Page 2502 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 1 July 2008

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

(d) reviews of care plans concerning the child or young person,

(e) provision of counselling or treatment services,

(f) contact with family or others connected with the child or young person

I have not been this precise or wordy in my amendment, in the hope that the government would take the opening up to real participation provided by my much broader amendment to establish a workable, flexible framework, to use it as a step for further amendments in the future and for the development of their policy documents. The legislation is already very detailed, and I consider that principles provide a guideline for the specific processes used in a variety of circumstances.

The UK is another jurisdiction which is embedding active participation for children and young people in policy and is working hard to put its ideas into practice. In a recent report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, the four commissioners in the United Kingdom stressed the need for participation but recognised:

Although some progress has been made with regard to the participation of children in both collective and individual decision making, and the principle of participation is being progressively embedded in law and policy, this has not yet consistently filtered through into practice.

By making kids’ engagement in decisions a key principle of this legislation, I am hoping that it permeates every policy and becomes a cornerstone for any interaction between government and children and young people and I think it will be easier for the ACT to move the idea and policy into well-established practice.

My office has closely liaised with the minister’s office about this bill and about our amendments at almost every step of the way. We are not aiming to make life difficult for the government; we are aiming to improve the legislation to benefit our kids. I would like to thank the minister and her staff for their consultation on my amendments. I note that in my original version the amendment did not include the words “wherever possible”. The government suggested this addition to provide for babies, whom it would be rather difficult to consult, and I consider this a reasonable change.

“Wherever possible” is firm and would require a very good reason not to consult. I would expect the government to issue guidelines to make it clear to decision makers that “wherever possible” means exactly that and the minister to maintain a watching brief to ensure that it is not abused. Perhaps there should even be a directive that the minister is to be informed whenever a child is not consulted or where their views and wishes are overridden. If the child is not consulted, the reasons for this must be made very clear.

I would suggest that a report about the involvement of children and young people in decisions be submitted to a relevant agency such as the Public Advocate. It is possible

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