PeakCare and the Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Protection Peak (QATSICPP) are pleased to release the next instalment in our survey findings about the Liberal National Party’s proposals for overhauling Queensland’s child protection system – On the proposal to increase use of adoption through a new triage model with permanency order targets.
More than any of the other LNP proposals reported on to date or soon to be reported on over oncoming days and weeks, this proposal drew widely divergent views both within and across the 13 stakeholder groups who responded to the survey. It becomes very clear when reading the report that issues concerning the use of adoption remain highly contentious.
There is one matter however where there appears to be a strong consensus of views. To find out about that matter, read the report.
Your response to the survey findings
Let us and others know your response to the survey findings.
- Are you surprised by the findings or not?
- If you completed the survey, have your opinions been confirmed or changed by the commentary included in the report?
- Are there matters reported on that you need to further consider?
- Or are there matters reported on that you are hoping our political parties will further consider in the development and refinement of their policy platforms?
Now more ever in the lead up to the State election, YOU both individually and collectively have the opportunity to influence their decisions.
You can enter comments, anonymously if you prefer, about the survey findings below. Y our comments will be brought to the attention of the political parties.
I’m surprised! The over-riding message I have taken from this report is that this is a topic that needs a lot more careful consideration. There needs to be more research and much more consultation. I hope that the political parties take notice of this message. These are life-time decisions being made about children.
Surprised? I’m actually shocked by many of the quotes!
Thank you Peakcare and QATSICPP for conducting the survey and for publishing the findings. Thank you for the opportunity to raise our voices. I hope that the politicians are listening. As pointed out by many in the survey, no government can afford to repeat the cruel mistakes that led to the Stolen Generations and Force Adoptions.
I was surprised by the reference made to the UK – some recommending it as an example of what to do, some recommending it as an example of what not to do. Maybe that has something to do with short-term ‘fixes’ versus long-term impact? Obviously a need to examine all of the issues much more closely.
The quote that struck me the most was, “As a child of adoption I disagree with this”
I wish that I was authorised to speak on behalf of my organisation. If I were authorised to speak on behalf of my organisation, I would say that my organisation is very concerned about aspects of the LNP’s proposal. Having said that, I would also say that my organisation was also concerned about aspects of the Child Protection Amendment Bill introduced by the current government. Of course, because I am not authorised to say that, I won’t but I wish that someone who is would.
Many of the comments entered into the survey are similar to issues raised in the submissions to the Parliamentary Committee that examined the Child Protection Amendment Bill. I agreed with the points made in PeakCare’s submission that challenged the idea of adoption sitting within a hierarchy of preferred options – for similar reasons stated in the survey report for rejecting the notion of permanency option decisions being driven by target numbers and KPIs. Surely any decisions made – whether it be about adoption, long term guardianship, reunification or whatever – must be based on the best interests of each child and take account of the needs and circumstances of each chills and their family.
These survey reports must not be seen as the end of the conversation – they are the start of the conversations we need to have. Major policy decisions like these have a lifetime effect on children’s lives, the repercussions of which will outlast the term of any elected government. Governments need to be very confident in the decisions they make. There are too many unresolved matters described in this report to inspire that level of confidence.
Our organisation has witnessed several times now the serious and tragic outcomes that can come from “failed” adoptions – where the child is rejected by the adopters some time later – the long term impact of which is always borne by the child. This includes overseas adoption, state “forced” adoption in other (non Australian) jurisdictions, as well as adoption within Australia. It is also clear that adopting parents are not properly prepared for parenting a child with a background of trauma and all that may result from that. The State does not make resources and services available to these parents post adoption for ongoing support – the “problem” and the responsibility have been passed on. This shows a serious lack of foresight into what adoption means in the context of a child who is need of protection.
However, I have also heard a CREATE young consultant speak of how she wishes she had been adopted.
Adoption is complicated and discussion of this subject is far from over. It is not, and never will be, the silver bullet.