Page 3028 - Week 09 - Thursday, 21 September 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In the interests of informed community discussion I am committed to publicly releasing as much information as possible. This study’s content, however, relates to highly confidential information about five children and their families and, therefore, there are restrictions on what information can be released. The Children and Young People Act 1999 is clear in its intention regarding confidentiality. Because of the small number of children examined in this study, to release information in a de-identified format would be inappropriate. The families involved in this study have rights that need to be observed as well, and I am mindful of the possible adverse effects on families of putting any detail of these children’s deaths into the public domain.
Gwen Murray, a criminologist, and Craig Mackie, a lawyer, are nationally recognised experts in child protection and child death review. Gwen Murray had previously assisted the government by conducting a comprehensive audit of 150 children in care, as part of the Vardon review in 2004. This study was requested by the department, following a number of infant deaths and near deaths in the ACT involving young children known to Care and Protection services, to ensure best practice in relation to vulnerable infants. It follows on from the 2004 Vardon and Murray reports, and the recommendations of all three reports move from the general to the specific in terms of subject and detail.
While the Vardon report discusses the system as a whole, the Murray report only pertained to children in the care of the territory. This most recent study pertains to five children, none of whom were in care. Specifically, Gwen Murray and Craig Mackie were commissioned to conduct a study of five young children who had either died or nearly died while in the care of their natural parents. The parental responsibility for these five young children lay with their natural parents. None of these children was in the care of the territory, nor had they ever been. They were, however, in one way or another known to Care and Protection. “Known to Care and Protection” is the broad term indicating that at some time in the life of the child, Care and Protection had been contacted about them or their families.
Part of the reason for commissioning this study was to better understand the nature of the contact between Care and Protection, the young children and their parents. The study highlights the complexity of working with vulnerable parents with complex issues who are caring for children. More broadly, it points to the need for a more integrated service response to better ensure the safety of at-risk children. The study reinforces the observations of the Vardon report that the responsibility for protecting children does not lie with one agency alone. For example, Care and Protection, health, the police, community agencies and the community itself all have significant roles in intervening when children are at risk.
The study was established to analyse only the Care and Protection response in these five cases to inform ongoing practice, procedures and policy. I want it to be clear that the study was not an holistic look at these babies’ deaths. It did not examine, for example, the files or response of other government or non-government agencies who may have been involved with these families. The review was commissioned specifically to examine the child protection interaction with these babies. In many cases, but especially complex cases, Care and Protection would be just one agency involved. To this end—and it is reflected in the recommendations—there is a continual need to improve coordination between agencies when intervening with children and families at risk.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .