Page 901 - Week 03 - Thursday, 14 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
4
AS TO THE EXTENT OF THIS AUTHORITY IN RESPECT OF THE MANAGEMENT AND DECISION-MAKING OF A CASE.
THE PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCE OF THIS SITUATION IS A LACK OF CLARITY REGARDING WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING DAY-TO-DAY CASE DECISIONS, PARTICULARLY FOR THOSE CASES SUBJECT TO COURT PROCEEDINGS. IT ALSO RAISES INCONSISTENCIES WHERE THE DIRECTOR OF FAMILY SERVICES IS RESPONSIBLE FOR A SYSTEM BUT DOES NOT HAVE CONTROL OF IMPORTANT ELEMENTS OF IT.
THE CURRENT NEED FOR THE COMMUNITY ADVOCATE TO FOCUS ON THE RECEIPT OF NOTIFICATIONS AND TAKING OF COURT ACTION DETRACTS FROM THIS OFFICES ROLE OF SYSTEM-WIDE MONITORING AND ADVOCACY AS INTENDED BY THE EXISTING LEGISLATION.
MADAM SPEAKER, THE BILLS THAT I PRESENT TODAY WILL CLEARLY ESTABLISH THE DIRECTOR OF FAMILY SERVICES AS THE STATUTORY OFFICER RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL ASPECTS OF CHILD PROTECTION SERVICE DELIVERY AND WILL FORMALISE THE COMMUNITY ADVOCATE AS THE INDEPENDENT MONITORING AUTHORITY WHICH ENSURES THAT THESE SERVICES ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE COMMUNITY AND AS THE AUTHORITY TO ADVOCATE FOR THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN.
THE AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN THE RESULT OF CLOSE CONSULTATION
BETWEEN THE DIRECTOR OF FAMILY SERVICES AND THE COMMUNITY
ADVOCATE. THEY HAVE ALSO INVOLVED EXTENSIVE CONSULTATION
WITH OTHER AGENCIES INVOLVED IN THE CHILD PROTECTION AREA
901
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .