Submission to the Child Safety Commission of Inquiry

16 September 2025

1.  Format of the submission

This submission generally follows the Commission's terms of reference.

The detailed topics listed under "Full terms of reference" suggest a somewhat a priori conceptualisation of the issue, given the already existing legal and/or social frameworks.

For example, while the Commission to its credit does entertain a review of the Queensland legislation about the protection of children, such a review would nevertheless have to take heed of the wider laws, including of course those at the federal level. As for the social frameworks, every society follows its own cultural tenets and structures the laws accordingly.

The submission provides an overarching view based on the observation of reality, with its own rules determined by not only the laws of physics, chemistry, biology and such but also by the laws of cognitive dynamics under the auspices of nonlinearity.

The approach is possible using the Otoom (On the origin of mind) model, seeing the mind as a dynamic, pattern-seeking, self-regulating system which evolves through the realisation of affinity relationships driven by stable, periodic, and strange attractors. That compact, and therefore possibly obscure, definition should not distract from what is to follow; examples of how the methodology is applied to many situations on the ground can be found via the links under References [1].

In other words, the submission should be seen as a guide to map reading, rather than supplying the map itself (as in, "Give someone a fish and you feed them for a day, teach them how to fish..." etc). Here 'map' refers to the conceptual framework of the system of mind.

To what extent the Commission will allow itself to adhere to that guide is for the former to decide, although examples of human perception being out of line with the contingencies of reality abound throughout history and the present, with sometimes devastating consequences.

2.  Children - society pre-programmed

The notion that 'children are the future' is nothing new, although one suspects it is sometimes delivered as a platitude. A child's environment, from their immediate home to the larger scales of demographic, society and culture, determines the young person's mindset in a fundamental way. Further experiences add, and sometimes modify, already existing thought structures, but, exceptional influences notwithstanding, the basis has formed and will play its part from then on.

One could say that society comes pre-programmed in terms of what it has imparted to its children.

In culturally cohesive societies the generations follow a self-similar trajectory, in culturally diverse societies the results of more individualistic input create the potential for separate demographics that are not necessarily aligned with the mainstream. Yet laws are based on the mainstream, and as a consequence will have to face the inevitability of incongruent applications.

The degree of incongruence varies according to the conceptual distance between the reference (ie, the law) and the situation of the moment (ie, the situation as it is perceived and responded to at the moment by the actor). Examples of a low degree of divergence can be seen in the results the application of law in sentencing has on similar demographics where its members demonstrate a low rate of recidivism; they have learned their lesson and turn into productive adults. Examples of a high degree of divergence are the ongoing difficulties experienced by the authorities as they have to deal with indigenous youth.

Indigenous people have existed as hunter/gatherers for tens of thousands of years. They may have existed at a primitive level compared to advanced - and advancing - civilisations, but still have maintained their integrity for all that time which includes the rearing of their young. Has anyone in the here and now ever asked how they dealt with misbehaving children, given that there were no courts, no gaols, no psychologists, no counselling services and all the rest that consume so much of our resources year by year? While at the same time ensuring the survival of the tribe in the face of an unforgiving nature, and that for millennia? Perhaps the answer is in fact known but studiously avoided lest it punches holes in the romantic veil that has been woven over the past decades.

A further aspect of environmental influences is the subjective interpretation it produces. Growing up under the regulatory framework of their culture, the person will perceive anything from some other direction as irrelevant at best, or as a threat to their identity at worst. Hence expecting them to adhere to such admonition is questionable. Most likely that interaction will only reinforce their identity; after all, identity is at the core of our being, as the Lebanese-born French novelist Amin Maalouf has pointed out so comprehensively [2]. For example note the emergence of radicalism amongst young Muslims, or at a benign level the steadfast exercise of cultural festivals among migrants. Or the insistence of traditional behaviour such as could be observed in British expatriates at the Hong Kong Yacht Club.

As one's mindset includes the fundamental framework laid down since birth, the perceived situatedness throughout life will be informed accordingly. Part of the situatedness is the awareness of oneself in relation to the social environment, be that a tribe, a demographic, or an entire society in today's terms. We see ourselves as a member of these spaces and position ourselves in relation to their aspects. If isolated, the psychological consequences can be dire. So much so that in the tribal context to be expelled from one's community can be a virtual death sentence. Note that it is not only the sheer practicality or otherwise of having to do everything on one's own; it is the person's mind which now has been deprived of the communal support it needs in order to function comprehensively. It would be one reason - albeit a major one - why we have indigenous deaths in custody. While for a non-indigenous person being in jail still means a somewhat familiar situatedness within wider society, for the indigenous person there is virtually none. Which is also the reason why transferring an inmate to a more communal setting within the prison system (if feasible) makes for better prospects at rehabilitation than keeping them isolated in cells. And considering the less evolved mind of a young person, if indigenous there is even less chance such a mind could avail itself of a wider awareness about the whole system because such information is not available. The result can be death - the shutting down of that mind.

Further confirmation of the power the inculcation of particular values has on the compact mind of a child comes from the existence of child soldiers - children who can be relied upon to operate under a strictly defined set of orders and nothing else. Hence Israel faces the serious problem of defending itself against young people who have been programmed from early childhood onwards to regard Jews as an enemy to be destroyed. In industrialised societies the emergence of gangs point to their members' need to belong in line with their own disposition while at the same time providing a cultural shield against the rest.

In principle the above applies to young people in general, and the question is whether adequate resources are available to address those considerations. Indeed, whether in certain cases the resources can ever be adequate.

3.  Resources

What is possible within any given human activity system is a function of that system's overall resources. It starts with time, the kind of resource sometimes overlooked.

For example, politicians surround themselves with advisors because they don't have the time to delve into this or that issue. Advisors can be problematic since there is the possibility of bias and/or self-interest. If an issue requires a more comprehensive insight, even a correct information per se may well be inappropriate once placed within the wider context; yet there is no time to range further. Since the status of the child covers a multitude of contingencies, a comprehensive understanding is even more important and therefore takes even more time to be processed. (Would the Commission find the time to go through the Otoom references? Perhaps, perhaps not.)

The Commission's terms of reference cover a number of related aspects, but they stop at the functional boundary between child-related instrumentalities and society as a whole. While understandable (time constraints always exist one way or another), the relatively compressed reach could limit the Commission's potential. To take one example, "safer communities" under "Terms of reference" can easily shift the focus to the general liveability experienced here and there, a result of housing availability, traffic density, public transport, social amenities, and the like.

In any case, a more related item would be the reference to "reforming the residential care system". As it is, the options seem to be limited to governmental care outright and/or using the foster home approach. Both versions would have their applications, but to my knowledge one alternative has never been mentioned: the SOS Children's Villages [3]. Founded in 1949 in the aftermath of World War II, the idea is to provide children with a reliable, family-type environment rather than placing them in orphanages (or temporary foster homes for that matter) [4]. They proved so successful, today they operate in over 130 countries, although there is only one single listing under 'Oceania' [5].

Considering the situation from the child's perspective, a foster home is only temporary and to the outside world their name and identity is always different from that of the foster parents. On the other hand, the SOS... version provides them with a permanent identity which to all intents and purposes is synonymous with their new family. If for an adult their identity is important, for a child it is even more so. Obviously, all such options need to be considered in terms of their particular merit at the time.

In most contexts resources are meant to be applied from the outside, that is to say provided by someone external to the person/s under focus; the items listed under the terms of reference would be of that kind. However, there is another type, one that comes from within: one's personal resilience. Whatever the challenges may be (and they can indeed be serious), the innate resilience an individual can bring to the threat will make a difference. Addressing the availability or otherwise of resilience building would be a significant component of the entire child-safety arsenal. It too can be approached under the Otoom perspective [6].

Broadly speaking, the assistance given to children, whether in the form of state care, counselling services, or school itself, is essentially limited in time. Even in the absence of problem issues, the school syllabus is designed to prepare the young for adult life through a step-by-step process within a confined time frame. It is obvious such a process has to stop at some point to allow for a timely switch from the education-receiving to the contribution-giving individual.

What seems less obvious is the need for an in-built failure rate. To ensure a sustainable success in meeting the challenges to come the bar has to be set sufficiently high to satisfy the achievers' potential, which implies a certain degree of failure given the ability distribution across the general population. Trying to adjust for every level of ability leads to a downward trend in terms of the society's capacity to meet the awaiting challenges. Our declining educational standards hint at the indiscriminate categorisation in terms of expected levels of achievement, when lower levels should be recognised as being representative of a different demographic and treated as such. In practical terms this means separating under-performing students from the rest to prevent their inevitable disengagement when being forced to constantly compare themselves with standards they cannot aspire to. Disengagement leads to disruptive behaviour and bullying to assert their identity.

Associate Professor Dr Paul Williams points to a 2023 international survey which found that Australian classrooms were among the most disruptive in the world (we are 71st out of 81 nations), and when it comes to bullying we are in 75th position (out of 80) [7]. Unsurprisingly, that all-encompassing classification also leads to misplaced expectations on behalf of parents who vent their disappointment at teachers and thereby contribute to the general malaise. One consequence of the disproportionate treatment manifests in children who come to the eventual attention of authorities, and so to the current Inquiry. The text What kills a culture [8] uses a somewhat broader perspective but is as relevant as ever.

4.  Conclusion

Every society needs to invest in its children in order to prepare them for the time they take over as adults. How ready they turn out to be is a function of their innate ability together with the facilities designed and provided by society. Both factors need to be recognised and built into the system. Since cultural cohesion has been replaced with diversity, a clear recognition as to what that diversity means would have to inform the wider system. Success is as much a contingent as is failure, and both provide valuable information in their own right. Emotional and/or ideological attachments run the risk of over-inflating success as well as obscuring failure. For the nation to be sustainable, both should be avoided.

References

1. On the origin of Mind website:
https://www.otoom.net/

For first-time visitors:
https://www.otoom.net/firsttimevisitors.htm

Confirmations of the model:
https://www.otoom.net/parallels.htm

My CV:
https://www.otoom.net/cv.htm

2. A Maalouf, In the Name of Identity: Violence and the Need to Belong, Arcade Publishing, Inc., New York, 2000.

3. SOS Children's Villages, https://www.sos-childrensvillages.org/, accessed 12 September 2025.

4. History, SOS Children's Villages, https://www.sos-childrensvillages.org/about-us/history, accessed 12 September 2025.

5. Map, SOS Children's Villages, https://www.sos-childrensvillages.org/where-we-help/oceania, accessed 12 September 2025.

6. M Wurzinger, How to build resilience, https://www.otoom.net/resilience.htm.

7. P Williams, Act now or class bullies will rise as standards fall, The Courier Mail, 13 September 2024.

8. M Wurzinger, What kills a culture, https://www.otoom.net/whatkillsaculture.htm.

© Martin Wurzinger - see Terms of Use