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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 08 Hansard (Wednesday, 4 August 2004) . . Page.. 3432 ..

The proposed establishment of a commissioner for the family who intervenes in individual matters and has the power to review decisions made by government agencies, including the OCA, duplicates the role of the Ombudsman and various commissioners such as the Privacy Commissioner and the Discrimination Commissioner.

The focus of government is to protect society’s most vulnerable members. We know that children and young people who are at risk of abuse and neglect fall into this category, also young people within the youth justice system and at risk of homelessness. The government’s focus is on addressing the specific needs of these already identified groups, through the children plan, the social plan and the Human Rights Act. The opposition’s proposal appears to be lacking in any kind of research context or clearly articulated rationale for identifying families generally as being at risk within the territory.

The government’s focus is also directed to current gaps in service delivery and identified areas of need. It is presumed that within the scope of a commissioner for the family would be issues ranging from elder abuse to child abuse and matters within the discretion of the Family Court. The scope of the commissioner’s role is expansive in this regard. There is no reference in the bill to the rights of the commissioner with respect to interviewing children and young people, individuals with disabilities, people with impaired mental capacity and the natural justice rights of anyone who feels or is incapable of representing their own interests before the commissioner.

The bill proposes the use of the term “family services”. That is broadly defined and ambiguous, and you will see that within the definition section family services could be a whole range of government and non-government agencies that operate within the ACT.

So the government’s strong advice—and the government’s position—is that this legislation will do nothing to protect the interests of vulnerable people within the ACT; that it is badly thought through; that there are a number of problems which cannot be addressed through amendments; and that it should be defeated before we get to the detail stage of the debate.

MS DUNDAS (3.27): The Democrats will not be supporting this legislation. As part of the Democrats’ election platform in 2001, we called for a children’s and young persons commissioner to be established in the ACT. This recommendation came out of the Assembly’s inquiry into the rights and welfare of children and young people in the territory as well as the territory as parent report. The government has agreed to these recommendations and I look forward to the consultations that were promised just yesterday in relation to the best model for a commissioner for children and young people in the ACT.

Commissioners for children and young people or commissioners for children already exist in Queensland, New South Wales and Tasmania, as well as in New Zealand and the United Kingdom. The Democrats remain committed to actually having a national body, a national commissioner for children and young people, to work with similar bodies in every state and territory to promote the best interests of children and young people and to ensure that their rights and their wellbeing are not ignored.

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