Lauren Novak: Some workers have told me Minister Sanderson had no idea what she was getting herself into
Last week Child Protection Minister Rachel Sanderson confirmed the job was proving harder than anticipated from opposition. That honesty is rare, but unnerving, writes Lauren Novak.
Anyone who has paid any attention to South Australia’s child-protection system would easily get the impression we’re dealing with some pretty complex and intractable issues.
Children are living with parents who are using drugs and beating each other up or starving, berating and neglecting the kids in their care.
The stress on the system is only worsening as more children must be removed from these unsafe homes and not enough people are offering to provide safer households.
But none of this is news to anyone keeping even one eye on the issue.
So it may have come as a surprise to some The Advertiser readers when the minister responsible for this system confessed she was, in fact, surprised at what a challenge it was to make change.
Last week Child Protection Minister Rachel Sanderson confirmed the job was proving harder than anticipated from opposition, conceding: “Only upon coming into Government in March last year did I understand, for the first time, the true extent of the widespread, complex and serious issues faced by the child-protection system in South Australia”.
The concession was prompted by an article revealing the number of at-risk children living in emergency housing has remained about 100 despite Ms Sanderson declaring she expected to see “a huge difference” by now.
She made that promise a month after coming to office.
On this and other pledges she has since discovered that enacting lasting solutions to problems she articulated so clearly from opposition has not been as easy as expected. For example, Ms Sanderson also said she wanted to be able to limit the time children spent in emergency care to three months – but many remain in that limbo for longer.
Some who work in this swamped system have told me her concession confirmed what they suspected: That the woman in charge had been naive and had no idea what she was getting herself into.
Others viewing the system from the outside have questioned how she couldn’t know, when repeated Ombudsman, coronial and royal commission reports have laid it out for us in excruciating detail.
As Ms Sanderson’s Opposition counterpart Jayne Stinson put it: it’s “embarrassing” for the Minister and “devastating” for children in her care.
But there is some nuanceto Ms Sanderson’s admission that is worth unpacking.
First, it is rare for a minister to be so honest. And honesty is better than continuing to pretend everything is fine. Second, it is important for ministers to set expectations for improvement and this should not be discouraged. But targets must be realistic and based on a clear understanding of what you’re up against.
In opposition Ms Sanderson canvassed many people about the problems with the system and this shaped policies she put to the election.
There has been progress in some areas, especially policies that were easier to put in place. An example is offering ongoing payments to foster carers to help them support young people in their homes past the age of 18.
This policy should reduce the risk of children leaving state care and ending up homeless or unemployed, but it was a simple change affecting a small number of people.
Perhaps what was not made as clear were the persistent barriers to putting in place what seemed like obvious solutions to much more intractable problems.
For example, Ms Sanderson also promised to make public the results of drug testing of parents but quickly had to concede that the department’s IT system made the task virtually impossible.
She did direct staff to analyse and release a one-off sample of results but if Ms Sanderson is serious about making progress she should find a way to deliver ongoing monitoring of drug-addicted parents.
The Liberals came to Government promising a “dedicated” minister to “fix” child protection and Ms Sanderson campaigned for years on the promise that she was the best person for the job.
She undoubtedly has good intentions. And you can never know all the skeletons in the closet from opposition.
But it’s unnerving to learn that she wasn’t as prepared as she led voters to believe.
Now she needs to show she is a quick learner and can deliver on her commitments.