Child safety and wellbeing is never far from the headlines, and no more so than recently, with shocking allegations of child sexual abuse in childcare centres.
These revelations have sparked much-needed national conversations about how we can better protect children. They have also exposed how fragmented and reactive Australia’s approach to ensuring child safety can be.
Australia has dedicated ministers for aged care and seniors and youth and early childhood education. But there is no federal minister with a sole focus on children.
Responsibility for children is scattered across portfolios, from social services to education, health, Indigenous affairs, communications and the attorney-general’s department.
Without a single point of accountability or a unifying national vision, children’s needs can easily be sidelined. Here’s why that should change.
Children face many issues
There is no shortage of issues impacting children that demand urgent national attention. For example:
the landmark Australian Childhood Maltreatment Study found more than 60% of Australians experience some form of child maltreatment, including physical violence, sexual abuse and neglect.
about 23% of Australia’s homelessness population are aged 12–24. About 14% are under 12 years old.
a 2024 study showed almost three-quarters of Australian adolescents experience clinically significant depression or anxiety symptoms.
there are also significant challenges across state and territory youth justice systems. On an average day in 2023–24, 4,227 young people aged ten and over were under youth justice supervision in Australia. Given recent punitive youth justice reforms in several states, this number has likely risen and will rise over coming years.
There is a ministerial gap
Despite this breadth of challenges, Australia has only ever had one federal minister explicitly responsible for children.
Larry Anthony was minister for children and youth affairs in the Howard government from 2001 to 2004. After Anthony lost his seat, this ministerial role was absorbed into other portfolios. It has not been reintroduced.
Today, we have a minister for youth and a minister for early childhood education, but no minister with a focused mandate to champion children’s wellbeing, coordinate services across jurisdictions, and ensure children’s voices are heard in decisions that affect them.
This reinforces a view of children as passive recipients within broader systems, rather than individuals with rights and distinct needs.
What happens overseas?
Other countries — including New Zealand, Ireland, England and Wales — have a minister for children. These roles are to ensure national coordination, elevate children’s voices in policy making, and hold governments accountable for outcomes.
For example, New Zealand’s Ministry for Children (Oranga Tamariki) has embedded a legislative commitment to upholding the Treaty of Waitangi in child welfare decisions.
In Wales, the minister for children and social care supported the passage of the Rights of Children and Young Persons Measure in 2011, making Wales the first UK country to embed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into domestic law.
Why not?
Child safety advocates such as the Australian Foundation for Children have long pushed for a minister for children. But it is possible some decision makers within government may not readily see value in such a role.
One potential critique is the role risks duplicating efforts. Social services, education and health already address child-related issues and have dedicated ministers, all at cabinet level.
Another potential issue is that key areas such as education and child protection are primarily the responsibility of states and territories. This may raise practical concerns about how much authority a federal minister would have.
Others may fear the role could become largely symbolic or politicised if not given the necessary authority, funding or cross-portfolio buy-in to achieve meaningful impact.
But Australia routinely appoints ministers for portfolios with complex inter-jurisdictional responsibilities. This includes health, housing and education. Children’s wellbeing is no less deserving of this kind of national focus and coordination.
An opportunity for leadership focused on the next generation
Children do not vote and they rarely have access to political power. Their voices are often absent from national debate — especially those of children living in poverty, in care, or experiencing violence.
While the appointment of a federal minister for children would not fix these issues overnight, it would establish the national leadership needed to drive focused and longer-term reform in all the settings where children live, learn and play.
A minister for children could also represent Australia’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This requires governments to ensure children have access to protection, care and meaningful participation in decisions that affect them.
A federal minister for children would ensure the rights and wellbeing of children are no longer an afterthought. It would send a clear message that Australia is serious about protecting and investing in its youngest citizens.
Kate has received funding for research on violence against women and children from a range of federal and state government and non-government sources, including Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS), South Australian government, ACT government, Australian Childhood Foundation and 54 Reasons. This piece is written by Kate Fitz-Gibbon in her role at Monash University, and is wholly independent of Kate Fitz-Gibbon’s role as chair of Respect Victoria and membership on the Victorian Children’s Council.
Read More: Read More
