Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 11 Hansard (19 October) . . Page.. 3296 ..
MS TUCKER (continuing):
The Assembly committee inquiry in 1997 into services for children at risk was disappointed to discover that the ACT was the only mainland State or Territory which did not have a mechanism for consulting with children in care. It was one of the recommendations of the inquiry that the ACT Government ensure the establishment and resourcing of such a consumer advocacy group. It is clear that this has not occurred.
I turn to my main concern, which relates to Division 5 of the Bill - therapeutic protection orders. I will briefly raise my concerns now and then expand on them in the detail stage of the debate. I have lots of concerns with this division, ranging from resourcing issues to the intent of this section of the Bill - the powers to isolate children and young people. The explanatory memorandum does not provide any information on the issue of resourcing considerations. It is normal for government legislation to provide a broad estimate of the revenue implications of most new pieces of legislation.
Are we to assume that this section of the Bill is revenue neutral? Are we to assume that the new therapeutic protection measures, with all their detailed requirements for planned programs to be provided which include treatment, therapy or other services, will not be an additional expense? If these services are already there and occurring, one would wonder why we need to have this provision in there. Are we to see already extremely stretched service providers experience cuts in funding to ensure therapeutic protection orders are funded? The Minister and his advisers say that only one or two children a year will be subject to the provisions of Division 5, yet service providers are telling us that many of the children who come through their shelters and refuges could qualify for therapeutic protection. Also, I heard the Minister say this morning, when being questioned on ABC about the appropriateness of building a separate facility, that it was something that his Government would look at as the concept of these orders evolved, the implication being that the numbers will increase.
There must be revenue implications for other sections of this Bill as well. I refer in particular to clause 206, which relates to supervision orders. This section now requires resourcing commitments; in particular, the provision of educational, vocational or recreational activities. Once again, this is an improvement and we are glad to see this extra detail in the current legislation; but, yet again, no revenue consideration is foreshadowed in the explanatory memorandum.
On the issue of civil liberties, several organisations have raised concerns with me. Barnardos have said that they are "fundamentally opposed" to the locking up of children and young people for non-criminal reasons. They consider it to be a violation of civil rights. Others working closely with troubled and at risk children and young people have argued the same point and are opposed to any detention, and therapeutic protection can be, effectively, a form of detention. They argue that children and young people should not be detained except for criminal or mental health reasons and that these provisions are against the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Other concerns expressed to me revolve around the loose definition of therapeutic protection. According to clause 230, therapeutic protection is care to protect the child or young person from serious harm. That is a very broad and loose definition that could be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .