'Unacceptable': Queensland government launches emergency audit to find hundreds of children missing from state care
More than 12,000 children are currently in Queensland's residential care system through foster, residential and kinship care programs, but out of this figure 780 children have made the decision to leave state-care and "self-place" in a location unknown to the government.
The Crisafulli Liberal National Party government is now working to gather the displaced children's names, ages and locations as fears grow they may be homeless or living in dangerous situations.
It is understood when children choose to self-place, they lose access to government-backed support services and case management, making it hard to track their location.
Child Safety Minister Amanda Camm said the self-placement of children was "unacceptable", adding it is essential for those missing from the system to be identified.
'Allowing one vulnerable child to self-place in Queensland is unacceptable to me, let alone 780 young people. That's why I have ordered a full audit of the kids in care who are self-placing, what support they are receiving and where they are,' she said.
'It is vital we have an understanding of how we can better support these vulnerable children to get their lives back on track and if they have a youth justice crossover.'
Ms Camm said a "clear system failure" was behind the state's growing number of unlicensed operators in residential care who are not bound by strict child protection laws, nor monitored or audited by state authorities.
Only 36 of the state's 146 residential care providers are licensed, with 110 unlicensed providers largely operating in the for-profit sector and receiving $474.3 million in state government funding.
'The fact the government had nearly no oversight of unlicensed providers, or recourse to ensure they are delivering positive outcomes for vulnerable children is a clear system failure,' Ms Camm said.
'The residential care sector is a billion-dollar industry built on the back of vulnerable children with taxpayers' money.
'It is critical there is oversight and these organisations know that if they do not perform, the government will act.
'It is critical we take the necessary steps to fix issues when they are uncovered to ensure children are being adequately taken care of.
'This Commission of Inquiry is about accountability, both ministerial and departmental. We need to understand how these system failures happened, so we can ensure they do not happen again.'
The figures come as Queensland's 17-month Commission of Inquiry led by former Federal Court judge Paul Anastassiou KC into the state's "broken" Child Safety System holds its first public hearing on Wednesday.
The government previously claimed the residential care system is failing children at a cost of $1.2 billion.
"There is no coincidence that we have a broken child safety system and a youth crime crisis in this state, and we are determined to take action on both," Queensland Premier David Crisafulli previously said.
A separate inquiry is also examining the rules governing unlicensed providers to care for vulnerable children.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
3 hours ago
- ABC News
Victorian government eyes further bail changes as its critics target childcare crisis
Victoria's childcare regulators and child safety authorities could be probed by a parliamentary inquiry, amid accusations Premier Jacinta Allan's rapid review of the sector was designed to avoid scrutiny. The three-day sitting week is the first time parliament has met since more than 70 charges of child sex abuse were laid against childcare worker Joshua Dale Brown — allegations that have thrown the sector and its regulation into the spotlight. Meanwhile, the government will use the resumption of parliament to make it even harder for repeat offenders to get bail. The Victorian Greens are pushing for a parliamentary inquiry into the state's childcare regulators and child safety authorities, amid allegations a government-backed review was designed to avoid further investigation. The opposition will also move a private member's bill to immediately overhaul Working with Children Check (WWCC) laws and implement recommendations made by the Victorian Ombudsman three years ago. The proposals flagged last week include lowering the threshold for the WWCC accreditation to be revoked and requiring applicants to undertake child safety training. "It makes sure that people understand their obligations when getting a Working with Children Check," Shadow Education Minister Jess Wilson said. "It can't just be a tick and flick exercise; it needs to mean something." However, the private member's bill is unlikely to succeed, with the Allan government traditionally not supporting bills tabled by the opposition. In the upper house, the Victorian Greens will move to set up a parliamentary inquiry into the childcare sector, with MP Anasina Gray-Barberio accusing the government of setting up a rapid sector review to avoid proper scrutiny. The review, led by former South Australian premier Jay Weatherill and due to report next month, was announced by the government in the wake of the allegations against Mr Brown. It is set to recommend urgent changes based on existing proposals in other states, but it is not looking at the performance of the sector's regulator or the Commission for Children and Young People. Ms Gray-Barberio said the review had "gaping holes" and would fail to ask the hard questions. "Labor's narrow review avoids scrutiny of their own regulation while they've been marking their own homework," she said. "We need this inquiry to fill in the gaps." The parliamentary committee, which is understood to have the backing of Coalition MPs and the crossbench, would scrutinise the performance of the state's education department. It would also examine the differences between private, for-profit operators and not-for-profit childcare centres in Victoria, as well as the WWCC system and staff-to-child ratios. Earlier this month, the government told the ABC it was making changes to Working with Children Checks to take into account any prohibition notices, rather than just police charges, when determining whether to revoke or suspend a WWCC. The government has also committed to creating a childcare worker register as soon as possible, and moving to ban personal devices from childcare centres. Meanwhile, the government has unveiled details of a new round of bail law changes that it says will build on earlier reforms it deemed the "toughest bail laws" in the country. The new changes will see people accused of committing six serious robbery and home invasion offences while on bail, refused bail unless the decision-maker is satisfied that it's highly likely they won't reoffend. A new "second strike rule" will also make it harder for people accused of repeat indictable offending to get bail. "The data tells us that there are certain types of serious offences that are more likely to be repeated or committed again by people who are out on bail," Attorney-General Sonya Kilkenny said. "The two tranches of bail reform are directed squarely at addressing the concerns from the community about serious offending by people who are out on bail, but also about sending a strong message that there are consequences for people who continue to commit and reoffending while on bail." The government said the changes, to be introduced to parliament on Tuesday, will be subject to "key safeguards to mitigate any disproportionate impact on vulnerable people". The changes that passed parliament in March included installing community safety as the overarching principle for bail decision-making, and removing remand as a last resort for serious youth offenders. However, they were strongly criticised by community legal groups and youth advocates who said the laws were dangerous and discriminatory. The government anticipates the combined changes will increase the number of adult and youth offenders on remand and says it is hiring new prison staff and bringing more prison beds online to prepare. In his first wide-ranging interview since joining the force, Victoria's police commissioner this week told the ABC he didn't want to see young people in prison, "but some need to be there to protect the public".
The Australian
8 hours ago
- The Australian
Janet Albrechtsen: The Federal Court wasting its time on the Torres Strait climate change case
When are we going to call time on the use of the courts, especially the Federal Court, for performative politicking? The decision last week of Justice Michael Wigney in the Federal Court concerning climate change in the Torres Strait was surely the high-water mark for wasting weeks of high-priced court time, months of work by tribes of expensive barristers and solicitors, and over 1000 paragraphs of judgment on what was essentially a hopeless case. No doubt the aggrieved plaintiffs, Pabai Pabai and Guy Kabai, two Torres Strait Islander elders, received some satisfaction from their day in court, and the environmental bar made out like bandits. But this case should never have been brought, or at minimum should never have made it past first base. Taxpayers are entitled to ask whether the vast amounts of time and money spent on this case would have been better spent on infrastructure or health needs in the Torres Strait. To nobody's surprise, the only beneficiaries from this court theatre were Chris Bowen and his fellow climate crusaders in the Albanese government who achieved a purely symbolic but high-profile, court-ordered caning of previous Coalition governments. Adoring reports in the left-wing media described how the judge found that when the Coalition government 'identified and set Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets in 2015, 2020 and 2021, it failed to engage with or give any real or genuine consideration to what the best available science indicated was required for Australia to play its part in the global effort to moderate or reduce climate change and its impacts', but this all changed when the government changed in 2022. This was pro-ALP publicity the government would have regarded as well worth the cost of the case. What the media reports did not give as much airplay to were the judge's findings that the case, in which the Torres Strait Islanders alleged the commonwealth was negligent in failing to set and implement appropriate climate targets, failed at every step. The court found that the applicants 'failed to prove any of the essential elements of their case'. They failed to prove the commonwealth owed a duty of care to the islanders, failed to prove that even if the commonwealth was subject to a duty of care that the standard of care was as claimed by the plaintiffs and failed to prove a compensable loss. In other words, a resounding defeat. It should have been obvious to everyone involved that once the Full Court of the Federal Court had decided Sharma – an earlier case in which a claim that the commonwealth owed a duty of care to prevent or mitigate the effects of climate change was thrown out – the Torres Strait Islands case was a loser. Both in Sharma and the Torres Strait Islands case the court held the law of negligence was not appropriate to test the reasonableness of matters of government policy. The leading commentary on this issue was the following statement (quoted by Justice Wigney) from High Court chief justice Murray Gleeson in the Graham Barclay Oysters case: 'At the centre of the law of negligence is the concept of reasonableness. 'When courts are invited to pass judgment on the reasonableness of governmental action or inaction, they may be confronted by issues that are inappropriate for judicial resolution, and that, in a representative democracy, are ordinarily decided through the political process. Especially is this so when criticism is addressed to legislative action or inaction. 'Many citizens may believe that, in various matters, there should be more extensive government regulation. Others may be of a different view, for any one of a number of reasons, perhaps including cost. 'Courts have long recognised the inappropriateness of judicial resolution of complaints about the reasonableness of governmental conduct where such complaints are political in nature.' One may well wonder why Justice Wigney continued past this finding. The charitable answer seems to be judicial prudence. On a number of occasions when Justice Wigney reached one of the many points at which his reasoning would have ended the applicants' case, he would continue to make findings in case his judgment was appealed. Justice Wigney concluded by saying the applicants' case failed 'not so much because there was no merit in their factual allegations' but 'because the law in Australia as it currently stands provides no real or effective avenue through which the applicants were able to pursue their claims'. He continued that 'until the law in Australia changes, either by the incremental development or expansion of the common law by appellate courts by the enactment of legislation', the 'only recourse that those in the position of the applicants and other Torres Strait Islanders have is recourse via the ballot box'. Fans of democracy would say thank God for that. The idea that climate change policy should be determined by judges – even those clever judges in appellate courts – would fill most of us with horror. Look at what a mess judges have made of migration law, not just here but all around the world. At least when politicians get it wrong, we can elect new ones to fix things. But judges are appointed for life, or at least for fixed terms, and their judgments create permanent precedents which, as cases such as NZYQ show, can be virtually immune to the wishes of the electorate. The real wonder of this case is that Justice Wigney took the bait to make a vast array of momentous factual findings in a case whose legal prospects were so dim. Making his decision appeal-proof seems a slight foundation on which to base such a hard-hitting attack on Coalition policy. True it is that he is bound by the submissions made to him, and that both the commonwealth's lawyers (now instructed by an ALP government) and the applicants' lawyers were urging him to find, as he did, that 'climate change poses an existential threat to the whole of humanity'. However, it was not just the lawyers for both sides who were nodding ferociously at the concessions made by the commonwealth. After listing the comprehensive concessions made by the commonwealth, Justice Wigney added 'the commonwealth was correct to make those concessions'. Leaving little doubt where he stood on climate-related matters, the judge said the 'science of climate change is now broadly accepted and doubted by only those on the very fringes of political and scientific debate'. Now, maybe the judge is right, but is this really the best use of the Federal Court's time? Even hopeless cases deserve access to justice, but was this case the right vehicle for both sides and the judge to sit around agreeing ferociously with each other's submissions, only to culminate in the judge offering trenchant criticism of Coalition climate policies while giving the current government a tick? Cynics may worry this looks like an expensive stitch-up. Read related topics: Climate Change Janet Albrechtsen Columnist Janet Albrechtsen is an opinion columnist with The Australian. She has worked as a solicitor in commercial law, and attained a Doctorate of Juridical Studies from the University of Sydney. She has written for numerous other publications including the Australian Financial Review, The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Sunday Age, and The Wall Street Journal. Politics Labor's move to condemn Mark Latham with a caucus plaque next to his portrait ignores a century of controversial leaders, opens a Pandora's box of reckoning and sets a silly precedent. Nation Chris Minns has blocked a planned march but defiant activists say 'it's not just up to the Premier to decide', as ECAJ co-chair Alex Ryvchin says the protest would be 'sullying another icon'.
The Australian
8 hours ago
- The Australian
Giggle app founder Sall Grover's laugh about transgender Roxanne Tickle becomes constitutional free speech case
When Giggle for Girls app founder Sall Grover burst out laughing in court at a caricature of transgender woman Roxanne Tickle, she couldn't have imagined it would spark a constitutional battle over the limits of free speech. That spontaneous laugh has turned the sex discrimination case about female-only spaces into an equally watershed test of whether a joke or insulting remark about trans gender people can be protected speech under law. In a new submission responding to a cross-appeal filed by Tickle, Grover's legal team argues that her 'momentary, reflexive laugh' in response to political satire was protected by the implied freedom of political communication in the Constitution. 'If the freedom protects mockery, it protects response to mockery,' Grover's lawyers claim in a submission lodged with the Federal Court late on Friday. Even highly offensive statements and insults may constitute protected political expression, the submission argues, otherwise the effect would be 'to chill political engagement and penalise dissent'. Grover is appealing judge Robert Bromwich's ruling in the Federal Court last year that she indirectly discriminated against Tickle by rejecting her from the female-only Giggle networking app because she looked like a man. Tickle is also appealing parts of Justice Bromwich's decision, arguing the judge should have found she was the victim of direct, rather than indirect, discrimination and that Grover should pay her at least $40,000 for the hurt caused. Under cross-examination during the case, Grover was confronted with a piece of crowd-funding merchandise sold online – a scented candle taking a satirical jab at Tickle's claim that she realised she was a woman because she 'hated the smell of balls'. The 'Sweaty Balls' scented soy candle was on sale at $37.30, but her involuntary laugh cost Grover $10,000. Justice Bromwich was not amused, awarding aggravated damages for her 'offensive and belittling' outburst. Grover rebuts Tickle's claim that the $10,000 penalty was 'manifestly inadequate', arguing the damages award was 'infected by legal error' and should never have been made. The only basis for the award 'was a brief and involuntary act of laughter' by Grover – reacting to a proposition put to her by Tickle's counsel – that the judge found was not deliberate, malicious, or intended to cause harm, the submission says. The laughter was a 'momentary, reflexive laugh' and a 'spontaneous courtroom response', and Tickle should not be allowed to increase 'this already flawed reward'. More importantly, Grover's legal team argues, imposing liability 'for expressive conduct during litigation' raises a potentially serious constitutional issue. 'The conduct in question occurred in court, during adversarial proceedings, in response to cross-examination in respect of political satire. The subject of that satire – a basis on which (Tickle) had publicly claimed to be a woman – is at the core of political discourse in this litigation. 'To penalise expressive response to that claim is to burden political communication.' The satirical candle was sold on the Etsy website, along with other merchandise like T-shirts, with some of the profits going to Grover's Giggle crowdfund. That candle features a caricature of Tickle and a speech bubble reading: 'So, I realised I was a woman because I hate the smell of balls.' Grover's legal team says it was intended to mock a statement made by Tickle on the SBS Insight program 'to the effect that the realisation of being a woman was due to an aversion to the smell of men's locker rooms'. 'That was not a private disclosure. It was part of a public-facing narrative, voluntarily disseminated through broadcast media … and deployed in support of legal claims about gender identity and access to female-only spaces such as women's change rooms.' Grover's legal team cites a 2004 High Court case in which judge Michael McHugh observed that even highly offensive statements may still constitute protected political expression if they concerned political matters. Insults, like irony, humour and sharp criticism, are inherent features of political communication. 'To permit liability to attach to such conduct – particularly in the absence of any finding of harm – is to chill political engagement and penalise dissent', Grover's team argues. Grover is pushing back against the claim she discriminated against Tickle at all, arguing that her app simply excluded users based on a visual impression that they were men, not on their self-identified gender. Grover rejected Tickle from the app based on Tickle's selfie and 'a visual impression of maleness'. Giggle's submissions effectively ask: 'How can you discriminate against someone's gender identity if you don't even know what it is?' For discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act to occur, it must be by reason of a person's 'gender identity'. Grover argues that her app's condition applied uniformly to all users perceived as male, indifferent to any unknown or uncommunicated gender identity. There was no evidence a person of similar appearance but without Tickle's gender identity would have been treated differently. 'In short, a person of male appearance who did not identify as a woman would have been treated the same … The treatment was not less favourable by reason of 'gender identity'.' The appeal and cross-appeal will be heard over four days from August 4 in the Full Court of the Federal Court, before judges Melissa Perry, Geoffrey Kennett and Wendy Abraham. Indigenous An academic who said 'Blak activists' were turning Melbourne University into 'an ideological re-education camp' has been mocked for using anti-discrimination laws in a bid to save his job. Podcasts The only recorded police interview with the estranged husband of missing Lennox Head woman Bronwyn Winfield could be inadmissable in any criminal proceedings against him.
