, wealth and wellbeing—particularly on the issue of abuse. I have included the member for Gellibrand in our discussions. I have kept her in the loop in every way possible so as to have as bipartisan an approach as possible. I think she modified some of her comments, but it should be emphasised that the government is embarking on a huge program here. We have had particular consultations with the Australian of the Year, Professor Fiona Stanley. She said to me, just as she said to the member for Gellibrand, `Whatever you do, Minister, don't make it a national roll-out program. That is not going to work because it could actually have the opposite effect and compound the problems if it is not tested and if it is not right.' But I will return to that.

Under our Constitution, the issue of child protection rests with the state governments. Do not be fooled about where anyone else in this House says it should be. I suspect that a bit of cost shifting is going on here, apportioning responsibilities that should be carried out by state and territory governments to the Commonwealth. The states and territories are responsible not only for the notification but for the following through and the protection of children. The facts are that the record in this nation has been appalling over the last couple of years. Here is an opportunity. If the member for Gellibrand seriously wants to advance the cause here, she will help me by ringing her colleagues—and I will later supply the ministers' names and telephone numbers—and getting them to start doing the job that they are obliged to with child protection as a state responsibility.

Let us look at the number of notifications. It has risen by 30,000 over the past two years. Let us put the record straight and not try to slip and slide here about where the key responsibilities are, and then I will talk about what the Commonwealth is doing. The principal responsibility is with the states, and it just so happens that every state and territory government at the moment is wearing an ALP badge. We have had a notifications increase of 30,000 in the last two years, rising from 107,000 to 137,000. In all jurisdictions, except for South Australia and the ACT, we have seen substantial increases. The number of substantiations has also increased from 24,732 a couple of years ago to over 30,000 now, and the biggest numbers are in New South Wales and Queensland. In all jurisdictions, perhaps except for Tasmania, the number of notifications involving Indigenous children is rising dramatically.

If we are to be fair dinkum about this and if we are not to play politics with this issue, the interest in which has been generated by the controversy over the Governor-General or, more importantly, by this report that has come out, then we should look at what role the states are playing. Quite frankly, the member for Gellibrand has taken the gloves off. I included her in the early childhood consultations to develop a major plan for this country about how we can do it right. A lot of that involves prevention and early intervention from even before the child is born, helping the parents to get a better outcome to reduce the potential for that cycle of abuse that happens later on.

The greatest hypocrisy has been demonstrated by the words that have come from some of the state premiers, in particular the Premier of Queensland. That government has failed consistently. Let us look at the figures. The number of child protection notifications in Queensland rose by over 8,000 in the past two years, rising from 19,000 to 27,000 in the last financial year. The number of substantiations in Queensland is up by 3,000, from just under 7,000 to over 10,000. I note the audacity of the Premier and I notice the federal opposition hedging their bets on the merits of perhaps holding a royal commission. There is a substantial difference of opinion when you talk to some of our other national leaders at a state level. I highlight the hypocrisy that is almost emerging now—it is quite real within Queensland—when I quote from what David Flint has so eloquently written in Online Opinion which was highlighted on Crikey recently. He states:

He continues:

Here is a situation where we had questioning by the member for Lilley—he has now been thrown out of the House—about the lack of action perhaps being taken by the federal government over a particular issue. But we are not dealing here with a current member of a parliament. As unfortunate as this case is—and I do not mean to underestimate its importance—we had the situation where, when this person was running the ALP in Queensland, we heard nothing from Peter Beattie on the issue of child abuse. Did we hear anything from Mr Beattie when that issue concerned a man who was at the time the Treasurer of the Queensland government? The silence was condemning.

