Page 393 - Week 01 - Thursday, 16 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
their childhood identity, the record of where they have been and what they have been through during their childhood; it also provides the foundation for learning from mistakes, reconciling injustices and celebrating achievements. It is recognised that some of this information may need to be revealed in a sensitive and gentle way. Nonetheless, it is important in their preparation for adult life.
The provision of support, including financial support, in accessing other government and community services is important too. Those early adult years can be a stressful time for anyone, especially for those who have been through institutionalised support through their formative years. Both of these bills seek to do these things.
So the question comes down to which of the bills to support. We have given very close and careful attention to both of these bills. Indeed it has been a difficult thing to decide. Both bills have good and not so good elements. So let me make a couple of important points.
First, it was Ms Hunter who led the legislative charge in this space. It was she, and not the government, who was able to recognise the need, develop the policy and translate that into a bill, which she introduced to the Assembly on 24 August 2011. It was not until 8 December, more than three months later, that the government sufficiently got their act together to introduce their bill—and what a “me too” bill it was. In some ways it could be considered somewhat in bad faith. If the government were really interested in this we could have passed this legislation last year, and if the government had concerns about Ms Hunter’s bill they could have proposed amendments to it then. We have seen amendments circulated in the last little while.
Recognising need is something in which this minister and this government have little proficiency. When it comes to good grace and getting on with the job, it seems the minister and this government will only do something when they are shown the way by the other parties in this place. This is especially the case in the care and protection system. The changes that we have seen brought in in the care and protection system, or the mooted changes in the care and protection system and the wider youth justice system, have been the result of the work of the opposition, the Canberra Liberals in particular but the non-government parties in general.
It seems that this minister and this government will only make things right for the community when other parties speak out long and loud for that community. We have seen this before in things like the Human Rights Commission’s review of the youth justice system, the public accounts committee’s inquiry into the Fitters Workshop and the misleading and contrived justification for the government office block. This bill is another example of a minister, and a government, that is a follower, not a leader.
The second point I want to make is that, while Ms Hunter’s bill is well considered—indeed the government has plagiarised elements of it—it is a little too prescriptive rather than a simple expression of policy. The government bill goes more directly to the policy, leaving the way open for the administration to establish the procedures that go to deliver the outcomes called for by that policy. It is for this reason alone that the Canberra Liberals will be supporting the government’s bill today.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video