Page 4096 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 22 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There have, indeed, been instances - I have certainly seen quite a few of them and, in fact, I have represented children in such circumstances - where, materially, the kids are certainly well provided for; you could not say that the parents are neglecting them.
There are provisions in this Act for where the parents physically neglect the children; things can be done in such cases. But there are also cases where kids certainly have a roof over their head, clothes and a full stomach, but the parents do absolutely nothing in terms of supervising their children; they basically could not care less. The child runs wild, commits offences and ultimately is punished by a court; but, basically, the parents have been so neglectful that they are culpable as well. In the old Child Welfare Ordinance, there was a section whereby the parents in those circumstances - I admit that it would not be all that common, but there was certainly some provision there - were, in fact, able to be prosecuted for that.
This final amendment would simply bring back that provision which was in the old Child Welfare Ordinance. There are, indeed, a number of things in the old Child Welfare Ordinance which should have been carried on into this new Act and which were not, and I think the problems are coming through now. I would point out to the Attorney, who is smugly smiling and shaking his head - I hope that it is not necessarily at me; it probably is not actually, as he is now shaking his head in a different direction - that these points were brought to me by the professionals in the area; the people who work in the Children's Court, legal practitioners, both at the Legal Aid Office and also in private practice, the Juvenile Aid Bureau of the Australian Federal Police, and Mark O'Neill from the National Association for the Prevention of Child Abuse.
These are amendments which they see as being very necessary for the efficient administration of this Act, which, ultimately, is to benefit the kids concerned themselves. We are not going to help the kids concerned themselves if there are no penalties for their wrongdoing. It is a concerted approach that is needed, including adequate penalties, adequate supervision and, indeed, adequate court procedures to ensure that this Act works.
So, whilst the Liberal Party supports the Attorney's amendment Bill, there are still problems with this Act. I think there still will be after the Bill is passed and even if my amendments are passed, and I have highlighted some of them in this speech.
MR COLLAERY (9.59): Mr Speaker, the Children's Services Act was innovative and reformist when it was made law in 1986. Some sections of it, in particular section 103, have not yet been made operative. Section 103 deals with child abuse, and the vexed subject of mandatory reporting. What Mr Stefaniak is attempting to do, I think, is to amend section 103; but I did not quite hear how he is going to get it to become operative.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .