Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 3825 ..

MS TUCKER (11.00): The Greens will be supporting this Bill. This is basically an amendment aimed at clarifying the objectives of the Children's Services Act and, therefore, protecting children. Unfortunately, the interests of the child do often get lost in the system. If the legislation itself is not clear enough that the interests of the child are paramount, then the chances of this not happening are even greater. This is, therefore, a good amendment which I am happy to be supporting. Of course, then we have to make sure that the rest of the legislation and, indeed, the whole child protection system are focused on the needs of the child above all else.

The Children's Services Act is in need of review. I know this is on the agenda of the Government over the next year. What concerns me still, following questions I raised in the Estimates Committee, is the level of consultation that is going to take place in this review. The Government said they would consult a small number of stakeholders, initially, to prepare a draft Bill. I have mentioned in discussions with bureaucrats about other legislative reviews - the Mental Health (Treatment and Care) Act is the most recent example - that involving the community at an early stage rather than later is desirable. It makes sense, for a start, that the people who are going to have to implement the legislation should be involved in designing it, and a whole lot of energy and anger can be saved by getting input from relevant stakeholders at an early stage. I, therefore, look forward to the Government designing a good process for the review that will ensure we get the best possible legislation, with the interests of the child absolutely central.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Training and Minister for Housing and Family Services) (11.02), in reply: I commend to the Assembly this amendment to the Children's Services Act. I thank the two speakers for their comments. It does provide an urgently needed, philosophical and legislative framework for child protection work and for the Children's Court. It does, as Ms Reilly quite correctly says, make the interests of the child paramount, above anyone else's interests, be they parents or be they anyone else. Also, it seeks to bring the ACT child welfare legislation into line with modern child welfare practice and with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

As important as this amendment is, it is but a small part of a thorough review of the Children's Services Act to be undertaken in the first half of next year. The review is necessary. The Act is now 10 years old and requires comprehensive revision in the context of current best practice in child welfare. Some States have passed new legislation and others are in the process of doing so, and it is of paramount importance that the children of the ACT are not left behind their interstate counterparts in this crucially important area. Victoria and South Australia have adopted new Acts in the past two years. New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia are reviewing their legislation. Tasmania will have a new Bill before its Parliament before the end of this year.

Mr Speaker, there are many issues to consider in a review such as this. Although there is work to be done with the child-care and young offenders sections of the Act, my intention is to concentrate on the child protection aspects because I consider this area to be in the most urgent need, to bring it into the realms of best practice. In child protection we need

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .