Our Opinion

Release of report on survey findings: On the question of re-naming the Child Safety Department, the “Child Protection Force”

The report on our survey findings, On the question of re-naming the Child Safety Department, the Child Protection Force, is now released.

Background to the report

Following the announcement on 17th June 2020 of the Liberal National Party’s (LNP’s) plans for overhauling Queensland’s child protection system, PeakCare and the Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Protection Peak (QATSICPP) conducted a survey to gauge stakeholders’ views about the plans. The survey was released on 19th June and closed on 10th July.

PeakCare and QATSICPP will look for similar opportunities to seek feedback about the policy platforms of other political parties as they are released. Pleasingly, the findings of the survey are now being used to inform bipartisan dialogue agreed to by Premier Palaszczuk and Opposition Leader Deb Frecklington about improvements that can be made to Queensland’s child protection system.

About this report and the reports to follow

An overview of the survey findings was released on 24th August, as a precursor to a series of reports that will delve, with greater detail, into specific matters addressed within the LNP’s proposals. This is the first report within this series and addresses the first question included within our survey – Do you agree with the proposal to re-name the Child Safety Department, the Child Protection Force?

Future reports will focus on proposed organisational arrangements for the delivery of child protection services or on specific policy-related proposals, and culminate in a final report addressing responses to the last question in the survey – What, if anything, do you think may be missing from the LNP plan to overhaul the child safety system?

Your views about this report

Do the findings recorded in this report surprise you or not? Which of the views reported on do you agree or disagree with? Enter your comments below, anonymously if you prefer.

Queensland Budget 2023-24 – What does it mean for the child and family sector?

The Queensland Budget 2023-24 has been released with a focus on tackling the cost of living, and delivering improved services…

Read More

The Choice

The outrage and concerns for community safety expressed by many Queenslanders following recent tragic events involving young people committing unlawful…

Read More

Youth Justice at a crossroad

With it having been revealed that Queensland is imprisoning more children than any other Australian State or Territory, it becomes…

Read More

2 Comments

  1. Alana Laundy on October 9, 2020 at 10:25 am

    These findings were not surprising. Permanency is usually conflated as adoption which has occurred in many of the responses. The conversation becomes binary – adoption/ foster care. Adoption becomes the solution before there is exploration of new possibilities and solutions which could reduce intergenerational trauma.
    All respondents are agreed “Young people deserve a secure and permanent home.” When families are unable to provide this, many assume that can only occur through adoption. Others advocate that at the same time as providing permanency for children, their rights to their biological family should not be severed.
    It can be agreed that work needs to be done to enhance options that help young people in OOHC have “felt” permanency in the family that raised them into and including adulthood (without having to be adopted).
    Pleased to see resounding “no” responses to KPI’s & to adoption for Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islanders.

    It would be hoped that our political parties would further explore permanency options that provide love and security without changing identity and ties to family; and a better analysis of Adoption outcomes eg UK data not encouraging.

  2. Janet Wight on October 24, 2020 at 11:11 am

    It is difficult to see how being or looking “tougher” will be a positive and assist with engagement with relevant family members or change behaviours – there is no evidence to support this. The rationale for the change of name to Police Service sums the situation up. T

    I do understand, however, how the perspective could be different for some who have lived experience.

Submit a Comment





Care experienced Youth Advisory Group to be appointed in Queensland

Youth Advisory Group to be appointed as key outcome of Queensland’s Residential Care Review, updated HSQF soon applicable, PeakCare’s new…

Read More

DCSSDS Motor Vehicle Safety Guidelines – FAQs and Clarifications

In late 2023, the Department of Child Safety, Seniors and Disability Services released the Motor Vehicle Safety – Guidelines for Child…

Read More

Universities Accord Final Report released, legislative changes, and foster carer engagement

The Universities Accord Final Report has been released, containing recommendations to reform Australia’s higher education system. It’s also Queensland Women’s…

Read More