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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Thursday, 1 July 2004) . . Page.. 3156 ..

Secondly, why do care orders for foster children finish at age 16? Where is it written anywhere that a parent abdicates their parental responsibility at age 16? It doesn’t. And it should especially not apply to foster children.

What currently happens to juvenile sex offenders in the ACT? If we are seriously protecting our children in care, why are there also serious questions being asked about children who are sex offenders? Why are we not adequately addressing this issue? Why aren’t we adequately addressing the concerns of the foster carers who are fostering children and who are not being given the necessary support they need?

What about the definition of child abuse? Here lies a can of worms that requires urgent leadership. I know that technically the definition of child abuse can be the difference in a family giving their foster child a Vegemite sandwich today and a jam sandwich tomorrow. I know that is to the extreme, but I understand that exponential increase of cases. The minister said herself that the definition of child abuse had changed and therefore more reports were coming in. This is completely unacceptable.

Lastly, if we are committed to protecting children in our care, what are we doing in our court system to uphold this right? Why is it that we still have no independent voice or advocate for our children in the court system—not outside it but within that system—like that implemented in Queensland, for example, which, by all accounts, is working exceptionally well? Why is it still acceptable that children in the legal system are often afforded less motivated and ill-experienced legal representation? This is not protecting our children or looking after their best interests.

In conclusion: we can spend $68 million to fix a problem that requires urgent addressing and hold no-one accountable for systemic, statutory failures but, in the end, if the issue is not given the leadership it urgently requires, I am afraid to say it will be all a waste of time. I appreciate that we must move forward, but leadership is the key to this issue and the culture of the department of family services must change.

The issues I have raised here today have been raised by those in the sector and also must be addressed. We have a small window of opportunity which we must take hold of with both hands. Sixty eight million dollars is a lot of money, but the state of child protection services in the ACT and, therefore, the care and protection of children is a priceless issue. Leadership—strong leadership—is the key. Let’s deal with the culture alongside policy in the hope that we never have to revisit this issue in the same way ever again.

MS TUCKER (3.55): This matter of public importance relates to child protection services in the ACT. I have listened to Mrs Burke and she has raised some interesting points. She has been pretty narrowly focused in one sense, in that she has focused particularly on the aspect of the culture in family services and on the Vardon report. But the Vardon report itself of course took a much broader view of the issues of child protection.

I just want to make the point that, while I understand that Mrs Burke thinks it is important to focus on the culture within family services and the role of the minister—and I have some sympathy with some of the comments she has made about the culture within family services—I would also have to say that there are two documents to come before

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