Fill and Sign the Aaa Credit Bureau Form

Legislative Council Thursday, 6 April 2006 The PRESIDENT (Hon Nick Griffiths) took the chair at 10.00 am, and read prayers. JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION Sixth Report - Examination of the 2004-2005 Annual Report of the Parliamentary Inspector of the Corruption and Crime Commission Hon Ray Halligan presented the sixth report of the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission, in relation to the examination of the 2004-05 annual report of the Parliamentary Inspector of the Corruption and Crime Commission, and on his motion it was resolved That the report do lie upon the table and be printed. [See paper 1407.] BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Statement by Leader of the House HON KIM CHANCE (Agricultural - Leader of the House) [10.03 am]: We have an unusual situation with the orders of the day today in that a number of key members of the house are not available to deal with the bills that appear on the bulletin. For the information of the house I will go through the bulletin and indicate what our intention is today so that members can be prepared. The first order of business, 206, relates to the Retail Shops and Fair Trading Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Consumer Protection will read the second reading speech. The Censorship Amendment Bill 2005 can then be proceeded with. The Human Tissue and Transplant Amendment Bill 2005 cannot be proceeded with because Hon Giz Watson needs to be present to action that bill. Hon George Cash is the lead speaker for the opposition for the three energy bills, which are next on the bulletin, and he is not with us today. It is my intention to bring on the bills for debate in any case, because I am aware that at least Hon Paul Llewellyn and possibly other members want to speak on those bills. However, we will adjourn each of them to allow Hon George Cash to make a contribution upon his return, and hopefully they can be progressed next week. I think the Alcohol and Drug Authority Repeal Bill 2005 can be progressed. Hon Giz Watson is the last speaker on the Commissioner for Children and Young People Bill 2005, and I will leave that open for her. If other members wish to speak on that bill I will be happy to bring the bill back on for debate, but it will be adjourned so that Hon Giz Watson can make her contribution next week. I have given Hon Murray Criddle an undertaking that we will not deal with the Machinery of Government (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2005 until the first week in May, because a particular issue in that bill requires further discussion. I will not progress with the Yallingup Foreshore Land Bill 2005 in the absence of Hon George Cash. The Leader of the Opposition has asked me to provide him with some information about the Commonwealth Powers (De Facto Relationships) Bill 2005, which is item 203 and which is listed under “Bills awaiting second reading”. I will be able to do that during the day prior to the second reading of that bill. That business may not be sufficient to occupy the time available for orders of the day today. I am certainly not inviting honourable members to expand on their speeches to fill the time, so it is possible that an amended bulletin will be published today that may include other bills if we are able to get to them. DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - WORKLOAD ISSUES Motion HON ROBYN McSWEENEY (South West) [10.07 am] - without notice: I move That this house condemns the government for its failure to resolve workload issues for caseworkers within the Department for Community Development and in particular the Midland office. On 2 November last year, some five months ago, I was invited to a meeting of departmental caseworkers when they presented the then minister Hon Sheila McHale with a petition stating CPSU/CSA members know that children are not being adequately cared for by the Department. Members call on the Government to stop providing bandaid solutions and to properly resource DCD to protect the vulnerable children of WA and to provide good and proper support for the children in the care of the department. I should also include children in child care. At that meeting I heard from a caseworker at Midland who said that the office was 34 full-time equivalents short; that new work goes unallocated; that the office receives 30 referrals [COUNCIL - Thursday, 6 April 2006] 1247 a month; that the office has the highest number of abuse notifications of all DCD offices; that primary school children are staying in hostels; that there has been a 50 per cent increase in staff turnover in 12 months; that staff cannot provide support to foster carers and have no time to support foster carers; that staff are overworked; that there are placement breakdowns because of the lack of support; that the office cannot recruit staff; that children are not being provided with adequate support; that caseworkers want more experienced casework staff to be employed; and that children are being severely compromised. Five months later, on 31 March, Midland office staff held a stop-work meeting at which issues of overwork were discussed. The staff decided to close the government office last Tuesday; they did not answer the phones and did not see any clients. This action was to enable them to catch up on the backlog of work. It is a government office that deals with emergency situations and has the highest number of abuse notifications of any DCD office, yet it has been shut down because the government will not resource it effectively enough to enable it to keep its doors open. I thought it was bad enough that it had been shut once, but it was shut again this week. I have a note of the issues that were highlighted at the meeting on 31 March, which states that the Department for Community Development staff have said that they have ongoing problems in attracting and retaining staff. There are too many short-term contracts. There is an inability to recruit the blitz team; the five extra workers are only just beginning to trickle through, some four months after the director general’s e-mail was sent informing staff that more staff would be provided. There is no consistent measure of caseloads. For example, should a caseload be measured by the body of work or the number of children or the number of families? On many occasions recently, children who are awaiting placement have been looked after in the office, while staff have tried to carry on with their work, because there is nowhere else for the children to wait. The Midland DCD workers are interested to know how this accords with the occupational health and safety provisions. They say there is an extreme shortage of carers and placements, and that the new relative care protocols have had a net effect of further reducing options for placements. No support is provided to field staff when accessing departmental hostels outside placements. They need more placement officers. Customer service officers are often abused when clients are advised that a worker is not available. All these grievances were written on the whiteboard at the DCD office in Midland; I am just repeating them. The staff say that they are answerable to too many watchdogs, including the Consumer Advocacy Service, duty of care provisions, the Ombudsman, the minister, the Foster Care Association of WA, clients, parents, team leaders, managers and various staff at head office, including the executive. Accountability processes need to be streamlined to avoid inefficient use of workers’ time. They believe that the team leader to field officer ratio is too high. Currently there is tied funding for the children in the CEO’s care. They say there is a lack of funding for the other children for whom they provide services in a family support capacity. New staff cannot take on a caseload until they have completed eight weeks of training, and there is no backfilling while they are away. The staff were advised approximately two years ago that if they undertook the workload management measure, they would get an injection of resources. They believe that the workload problems are so serious that the minister should be involved. There is a sense that the staff have little trust in the executive, and they feel they will be targeted when things go wrong. The staff have not got over how quickly the director general and executive blamed the field officer who was involved in the piano teacher controversy. When things go wrong in the highly stressed atmosphere of an average DCD office, the executive office must understand that this reflects a systems failure and that it is unacceptable in the current highly stressful working environment to make a scapegoat of an individual worker. The staff in the Midland office of the DCD have suggested some interim solutions. They want to close the Midland office for one day a week. On that day they do not want to conduct any interviews, or receive any intake, phone calls or face-to-face walk-ins. That would allow the staff to address the dangerous build-up of work. I wonder what is happening in that department. The government was told five months ago that this would happen. The staff want to close the government office for one day a week. Do members know what that dangerous build-up of work equates to? It equates to children not being looked after properly. I refer again to the points that were written on the whiteboard. The staff want a group of front-line workers from the DCD to have the opportunity to give a presentation to Treasury, to reinforce the critical nature of the issues. They are begging for that meeting with Treasury. They want a survey to be conducted, as a matter of urgency, to gauge staff stress levels, morale and job satisfaction. They would like the results to be addressed by the executive and an occupational health and safety inspector, with ongoing involvement of staff to address the issue. They would like either the executive, the director general or an upper manager to be invited to work at Midland DCD for a few months with a field officer with a normal caseload, to recognise first-hand the sheer complexity of the problems they face. I have always thought that someone from head office should work alongside a field worker for a week, just to see what the office and its staff are going through. The situation must be fairly horrific if the staff want to shut the office for one day a week. The staff also want ongoing and regular direct face-to-face contact between a nominated group of field workers, including the other staff, and the executive. Workers hope that the executive is interested in hearing, directly, how they are coping. The notion of inclusiveness needs to be instilled the department, in line with enlightened management practices. It sounds to me as though head office does not have any connection with the field workers and others working at the grassroots level. 1248 [COUNCIL - Thursday, 6 April 2006] The staff want to be included in the decision-making processes. That would improve staff morale, which is likely to pay dividends. The social workers have told me that their morale has never been as low as it is now. When people in the workplace have low morale, it permeates throughout the community. Head office will need to begin planning to expand the Midland office of DCD so that the extra staff who were promised in the budget will have workstations. Currently there is no room for them. If planning is not started very soon, it will cause more delays. The staff ask the executive to note that other DCD offices are currently canvassing interim solutions, and have come up with their own ideas. Perhaps all the DCD offices should get together to debate the solutions that could be considered. The situation must be at crisis point in Cannington, Mirrabooka, Armadale, Rockingham and, of course, Midland. They are the five offices that are usually working at breaking point. The solution requires adequate resources to enable DCD to do its job. I have a couple more pages listing the concerns that the Midland staff have conveyed to head office. Workers are concerned about the ‘top down’ approach of the Exec when it comes to deciding how to allocate resources. Hon Kate Doust: Is that not a normal management decision? Does that not happen in any business or organisation? The management decides the allocation of staffing and rosters. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: Good management is inclusive. Hon Kate Doust: I would love to have you out on the road. You would make a great organiser, Hon Robyn McSweeney. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: Head office is not being inclusive. Hon Kate Doust interjected. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: I must be making a bit of a point. Hon Kate Doust: I am listening to the lines, and having a sense of deja vu. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: These are not lies. These concerns have come directly from the Midland workers. These comments were written on the whiteboard at the meeting on 31 March. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Community Development just said they were lies. Hon Kate Doust: I did not say that. I said “lines”. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: I apologise; I accept that. The notes from the meeting state also There is not enough of a meaningful consultation process with front line workers. One of the current mantras of the Department when working with the community is the notion of ‘Inclusiveness’, That is, when staff are working with members of the community. The notes continue surely this notion could be applied more fully within the Department. That is what the workers want. Workers are keen to know why there are so many workers on short term contracts within the Department and why the endemic worker turn-over has not been resolved. The Director General indicated three years ago during the ‘cultural’ consultations with individual offices that this issue would be looked into. Nothing has changed in three years. There is a concern that there are many pressures in our workplace which dissuade workers from speaking out about their justified concerns. The first pressure is the pressure of the workload: workers are so busy that there is no time to ‘come up for air’ and reflect on what needs to happen to make our work more effective. The second pressure is that workers on contract understandably want to avoid any indication that they are ‘making waves’ in case they place their job at risk. The third pressure is that often when a worker takes a concern about work culture to their supervisor that supervisor is not empowered to make the changes when they are required. They are often told that that is just the way things are at DCD. I will read from a document headed “Further Concerns that the Midland Staff Have Conveyed to their Union Delegate” as follows One of many indicators that HQ do not appear to give sufficient urgency to workers needs is the current mix up in allocation of five new workers to Midland office. It sends a powerful message to workers at Midland when it ends up taking 4 months plus to send just a few new workers to this office. The Exec possibly has the discretionary powers to hasten this process but has chosen not to. [COUNCIL - Thursday, 6 April 2006] 1249 There have been 2.3 staff added since January 2006. It continues The fact that Midland staff are now speaking out again in a strong and unified manner, is a testament to the workers strengths and courage. There comes a time when simply ‘managing’ an issue is inadequate to the scope of the problem. The time is now. Exec might not want to hear this but the child protection system in this state is in something of a crisis. If very substantial new resources are not allocated in the Budget then it is quite likely that the system will be heading for complete disaster. How brave are these workers coming out and saying that the department is not only in crisis, but also heading for complete disaster. It continues All of these issues are demoralizing to staff. It is one of the wonders of the Department that office staff are able to maintain their personal commitment to their job in spite of the inconsistency in directives from HQ. Staff at Midland DCD are currently so overburdened with work that many are experiencing very concerning physiological effects of stress. One of the solutions we will offer is for a staff member to be given permission to conduct a survey as soon as possible on workers health, morale and job satisfaction issues, with the results of this survey to be presented to the Occupational Health And Safety Section of DCD. Although the Work-load management tool is a very positive initiative from HQ, it is far from perfect in helping staff plan their fortnight in advance or in giving structure to the work. Tasks which were not previously planned for regularly need to be addressed to such an extent that work needs to be carried over to the next fortnight. Also it seems quite evident that queuing tasks tends to create discontinuity in case practice as important features of case plans are delayed. In simple terms that means that if a child must go to a dentist or is involved in an access visit, it does not occur because it is not planned for. Those case conference notes are not followed through. Who misses out? The child - the ward of the state - misses out again. It continues This regularly results in angry outbursts from clients who understandably cannot understand the disjointedness in our approach. This seriously reduces any scope for worker satisfaction and contributes to low morale. ... The fact that there is a very high proportion of workers on short term contracts has never been adequately explained to workers. If the intention is to make workers more anxious for their jobs and hence overly compliant then we feel this intention is misplaced, far better to have a workforce which is empowered to let management know about systems failures so that serious child protection mistakes can be avoided. It is well known that the Departments method of hiring new workers is very inefficient. Large resources are put into creating new ‘pools’ of workers, the output from this process in terms of new permanent workers is paltry in comparison to the resources that go into the process. That document is a damning indictment of the situation at Midland and, no doubt, in other DCD offices. The director general of the Department for Community Development sent the following message to the Midland office on 31 March Midland District Office staff held a stop work meeting on Wednesday to discuss issues around workload and resourcing. While I understand the pressures that have resulted in this action I think it is important you understand that your messages about workload and resourcing have been listened to and have been heard. We worked hard on the case for increased resources with Treasury during this current budget round and we were given a more than fair hearing by the Minister and Government. In the meantime, last December I allocated 20 additional temporary FTE to offices, Midland being one of them, for a period of six months to assist offices to catch up with the backlog of work. I understand the bulk of these positions have been filled and we are beginning to see the benefits of this initiative. We will also be working with each District Office to see what else needs to be done to support staff while we await the announcement of the budget decision. Members opposite just heard me say that the Midland DCD office complement has been increased by 2.3 staff since January. The director general of DCD, Jane Brazier, said that the staff’s message about workload and resourcing have been listened to. However, they should have been heard five months ago and they have not been. Children in this state are being placed in danger. 1250 [COUNCIL - Thursday, 6 April 2006] Some dreadful figures were released yesterday on children who had chlamydia and gonorrhoea. In 2001, in the 13 to 14 year age group, 48 children were recorded as having chlamydia. In 2005, the figure is 133 children. Over the same period the number of children in that age group who were recorded as having gonorrhoea increased from 39 to 253. That is absolutely disgraceful. I have been told that the Department for Community Development has provided one psychologist to service the whole area of Halls Creek, and that person is overworked. The children in Halls Creek are not being looked after. I turn now from the situation at Halls Creek to that of Midland. There is a huge Aboriginal population in Midland, and that means that DCD staff work with the Aboriginal community. What hope do those children have if the staff close the doors one day a week? They will continue to close their doors one day a week if they do not get the resources they need. I intend to dig around in the DCD offices in Cannington, Mirrabooka, Armadale and Rockingham to examine their work practices. I wonder whether they are under the same incredible stress loads as those at the Midland office. It seems to me that this government is promising more workers and more resources but not actually providing them. This document came from the workers in Midland, who have been extremely brave in allowing me to make this information public. Last week the Minister for Community Development said he would wait a week and meet with the Midland DCD office. If I were the minister, I would have visited that office that evening, because I appreciate the seriousness of this situation. Minister Templeman must realise the seriousness of the situation in those offices. He should sit down and talk with the staff at the Midland office to see exactly what they need so that those government offices do not close one day a week. I am begging the government to do something because the children of Western Australia are at grave risk. HON KATE DOUST (South Metropolitan - Parliamentary Secretary) [10.28 am]: I will, of course, oppose the motion. It is a time filler for Hon Robyn McSweeney. I do not understand why she has raised these issues in this place when they are being dealt with by the Select Committee on the Adequacy of Foster Care Assessment Procedures by the Department for Community Development, which was established on the basis of a motion Hon Robyn McSweeney moved in this house. Nevertheless, I was pleased to hear Hon Robyn McSweeney offer such great support for workers in this state and for their taking industrial action. As a past union official, I know that it is serious when workers reach the point of taking industrial action. [Quorum formed.] Hon KATE DOUST: I was congratulating Hon Robyn McSweeney for being such a great advocate for workers’ rights. I do not think it will take terribly long to address the member’s comments about Hon David Templeman’s visit to the Midland office. I understand that the minister visited the Midland office yesterday and had discussions with the staff about the situation they have found themselves in. Minister Templeman is negotiating with the expenditure review committee for more funding to alleviate the problems identified by these workers. I always have full sympathy for people working in difficult conditions. I know there has been an increased workload on these workers. There have been demonstrated increases in domestic violence, drug use, child abuse and those sorts of issues. These workers are at the coalface and must deal with the outcomes of these dreadful situations. It is not an easy task. This problem has not arisen overnight; it has not arisen just since the Labor Party came to government. This problem has been building up over a period. In fact, the Labor government, under former Premier Geoff Gallop and current Premier Alan Carpenter, has been steadily trying to address these issues and improve the working conditions of these people so that they can deliver positive outcomes for their clients. The information I have been provided indicates that very little funding was allocated to this area by the previous Court government. Funding certainly was not provided on an ongoing basis to fieldworkers to deal with these issues. I understand that when sporadic funding was provided, it was usually to provide for parenting information and parent support services, which are very important functions. However, based on the member’s comments today, perhaps if the previous government had allocated funding directly to fieldworkers, we may not find ourselves in the position we do now. Hon Robyn McSweeney: No, you can’t go backwards like that. Hon KATE DOUST: I will go backwards. The workers at the Midland office reached such a crisis point that they had to take industrial action because of what happened prior to this government coming to office. The previous Liberal government starved these workers of funds. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! There is too much noise. I cannot hear Hon Kate Doust, and Hon Kate Doust cannot hear interjections if there is more than one. Hon KATE DOUST: Thank you, Mr President. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Thank goodness you are here, Mr President! The PRESIDENT: Order, Minister for Education and Training! Hon Kate Doust has the call. [COUNCIL - Thursday, 6 April 2006] 1251 Hon Norman Moore interjected. Hon KATE DOUST: I thought that members opposite would have been very happy after their dinner last night with the Prime Minister. The PRESIDENT: Hon Kate Doust should address me and the motion. Hon KATE DOUST: You are right, Mr President; I should address my comments to you and ignore members opposite, who are obviously very cranky. I am impressed that members opposite are supporting workers in this state. They must be seen as soft by their federal colleagues, considering what is happening to workers throughout the state as a result of the federal industrial relations system that has been imposed on them. I do not fancy too highly Hon Robyn McSweeney’s chances of promotion if she keeps supporting industrial action as strongly as she has. Let us consider why the workers at the Midland office are in a dreadful situation. The government, in particular Minister Templeman, is working very hard to try to resolve the issues that have been identified by the workers at the Midland office. I know that Hon Robyn McSweeney has outlined the response of the director general of the Department for Community Development, so I will not go over that. However, I will remind the opposition of some of the things that the government has provided in this area to try to improve the working conditions so that the department can deliver services to people in the community. I know that we have done this before. In the 2005-06 budget, the government provided $10 million over four years to the department for child protection and out-of-home care to prevent children from being harmed while in care and for abuse treatment services. From 2004-05 the government has provided $19 million over four years for the employment of an additional 50 casework staff to work with children, young people and their families. I understand that the majority of these new workers have been employed and trained and, as a result, the ratio of children in care to caseworkers has fallen from 21 to one to 17 to one. That is quite a dramatic drop. During the 2003-04 period, the government provided $8.6 million over four years to meet the increased costs of supporting children in care. From 2003-04 the government has provided $14 million over four years for three annual 10 per cent increases in subsidies and allowances for foster carers. From 2002-03 the government has also provided $26 million over five years for its response to the Gordon inquiry into abuse and violence in Aboriginal communities. I think the government is doing outstanding work in that area and should be congratulated. From 2002-03 the government has provided $19.7 million over four years for increased costs of supporting children in care and $1.6 million over four years for the expansion of child sexual abuse treatment services. In 2001-02 it also provided $2.7 million for cost increases for children in care. I am not very good with numbers, and maybe the Minister for Education and Training, who is much better with numbers than I, might be able to total those figures. Without going back through the budget papers of the previous Court government, I will lay odds - I know that you are a bit of a betting man, Mr President Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! There is a difficulty. The interjectors are interjecting on each other, not on Hon Kate Doust, and that is unfortunate. Hon Kate Doust has the call. Hon KATE DOUST: I know it is difficult to hear my soft tones, Mr President. As I was saying, I know you are a betting man, so I would lay odds that if I went through the budget papers of the previous Court government and totalled all the amounts allegedly expended in this area, it would not come within cooee of the amount expended by the current government in the past five years to improve the lot of families and children in the community and to provide support to the workers who must deal with the negative outcomes of some of the social problems that we have already discussed. Hon Helen Morton interjected. Hon KATE DOUST: I do not think so. I know that Hon Robyn McSweeney has raised the issues that were listed on the workers’ whiteboard. They are probably all very legitimate issues. I know that the minister has spoken to the staff. If he is successful in getting increased funding to assist the office with staff, all these issues may well be resolved. It is a difficult area. Sometimes there are spikes in behaviour or in the types of problems that arise. It may be that management did not allocate the appropriate number of staff, did not roster correctly or did not allocate the appropriate people to deal with the problems. However, at the end of the day those issues must be worked through. It is interesting that the member spoke about the concept of industrial democracy. I fully support workers having direct involvement in the decisions that are made about their workplace. I was interested to hear the member talk about that matter, because it is not something that her side of politics has ever really supported. This has been a good opportunity for the government to involve those workers in determining how they operate in their workplace. I know that Minister Templeman is keen for workers to have input into how these issues can be progressed and to look at how systems and processes of work can be improved and perhaps even streamlined to some extent. Sometimes things get bogged down in the system. Having come from the private sector, I often get a bit frustrated with the way things can get bogged down. This government is well and truly committed to delivering the best outcomes for the community. Part of that commitment is ensuring 1252 [COUNCIL - Thursday, 6 April 2006] that these offices are manned appropriately to deal with the client numbers. The member is jumping the gun. The minister is well and truly on top of this issue Hon Robyn McSweeney: He cannot be! The office is closing its doors! Hon KATE DOUST: The member must be desperate for a bit of oxygen; she keeps opening her mouth to raise these issues. Hon Kim Chance: Would you mind repeating the first of those figures that you quoted - the ratio? Hon KATE DOUST: The ratio has dropped from 21 to one to 17 to one. The ratio was 21 children to one caseworker. Under this government, that has dropped to 17 children to one caseworker. That demonstrates that there has been an improvement. That demonstrates that this government, through the allocation of funds, and through working out where the resources can best be allocated, is delivering better outcomes for the client base of DCD. Hon Robyn McSweeney interjected. Hon Kim Chance: Those figures are the perfect answer to the motion. The motion is a nonsense, because the ratio has dropped from 21 to one to 17 to one. The PRESIDENT: Order! We seem to be having a tripartite discussion here. Hon Kate Doust should be addressing me. Hon KATE DOUST: Thank you for the reminder, Mr President. I will try to ignore those people who are trying to assist me. Those figures demonstrate that this motion is a nonsense, as the Leader of the House has reminded me. Those figures are clear proof that this government is delivering services in this area. If it was not delivering services, there would not have been an improvement in the client-worker