Senator McLUCAS (4:01 PM) —I too wish to speak on the government’s response to the two reports that our committee brought down, Forgotten Australians: a report on Australians who experienced institutional or out-of-home care as children and Protecting vulnerable children: a national challenge. I have just received the responses and, therefore, have not had an opportunity to read them in full. But I want to make comment about the delay in responding. Unlike the delay in responding to the report on the inquiry into nursing, which I commented on earlier, I recognised that responding to the enormity of this report was a huge challenge. Many care leavers urged me to urge the government to respond in a more timely way. I said to those care leavers that, given the enormity of this report, I accommodated the delay in responding to it.

The first report came down about 14 months ago and the second report came down earlier this year, so the government was tardy in responding. My reason for saying that I was not too critical of the government for its delay was that many of the recommendations went not only to Commonwealth government responsibilities but also to state and territory government responsibilities, as well as to those of other institutions, such as churches, which provided institutional care to people. So I suggested, in speaking to care leavers about the delay, that I thought the government would take the opportunity to show a national leadership role on this issue and confer with the state and territory governments and with the churches and other institutions so that a proper and sensible response to our reports could have been given.

From a quick reading of these responses, that has not occurred. In looking at them, I see that the response to recommendation 2 is: ‘This is a matter for state and territory governments.’ The response to recommendation 3 is: ‘This is a matter for state and territory governments to consider.’ The response to recommendation 9 is: ‘This is a matter for state and territory governments to consider.’ The responses to recommendations 15, 16 and 17 are all: ‘This is the responsibility of state and territory governments.’

This is an extraordinary lost opportunity. It would have been fantastic for the government to work with the state and territory governments and the churches to provide a consolidated response to our report, rather than simply say, ‘It is not our responsibility.’ What a lost opportunity. What a chance gone begging, in that this government has not delivered. I now feel angry that I have been saying to care leavers, ‘Be patient, because the government will do the right thing here.’ They have not done that, in my view. That is as far as I have been able to read in the time I have had the response. I am only up to recommendation 17. As I recall, there were some 60-odd recommendations in the first report.

Recommendation 17 asks for the federal government to ensure that support and counselling services are made available to care leavers. Yes, I applaud the government for giving CLAN $100,000 late last year, following this report being tabled, to deal with the massive number of people who were contacting them for support. But the government has responded to the recommendation by saying, ‘This is a responsibility for state and territory governments.’ I say it is a national responsibility. I have dealt, in the last 12 months, with many care leavers. Many care leavers, because of my involvement in the inquiry, have taken the opportunity to contact my office seeking advice, assistance and support.

For those care leavers who are living in a state in which they were not given care, it is extraordinarily difficult for them to receive support. The state governments, in most cases, have established some support structures. I commend the Queensland government for the funding of HAN and the Esther Centre and those services for the excellent work that they do. But their charter only allows them to provide support for people who were cared for as children in the state of Queensland. It is the same in New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania. When people who were cared for in that state are supported by the arrangements that the state has put in place, it means that many people do not get the support they require. I have seen too many people hurt again because they cannot get assistance.

These are people who are very vulnerable. They are still recovering from the experiences that they had as children. They need our help; they need a hand up. They do not want to be shunned, yet again, when they are seeking assistance. This would have been a great opportunity for the federal government to step up to the plate and say, ‘Yes, we recognise that the states have their responsibilities, but there are gaps in the system.’ It has not done that. I am only up to recommendation 17 in reading this response. I seek leave to continue my remarks, and I hope the report gets better as I go along.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.