Page 557 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 9 March 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The ACT Greens believe this is a critical aspect of this legislation in that we are able to record and collect more data on children or young people who have been subject to a child protection report. We see this provision as important because it allows us to ensure that our service system response is at its best and that we are able to improve our practices in this area. Again I reiterate that this is not about assigning blame; this is about recognising that a tragedy has occurred and what we can do as a community to make sure it does not happen again.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (10.34): The Canberra Liberals will support the Greens’ amendment and will not support the amendment that is to be proposed as a counter by the government. This amendment goes to another concern that I have had about this bill and what it seeks to achieve. I consider that it will be important for the committee in gathering the data about the deaths of children and young people that it separate the data relating to children and young people as to whether or not they are in the care of the government or known to the government in some way.
The government has sought to limit this distinction to children who are under the parental responsibility of the chief executive. I do not consider this goes far enough. As it was, the act itself has yielded the framework for separating the data. Much more revealing data could be obtained if the separation extended beyond children and young people in the parental care of the chief executive to those who are the subject of, as the act describes it, a child protection report. These children and young people are identifiable, and the data revealed may well give us very valuable information.
I note too that Ms Hunter’s amendment extends the separation so that if a deceased child or young person had a sibling who was the subject of a child protection report, that death should be recorded separately too. The government’s amendment seeks to omit that element. For this reason, the Canberra Liberals will not be supporting the government’s amendment.
I think that this is one of the most important elements in this bill. The children and young people who are most vulnerable need our attention, whether in life or death. This is a matter that may draw to the community’s attention the need for reform in areas of child protection, and it is important that we look closely at these matters.
MS BURCH (Brindabella—Minister for Disability, Housing and Community Services, Minister for Children and Young People, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Women) (10.37): The government will not be supporting Ms Hunter’s amendment 4. We have circulated an amendment 9, but I can see that that will not be supported. But I will make some comments on the government’s position.
The bill at section 727L(2)(d) proposes that the register must contain information as to whether the child or young person was identified under the act as being in need of care or protection within three years before his or her death or the sibling of a child or young person identified as in need or care of protection. The government has put forward an amendment that gives clarity to the definition, proposing that the register indicate the chief executive has parental responsibilities for the child or young person at the time of death and removes the reference to siblings. This provides clarity and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video