ratio. I now want to talk about what was done by the Court government. The Court government has a history of neglect in this area. I remember that when I was on the executive of then Trades and Labor Council of WA, one of the big issues that we used to debate all the time was how the Court government of the day was constantly undermining workers’ rights by taking away conditions and cutting back on staff. It was a real razor-gang approach. Thinking back to that time now, I can fully appreciate why these people are worried about staffing levels. This Labor government has been in catch-up mode. We have been trying to repair the damage that the Court government imposed through its industrial relations regime. The public sector certainly felt the impact of that period. I dare say DCD would have been seen as a soft target, because I do not think the Court government placed enough emphasis on families and children. That is evidenced by the fact that members opposite are constantly putting pressure on this Labor government to do things for children. Members opposite are now trying to do the things that they could not achieve when they were in government. They had the opportunity to address these issues, but they were not able to do the things that this government is delivering. Hon Robyn McSweeney: DCD is in crisis! Do something! Hon KATE DOUST: DCD is in crisis because the Court government allowed it to go down the gurgler. The Court government failed to put the necessary resources into this area. That means this government has to be in catch-up mode. We are pouring money into this area. The minister is hoping to obtain more funding in this budget to address staffing issues in particular. This motion condemning this government is a nonsense. The member should read a bit of the history Hon Robyn McSweeney: How many other government offices are closing their doors one day a week because they cannot cope? Hon KATE DOUST: I will tell the member. The member should look at the offices of a number of members of Parliament. A number of members of Parliament shut their offices on a Wednesday afternoon on a regular basis so that their staff can catch up. Is that industrial action? No. It is just a system of work. Hon Norman Moore: Is that right? Would you like to give us a list of names? Perhaps they are out playing golf! Hon KATE DOUST: I cannot do that right at this moment. On both sides there are probably practices such as that. That seems to be quite an acceptable practice to enable the staff to catch up on their work. I do not have a difficulty when on the odd occasion people need to take this sort of action. While we are talking about industrial action, the department’s approach is that although it does not endorse the taking of industrial action - I know that is something that members opposite would support - an agreement is in place between the department and the CPSU-CSA that when staff raise issues such as those that have been outlined by the member today, it is reported to line management, and the issue goes up the line until there is a resolution. I imagine that type of agreement is pretty standard across government departments. There is probably a time period within which issues need to be [COUNCIL - Thursday, 6 April 2006] 1253 resolved. Obviously the minister is made aware of the issues, and a team is put in place to resolve the issues. All those things are happening. The fact that the minister has visited this office shows how seriously he is taking these issues. It is great that the minister is taking such a hands-on approach to try to resolve this matter. Hon Robyn McSweeney: He did not resolve it, because they shut the office door again! They have done that twice now! Hon KATE DOUST: He was there yesterday. For all I know they shut the office door yesterday so that they could have a full and complete meeting with the minister. I do not know why they shut the door yesterday. Perhaps the member should ask the minister that. I want to go back to the history of neglect and why this Labor government has had to resolve these issues. The Gallop government provided DCD with unprecedented new and recurrent funding. That had not happened before. The Gallop government obviously acknowledged that the previous Court government had done nothing, effectively, in this area of work. During its years in office, the Court government ignored the crippling problems with staffing, resourcing and practices in the department. Another clear example of how this government has had to rectify previous issues is that, under the Bennett principle, it is now encouraging children who have been victims of child abuse and whose problems were ignored by the department to take legal action to obtain compensation for what occurred to them during that time. During the time of the Court government, those children were not provided with that sort of assistance. This Labor government is trying to resolve these issues and support these people. Where was the member and other members on her side when these children were asking for help? It is only during the time of this government that these children are getting the resources that they need. During the eight and a half years of the Court government, fewer than five children who had been abused in care were able to access this legal advice and support. Hon Robyn McSweeney: What were you doing about the kids in Halls Creek? Hon KATE DOUST: An awful lot. A lot more than what members opposite would do, because if it is outside their periphery, they just ignore it. Shall I reinforce some of our government’s achievements in this area, just to remind members opposite, because they obviously have not got the message? Hon Kim Chance: I think you should! Hon KATE DOUST: During the period 2001 to 2005 the Gallop Labor government, and now the Carpenter Labor government, did an awesome amount of work to try to improve the lot of people in our community. I will start with that $140 million in new and recurrent funding for additional staff and resources. The member may have missed that, so I will break it down. The 2001 election commitment involved an amount of $24 million. An amount of $19 million was allocated to the Gordon inquiry. Part of that was to cover employee expenses of $11.9 million. That is a substantial allocation for staffing and resources. The state government has also provided $10 million to deal with the issue of homelessness. Sadly, we are becoming increasingly aware of that issue. The state government has also provided $39 million for the Care for Children program; $9 million for caseworkers - I do not know whether they are the ones the member was referring to; $1 million for the initiatives in “Protecting Children in Care, A Way Forward”; $4 million for the working with children criminal records screening unit; and $35 million for cost escalation. On top of that, the government has introduced a raft of legislation that deals specifically with children in care. Hopefully sometime this year, the government may be able to get its children’s commissioner legislation passed. I suppose that will happen in the next couple of months. Hon Robyn McSweeney: It is dragging its feet. Hon KATE DOUST: We were looking forward to debating that legislation today. The only reason it is dragging its feet is that members opposite refuse to come to the party and give the government’s model a go. They want something in place that is potentially neither workable nor achievable. That is something we look forward to debating at another time. Hon Robyn McSweeney: It doesn’t solve Midland’s problem. Hon KATE DOUST: At the end of the day, if the opposition is not prepared to come to the party on that, that may not happen either. The government is demonstrating practical outcomes, not just in dollars Hon Robyn McSweeney: It can’t be. Hon KATE DOUST: It is a very clear result. Hon Robyn McSweeney: That is 45 cases The PRESIDENT: Order, members! It seems to me that every time Hon Kate Doust does the appropriate thing and pauses to take a breath, members interject, and that is becoming unreasonable. Hon KATE DOUST: Thank you, Mr President, they are dreadful. 1254 [COUNCIL - Thursday, 6 April 2006] Hon Norman Moore: It is your leader who is interjecting. Hon KATE DOUST: I do not need the Leader of the Opposition’s assistance either. We need to wrap this up, because motions like this are moved on a regular basis. I do not know whether it is because the opposition has nothing of import that it wants to talk about. It constantly raises the subject of children. I have been through the government’s achievements and expenditure. In the past five years, almost six years now, this government has consistently demonstrated its commitment to children and families in the community. The government’s aim is to ensure that children and families get the best outcomes. To achieve that aim, the government has consistently expended huge amounts of money to try to properly resource government departments to enable the staff to deal with the dreadful social outcomes that occur from time to time. On some occasions these issues need to be addressed. All businesses and organisations need to restructure and reorganise. Unfortunately we have seen an increase in these sorts of problems; therefore, this government is going down the path of ascertaining how the business end of dealing with these matters is organised. A staffing issue at Midland has been identified. It is unfortunate that the situation has reached a point at which the staff feel they have to take industrial action. That happens sometimes. The minister has taken that on board and is taking it very seriously. He is working through this issue and treating it as urgent. Midland is a good indicator. Hon Robyn McSweeney will not have to waste money on petrol to drive around Rockingham, Mirrabooka and Cannington because the minister will look at what is happening at those regional offices. He will look at staffing levels and talk to staff about what can be done to achieve better outcomes for their clients. At the end of the day, this government wants to make sure that the best service is available to the community to reduce, and hopefully eliminate, the problems of domestic violence, child abuse and drug abuse that currently exist. We do not want those things happening. We want to make sure that the issues concerning victims of any sort of violence or abuse are resolved swiftly. The government is working its way to fully resourcing those places. The opposition will continue to raise this issue because it has nothing else to raise. Perhaps, once members opposite have sorted out their political backbiting and jockeying for positions, they will get their eye back on the ball and focus on being part of a genuine opposition that spurs the government on to do better and greater things. At this time they are not doing that. Members opposite obviously have access to the information coming through Hon Robyn McSweeney’s select committee. I look forward to seeing that committee’s report. Hon Robyn McSweeney: This has nothing to do with my select committee. Hon KATE DOUST: I read the terms of reference for that select committee, and the committee is looking at resourcing. The member is just killing time. This motion is a furphy. It is appalling that the opposition continues to condemn this government when it has demonstrated its capacity to deliver for children and families in Western Australia. That is demonstrated by the dollars it has put in and the decline in the ratio of caseworkers to children. That is a much better outcome for people in the community. Instead of being so negative all the time, perhaps the member needs to come up with a solution. In industrial relations, when we are advocating for workers, we do not constantly carp about the negatives. As a union organiser I dealt with staffing, resourcing and sometimes management decisions, and I found it much more helpful when negotiating with employers to have a solution or two ready in my back pocket. Hon Robyn McSweeney: I am concerned about children’s safety. Hon KATE DOUST: That is right and that is a good overall goal to aim for. Instead of absorbing the negativity, the member should give consideration to how to improve the situation. I have not heard the member talk about it here. If Hon Robyn McSweeney wants to be a quasi union organiser, there may be a few things she will want to check. It is something she may aspire to when she leaves this place - she is always positive about unions. I would start thinking about positives if I were the member. Perhaps the member should talk to the workers and say that they might be having problems now, but the government is trying to deliver for them and, more importantly, is endeavouring to deliver for children and families in the Western Australian. I well and truly oppose this motion because it is an absolute crock. It is a filler for this session. There is no evidence that either the minister or the government is letting down Department for Community Development workers, children or families in this community. To the contrary, the information I provided this morning well and truly establishes that this government is indeed committed to improving the lot of children and families. One of those mechanisms is to make sure that the DCD offices are well and truly resourced. That is something the current minister, like the previous minister, is committed to doing. When the budget is handed down in May, I hope the minister has success because that should shut up the member for some time. I oppose this nonsense motion. [COUNCIL - Thursday, 6 April 2006] 1255 HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral - Leader of the Opposition) [10.58 am]: I congratulate Hon Robyn McSweeney for continuing to bring to the attention of this house and the community the shortcomings of the Gallop-Carpenter government on these issues. I also congratulate the parliamentary secretary on her very valiant defence of the indefensible. I have never heard such rubbish in my life as I heard from the parliamentary secretary. I know they are not her words, but the words put into her mouth by the minister, who is trying to defend a situation which is indefensible. The Labor Party has convinced itself by its own rhetoric that it is the party that will look after the needy in our society when, in fact, it is worse at it than anyone else. We heard from the parliamentary secretary how much extra the government is expending and how the ratio of workers to children has declined. Then the Leader of the House says by way of interjection, “QED”, without for one second contemplating that it does not make any difference how much money is spent or what the ratios are if the outcomes are not being achieved. I will give an example that Hon Robyn McSweeney read out to the house. Hon Kim Chance: The question is about casework. Hon NORMAN MOORE: Just let me finish; let me give the Leader of the House a QED. The government has talked about how its spending and ratios somehow demonstrate that its outcomes are being achieved. In fact, the figures read out by Hon Robyn McSweeney are that in 2001, 50 children were reported to have chlamydia; in 2005, 147 children were reported to have chlamydia. Is that an outcome that the government is proud of? QED. The number of gonorrhoea cases has risen from 44 to 79 since the government has been in power. QED. Do not give me this rubbish that somehow, because the minister says that the ratio has been reduced or that more money has been spent - only 10 per cent more during a time when this government has had available to it more money than was available to any other government in history - that these are acceptable outcomes. Does the Leader of the House think this is okay? Hon Kim Chance: The motion is about workloads for caseworkers. Hon NORMAN MOORE: It is all about outcomes. The bottom line is simply this: the government of Western Australia now has a group of workers in one of its departments taking industrial action against it. Does the government support the industrial action? Does the parliamentary secretary support that industrial action? She claims that somehow that we do. Hon Kate Doust: You were. Hon NORMAN MOORE: Hon Robyn McSweeney did not say anything about that at all. She raised the issues that have been raised by these workers and read information from a document provided by those workers to their union. I am asking the government whether it supports the industrial action. There is silence. Does the government support it or not? If we were the government, those opposite would be moving a motion condemning the Court government- or whatever government it was - because it had provoked industrial action. When we bring this to the parliamentary secretary’s attention, she says that we are wasting the house’s time. I wonder what those workers in Midland would think of the parliamentary secretary’s comment that Hon Robyn McSweeney’s raising this matter is a waste of the Parliament’s time. What an absolutely disgraceful thing to say. What an absolute rejection of the fundamental and proper concerns of those workers. The parliamentary secretary treated them with total contempt when she said that this motion is a waste of time and that we should not be bringing these matters to the house. I think it is a very serious issue when workers in the Midland office of the Department for Community Development take industrial action because they cannot cope with the circumstances in which they find themselves. Does the parliamentary secretary think that it is a waste of time raising the issue here? The parliamentary secretary made the point at the beginning of her speech that because a select committee has been established, we should not say anything about it in the Parliament. The select committee has been set up because there are some fundamental problems in the whole system. They are being investigated. A particular set of circumstances at Midland has been brought to the attention of the house today. It is our duty to bring it to the attention of the house. For the parliamentary secretary to say that it is a waste of the house’s time is an absolute disgrace. If the parliamentary secretary’s colleagues agree with her, in my humble judgment they are equally disgraceful. We also heard the same tired, old rhetoric from the government that when the Court government was in office, this is what it did. The government did not do it today, but normally it also says it is the federal government’s fault. Another excuse is: “We have been in government for only five years; how could we be expected to have done anything useful in that time?” The government has been in power for five years. It is time it took responsibility for its actions and stopped coming to this house and blaming somebody else for all its shortcomings. We lost the election in 2001 because the public did not think we were doing the job properly. We were dismissed. We are not the government anymore; those opposite are. It is the government’s responsibility to attend to these problems. Those figures on sexually transmitted infections are your responsibility, not mine. Hon Kim Chance: Not my personal responsibility, surely. 1256 [COUNCIL - Thursday, 6 April 2006] Hon NORMAN MOORE: It is the government’s responsibility. The Leader of the House thinks it is funny that Hon Robyn McSweeney should raise this as a very serious problem in Western Australia. It is a massive problem. It is an appalling set of figures, yet the government says that this is a waste of time and that it is the fault of the Court government. The figures read out by Hon Robyn McSweeney are from 2001 to 2005 - from when the government came to power. They are the government’s responsibility. In common with everyone else in Western Australia, I am sick to death of this government - which has more money than any other Western Australian government has had - allowing these problems to exist and seeking to blame somebody else for them. If it is not the previous Court government, it is the federal government. The time has come; the buck stops with the government. If the government wants to be responsible for community services and development in Western Australia as part of the responsibilities of a state government, the government has to accept responsibility for what comes out of that. Hon Kim Chance: That is why we have reduced the caseload. That is exactly what we have done. Hon NORMAN MOORE: Well, good on the government! What has been the outcome? I gave the government some figures for one outcome. The other outcome is the reason we are debating this motion today; that is, the government’s own workers have taken industrial action. Hon Kim Chance: Yes, they want us to do better. Hon NORMAN MOORE: They have listed the reasons for their industrial action. The reasons are as clear to the government as they are to the opposition; that is, the government is not providing them with the resources they need. The government claims to have provided more money; perhaps it has, but it is not enough. I sat on that side of the chamber, and those opposite kept telling me I was not spending enough money on various things. The opposition is no longer the government. Members opposite also will not be the government if it allows these sorts of issues to continue. The government has to start accepting responsibility. It cannot make speeches blaming the Court government. The Court government is a relic of history. It is a very long time ago - five or six years ago, as the government told us. It is now the government’s turn. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: It is a dinosaur. Hon NORMAN MOORE: It may well be a dinosaur. However Hon Robyn McSweeney: Some of these kids will not get to be dinosaurs because they will die before then. Hon NORMAN MOORE: Quite right. Hon Kim Chance: You are absolutely misrepresenting what the parliamentary secretary said. She used the Court government figures as a baseline for comparison. I did not hear her blame the Court government. Hon NORMAN MOORE: The parliamentary secretary would have had some difficulty doing that; however, she did. I suggest that the Leader of the House read her speech in due course. This is just another example of the sort of response we get from the government whenever we raise issues. Members say, “When you were the government, you didn’t do that.” That is not an excuse anymore. It may have been five years ago; it is not anymore. It is the government’s responsibility, and if it does not take that responsibility, the government will also become a dinosaur after the next election. Hon Kim Chance: Did anyone hear somebody whistling in the dark? Hon NORMAN MOORE: It was interesting to listen when the parliamentary secretary spent some time telling us what the government has actually done in the past five years. Everything she said, with one or two exceptions, was littered with the words, “we are trying to” or “we are hoping that something will happen”. The words “trying to” and “hoping that” were used frequently in her speech, because that is all she can say. Hon Kim Chance: So you would rather we lost hope and didn’t try? Hon NORMAN MOORE: No, I would rather that, at a time of economic growth and massive revenue, the government were able to get up and say not “we are hoping to achieve something”, but “we are going to achieve something” or “we are not just trying to, we are doing it”. I do not think that the parliamentary secretary’s contribution - full of “trying to” and “hoping that” - would fill anybody with any enthusiasm. It is, in fact, depressing at this time of economic wealth. This government has an opportunity that no previous government has ever had to use the revenues of this state - brought about by economic growth that has happened in spite of the current government, I might add - to do something about the sort of problems Hon Robyn McSweeney quite rightly raised in the house today, has been raising for a long time and will continue to raise. I suspect that when she goes to the other offices of DCD around the state, she will find the same problems. We have already talked about Halls Creek. I will not go into any detail about that now. It is an absolute disaster, but that is just one community Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: You have been representing them for 25 years. [COUNCIL - Thursday, 6 April 2006] 1257 Hon NORMAN MOORE: I am actually responsible for Halls Creek getting a swimming pool. Did the member know that? The opposition announced that it would do that if it won the last election, and the government announced 24 hours later that it would pay for it. It took us only one day to get a swimming pool, because the government responded to a commitment which the opposition had made but which it had not been prepared to make earlier. For every Halls Creek in Western Australia there are dozens of communities with the same problems. Mt Magnet is the same; I was there the other day. The same problems exist everywhere in Western Australia, and they have not been sorted out. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich interjected. Hon NORMAN MOORE: The minister can keep yelling that we did not do it, but we are not the government any more. If the government does not do something about it, it will be the former government very shortly. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: You should get over it. Hon NORMAN MOORE: Get over what? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Not being in government. Hon NORMAN MOORE: I have. The minister must get over the fact that she is not in opposition. I have got over the fact that I am not in government. The minister continues to defend her position by saying that the last government did not do something. That is old hat; that is the past. The minister has to get over that and start understanding that it is her responsibility. If anything goes wrong with the education system while she is in charge, it is her responsibility and nobody else’s. That also applies to the Minister for Community Development and the parliamentary secretary who spoke on his behalf today. This is a very good motion and I commend Hon Robyn McSweeney for bringing it to the house’s attention. I guarantee to the parliamentary secretary that this issue will arise day after day whenever it needs to be brought to the house’s attention. If she thinks it is a waste of time and a filler, I can assure her that the people in those community development offices do not share her views. HON BARBARA SCOTT (South Metropolitan) [11.11 am]: I support the motion, because it highlights a systemic and endemic problem in this state with the way this government deals with issues to do with children. I will rise again and again in this Parliament to defend the children of this state to make sure that their care and protection is on the agenda. The government’s failure to resolve the workload issues at the Midland Department for Community Development office indicates how frustrated those workers are. At the moment one worker has to deal with 17 families, which is an enormous caseload. Time and again over the past five years we have heard about the increased workload for officers in the Department for Community Development and that it has become unmanageable. That was evident all the time that I held that shadow portfolio. A number of parents would come to me - they still do because I have an interest across portfolios - and speak about the department’s lack of resources. The parliamentary secretary mainly dealt with an industrial relations argument, and I understand that because that is her background, but I want to focus on the point that we are endeavouring to make to the Parliament: under this government the children of Western Australia are missing out. This is a well-resourced government that keeps saying it will do things, but it sets up one review after another; the findings are then tabled and nothing is done. When I open the drawer to my desk, I find papers relating to three reviews to do with children the government has set up in recent times. As soon as an issue is raised, a review is set up. I have a thick document on my desk from the Child Death Review Committee that points to major concerns about the number of children in Western Australia dying under suspicious circumstances. Those issues have been investigated by that committee, which has published a very good report, but this government has done nothing about it. What is this government doing about the huge increase in child abuse, especially the sexual abuse that Hon Norman Moore detailed? For the past five years we have revealed figures in this Parliament about the number of children who have been sexually abused in WA. I remind the parliamentary secretary that it is easy to say that the Court government did nothing about children - I will go into that in a moment - but we must look at today’s society and ask why these figures indicate an increase in the reporting of incidents and an increase in actual events. That can be put down to a couple of simple things. Anyone working with children will know of and note the huge increase in the number of family breakdowns, which is a direct cause of conflict in homes, such as custody and access issues. There is a huge increase in drug addiction in this state. This government is soft on drugs. I do not know how many government ministers have to deal with parents and grandparents, as I do. I receive visits from grandparents in particular, many of whom say that their daughter is a drug addict, that she is also a prostitute, that she has had three men in her home in the past week that they know of, that she has had two little children removed by DCD and that she is now pregnant. The grandparents are concerned that those children or the new baby or whatever will be abused in the future. However, this government will not confront the important issue of mandatory reporting and child abuse. This situation is getting worse in every state in Australia, not just in Western Australia, because of the breakdown in relationships and the high incidence of divorce. Family dysfunction is on the increase and is 1258 [COUNCIL - Thursday, 6 April 2006] mainly to do with drug addiction. This parliamentary secretary evades the important issue of child protection and the number of families caseworkers have to deal with by referring to a random selection of their workplace initiatives, which is not what we are here to debate. The issue concerns whether children and their families are being dealt with in a timely fashion. They are not, because of the high workload of caseworkers. This government has plenty of money and it should be putting in place the recommendations of the Gordon inquiry, but it has not done that. The government is dragging its feet on mandatory reporting and the establishment of a commissioner for children. The government does not want to fund the establishment of an independent children’s commissioner, who would be able to scrutinise what departments are doing. The government has continually stated that it does not want to confront this issue because the workers say they cannot deal with the increase in the number of people they have to deal with because they are already overworked. We know those people are overworked, and that is what this motion highlights. The overworking of caseworkers is a systemic and endemic problem throughout DCD. The other issue dealt with by the parliamentary secretary was the initiative that this government has put in place for children. The first issue I raise relates to the working with children legislation. Yesterday we saw regulations that confirmed my fear that the working with children legislation will not be put in place for five years. That means it will be five years before it is guaranteed that people working with children have been subject to working-with-children checks. The government should be gravely concerned about issues to do with working with children. The government has put legislation in place, but it has not provided the funding. We do not even know whether the teachers’ registration board will check every teacher working in this state. We do not know when every childcare worker, nurse or whoever works with children will have a child card. That child card was introduced because I kept standing in this Parliament and demanding that this state copy what occurred in Queensland; it did not occur because of the government’s initiative. That is what a good opposition is about. A good opposition must constantly remind the government of its responsibilities