Let us look at the statistics in New South Wales. There were 30,000 notifications a couple of years ago. That figure today is 55,000 notifications. I acknowledge that it is very difficult for those state agencies, but that is a substantial increase. The number of substantiations has also increased dramatically. We have a situation in New South Wales where we have had 55,000 notifications and only 8,600 have actually been substantiations. What has happened to the other 40,000? Even the Age newspaper—perhaps the member for Gellibrand can have some impact on her state colleagues—reports that in the Family Court a judge today, or it might have been yesterday, attacked the Bracks government for doing little to repair an ailing child protection system. John Foggerty, who retired from the court in 1998, said:

This pattern is emerging. We have had many commissions of inquiry by state governments. In New South Wales, the Wood royal commission was set up with all the right intent and $90 million was spent on it. We have had the Gordon inquiry in Western Australia, which recently brought down its findings on a terrible situation that happened with Indigenous children. We had the Ford inquiry in Queensland which was followed by the Fitzgerald inquiry. The federal opposition are trying to muddy the waters by saying that perhaps the government should have a royal commission. However, they are not quite convinced of it because they know that, if there were a royal commission, it would put the spotlight firmly back on the failure of the state authorities. Ultimately, at the end of the day, would an inquiry actually advance the cause for future generations of children who might be vulnerable to being abused?

I dispute the inferences and allegations which were made by the shadow spokesperson that the Prime Minister is not concerned about this particular issue. He was probably the first ever Prime Minister to put this issue on the COAG agenda, which he did not so long ago. He did so knowing full well not only that it is a state responsibility but also that as a nation we all have to deal with this issue. Liz Mullinar is the founder of the group Advocates for Survivors of Child Abuse, and she is a well-known advocate. She is reluctant about calling for a royal commission, because a royal commission is just more money spent. She states:

I notice that Bob Carr is very much opposed to a royal commission. Maybe that is because he knows the spotlight might focus back on child protection issues within New South Wales and that the money is better spent on early intervention and prevention. I have included the shadow spokesperson in two open consultations that I had—one in the ACT and one in Victoria recently—and she knows that we are now going through a process of pilot programs. It is important to have pilot programs now. We do not want to have a major program which is not effective, considering the states are the ones that are implementing most of these programs anyway, and we want to ensure that we get such a program right.

There are calls for a national commissioner for children. I have to say that one wonders what powers a national commissioner will have. The government believes that it is probably going to create, as well meaning as it may be, another layer of bureaucracy. As has been mentioned by the opposition spokesperson as well as by the Leader of the Opposition, they are looking for it to become like a statutory authority. It will have no responsibility or accountability to the parliament but will have a very direct and limited responsibility. Even when the Leader of the Opposition was trying to explain it on John Laws, he was all over the place. Some states have adopted commissioners for children, and that is good, but again the responsibility comes down to that level of government.

We talk about trying to get some uniformity. Only about five months ago I got the state ministers together to try to get some uniformity in the area of foster care. It was like trying to travel to the moon to get them to acknowledge that we should try to get some uniformity just in actual reporting. It cannot be done because even in Western Australia they do not have mandatory reporting. The systems are so different. If we are to make true advances for children who are abused, a substantial amount of that responsibility under our Constitution rests with the states. I do not think anyone should try to apportion blame to the Commonwealth when the principal carriage and responsibility rests with the states and territories.

I will not go to some of the comments that the Leader of the Opposition made, but I do not think that the opposition have thought through the full consequences. Likewise, I encourage the opposition, if they have got good contacts among their state colleagues, to pursue some of these matters there as they should, rather than directing a lot of the responsibilities to the Commonwealth, which has no jurisdiction.

The issue of a working with children check has been raised by the member for Gellibrand and by the Labor Party over the last 12 months. In Queensland and New South Wales they have specific legislation for central checking of people who work with children. I understand that in Western Australia today they are going to be introducing this legislation, and in South Australia they will be working to look at better access, particularly to criminal records et cetera.

The issue basically comes down to the fact that the registration and licensing of organisations that deal with children is dealt with by the states. The states have that responsibility and they should not abdicate their responsibility for following it through. I am not ruling it out, but I say that it is the states that have got to start pursuing this, because the only way I can do it—as the member for Gellibrand would know—is through goodwill, which I have been trying to establish with other ministers across the Commonwealth, not only in the area of foster care but also in the early childhood area.

In the long term, we need to rely on early intervention and prevention. We have 41 programs now. We have the Stronger Families and Communities package, which had about $225 million or $240 million originally put into it; we have domestic violence programs operating—we have $50 million for that—and we have had an illicit drug strategy and many other integrated packages that try to target child abuse. (Time expired)