Page 2455 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 1 July 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
enclosed concrete exercise yard with the sky just visible through heavy reinforced steel mesh. The minimum standard should be at least four hours, and access to a natural environment with grass, trees and maybe the odd bird is surely necessary, assuming the purpose of incarceration is not to deprive children and young people of their physical and mental wellbeing.
The salutary effect of a natural environment is well known, and contact with animals is a positive thing. It also gives staff insights into the psyche of the detained children. I must commend the current arrangement between the animal welfare shelter and Quamby; it is a very positive thing. While some people might consider this unrealistic, I still think that resources spent on establishing fruit and vegetable gardens and orchards with some farm animals, poultry, milking cows, goats, sheep et cetera will actually enhance the responsibility for children for whom relationships with their peers is often difficult. They have not had good times in their relationships with adults, and a relationship with animals is really an important part in building their trust and affection. I hope that the new facility at Bimberi has that access.
The definition of “unreasonable discipline” in clause 740 was very vague and noted by the scrutiny of bills committee. While I think that including yelling might be a bit extreme, I will not be opposing the government’s amendments in these areas. I note that Mr Mulcahy has similar amendments.
The definition of “light work” for the purpose of the clause is also vague, and the examples are particularly interesting given the recent hoo-ha over Bill Henson’s work. I am pleased to see that the government is amending this definition to provide more clarity.
I am generally happy with the changes being made to childcare services, particularly as the department has assured my staff it seeks balance between regulation and support for childcare services. I would like to mention the removal of the public declaration of an intention to operate a childcare service. While I accept that there was rarely a public response, I have been advised that it was a way at least for the industry to be aware of what was going on amongst the sector. To keep this flow of information going, I would ask the minister to ensure that communication between department and industry groups is open and continuous.
The level of transparency provided by the public declaration was helpful, but the level of administration required probably outweighed the benefit. For reasons of competitive neutrality, the removal of the declaration makes sense, and I will not be opposing it. But I would like the minister to assure me that the information can be made available on request and that communication and consultation with agencies will continue.
I do want more research undertaken. Although this bill does not have a legislative review period, I have been advised that review and consultation will be ongoing and dynamic. I hope this is the case. I would like to see some time lines and processes set out to ensure that this takes place.
Ensuring the wellbeing of our children is paramount and requires involvement from all sectors of the community. Though not all the concerns raised by the various
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .