Page 5980 - Week 18 - Thursday, 12 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Speaker, children are great. They are our future. We as parents bring them into this world. They deserve to be given the opportunity to enjoy life to the full and to develop into well-adjusted adults. We need to acknowledge that children are unique and should be allowed to develop their individuality. It is widely acknowledged that the first few years of a child's life are the most important. These first years have a major impact and influence the child throughout life. At the time the committee established its terms of reference, we had no idea just how broad they were or how far-reaching the problem was. A behaviour problem can affect all aspects of a young person's life, that is, home and family, school, employment, health, welfare and social development.
The committee was very much aware of the financial constraints within the Government and, where possible, suggested redirection or prioritising of funds to accommodate recommendations. Some members of the committee considered the 39 recommendations to be a wish list. Maybe it is a wish list, but we are talking about the lives of our children. The Government needs to acknowledge, as do most professionals, that in the long run it is cost-effective to invest funding in prevention and early intervention rather than in crisis situations and solutions, not to mention the quality of life that our children are entitled to.
Unfortunately, the results in most instances of preventative measures and early intervention cannot quickly be measured. Many of the guidelines for those receiving funding are dependent on statistics, outcomes and solutions. In many cases this means that support comes too late, and the effects can be devastating and lifelong - again, not only for the young person but for all those involved. An article in the Canberra Times on 21 June put it very simply:
Today if something cannot be seen, measured and labelled then it does not exist.
I think attitudes are slowly changing, but we have a long way to go. The committee received many different definitions of behavioural disturbance among young people. Some were general, while others were more specific. There is no one standard definition. The definition adopted by the committee is set out on page 8 of the report:
Behavioural disturbance in this report is defined as behaviour that is, or may lead to, behaviour that is seriously disruptive and/or dangerous either to the young person and/or others in the community.
The committee also defined the term "young person" as being young people from birth to the age of 18 years.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .