Government data shows the group remains overrepresented in all parts of the child protection system

This article is more than 2 years old

This article is more than 2 years old

Twenty-one years on from the Bringing Them Home report, government data shows Australia has failed to curb the rate of child removal from Indigenous families, and has gone backwards on a commitment to place children in care that connects them with Indigenous family and culture.

Figures compiled by the Productivity Commission for the report on government services track various outcomes in government child protection services.



• Sign up to receive the top stories in Australia every day at noon

These figures show that Indigenous children are overrepresented in all parts of the child protection system, such as out-of-home care and other interactions.



Out-of-home care refers to the care of children deemed unable to live with their primary caregivers. It covers children living in residential care with paid staff, home-based care such as foster or kinship care, and state- or non-profit-run family group homes.



In 2007-08 the rate of Indigenous children in out-of-home care was seven times the rate of non-Indigenous children. Ten years later, the rate of Indigenous children is 10 times that of non-Indigenous children, with constant increases every year:

In real terms, there were 47,915 children in care in the year 2016-17, and of these 17,664 – or 37% – were Indigenous and 30,069 – or 63% – non-Indigenous.

The rising rate of Indigenous children in out-of-home care is of particular concern given the history of forced removals through government policy that became the stolen generations, and the resulting trauma and cultural disconnection.

According to Tim Ireland, the chief executive of the Aboriginal Child, Family and Community Care State Secretariat, the focus on out-of-home care shows the child protection system is by its nature “risk averse”.

Removing Aboriginal children from their families has failed. There is another way | Tim Ireland Read more

“And risk averse in child protection is ‘just remove’ – eliminate all risk there, rather than focusing on strengthening up the family,” he said.

“That in itself looks at how does the system look overall at early intervention versus out-of-home care. You have the greatest investment in out-of-home care; early intervention hardly gets a look in in terms of real support.”

State by state, the breakdown of out-of-home care rates shows they have increased in all states and territories, although they have risen more sharply in Victoria and the ACT:



The trend for non-Indigenous children is generally flatter, with the rate in Tasmania and South Australia rising, while Queensland’s is relatively flat:

Another key measure that is tracked by the child protection chapter of the report on government services is whether out-of-home care placements comply with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child placement principle.

The principle is an approach to out-of-home care designed to ensure that if a child must be placed in care, their familial, cultural and community ties can remain strong.

It stipulates that decisions around care should be made in partnership with the Indigenous community, and provides guidelines for the types of care that will best preserve Aboriginal children’s connection to family and community, and sense of identity and culture.

Indigenous children in care doubled since stolen generations apology Read more

In practice, the principle has been accepted by state and territory governments as the preferred hierarchy for placing Indigenous children in out-of-home care. According to the Australian Institute of Family Studies, the preferred placement for Indigenous children is with:

Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander relatives or extended family members, or other relatives or extended family members; or



Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander members of the child’s community; or



Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander family-based carers.



If the preferred options are not available, as a last resort the child may be placed with a non-Indigenous carer or in a residential setting.



If the child is not placed with their extended Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander family, the placement must be within close proximity to the child’s family.

However, despite state and territory governments’ adoption of these guidelines the data shows placements in line with the principle have gone backwards, declining from 74% of placements in 2007-08 to 67.6% in 2016-17.

At the state and territory level, most jurisdictions reflect the national trend of decline, with particularly steep drops over 10 years in Western Australia and the Northern Territory:

One notable exception is Victoria, which has made significant improvements – though the state still does have one of the highest rates of Indigenous children in out-of-home care.

While it’s hard to pinpoint any one reason for this improvement, the Family Matters report, released by the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care, points to a relatively high Victorian government investment in family support services, funding to improve the involvement of the Indigenous community in decisions about care placement and the appointment of a dedicated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children’s commissioner.

However, even placements that technically adhere to the placement principles may not necessarily result in an ongoing connection to culture. The Family Matters report points to an increasing proportion of children placed with non-Indigenous families and a decreasing proportion placed with Indigenous relatives, which can be seen clearly at the national level:

Placement with Indigenous relatives is contingent on the efforts of child protection workers. In some cases, children may have been placed with non-Indigenous relatives despite the existence of Indigenous kin just because the Indigenous kin weren’t easily identified.

Former Victorian Aboriginal children’s commissioner Andrew Jackomos has cited the example of being told by child protection workers that they could not find Indigenous family members with whom to place Indigenous children, and yet he or his staff had been able to find them within a few minutes just by using Facebook.