Page 5327 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 15 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
assumed interpretation that everyone, including the directorate, was operating under previously. As I said earlier, this is the Greens’ preferred construction.
To illustrate the point, when a child or young person is placed in the care of a foster carer, that is, an individual person under section 518 of the act, there is no requirement for the person to have been deemed a suitable entity, because the director-general has the opportunity to evaluate whether in the particular circumstances the person is suitable to care for the child or young person. However, in the case of a residential care service, the director-general does not have the opportunity to evaluate whether the particular people, their staff caring for the child or young person, are the most appropriate. It is because an additional level of trust is placed in the agency that the additional requirement is imposed and a determination made that they are suitable to provide the care.
I would draw the Assembly’s attention to section 520 of the act, which provides in section 520:
(1) The director-general may authorise, in writing, an entity to exercise—
(a) daily care responsibility for any child or young person for whom the director-general has daily care responsibility; or
(b) long-term care responsibility for any child or young person for whom the director-general has long-term care responsibility.
(2) However, the director-general may authorise an entity only if satisfied that the entity—
(a) is a suitable entity to exercise the responsibility for any child or young person;
This matter is not referred to in the advice just tabled, yet it was referred to in the earlier advice provided by the Government Solicitor.
I would also like to draw the Assembly’s attention to section 63, subsection 2, which creates a distinction between approvals for organisations providing care and individual foster carers, that of course the director-general has had the opportunity to evaluate in the circumstances. In short, it ensures that the director-general has considered that the entities that provide care under sections 517 and 520 must have been deemed to be a suitable entity before a child or young person is placed in their care.
This only adds to the argument that where a child is being placed in the care of an entity there are mandatory requirements that govern the manner in which that is done. The interpretation that those clauses are effectively optional does not appear to be consistent with these provisions of the act.
As I said, I have only had a limited opportunity to consider these issues and would very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss the matter further, as it certainly does have significant implications for the system and the way that we are going to ensure that we properly support our most vulnerable children and young people.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video