Page 1597 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 10 May 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
individuals notified of a CYPS decision. The government also made a commitment to review the resources of the Public Advocate and Children and Young People Commissioner and resources in the Community Services Directorate.
I look forward to providing an update on the progress of implementation of these commitments by the last sitting week in August. I will note, however, that substantial progress has been achieved against all commitments. The review of what CYPS decisions should be subject to internal or external review is underway.
The advice I have received is that research undertaken as part of the project does not indicate that we are the sole jurisdiction where decisions regarding a child’s placement or care plans are not subject to external review. This is why that part of the motion has been removed in my amendment. In fact numerous jurisdictions only have internal review mechanisms for care plans and placement decisions. As is the case in the ACT, some jurisdictions use their established court processes as well.
The progress against all of our commitments in the family safety plan is monitored by the Coordinator General for Family Safety. I wish to note in particular that the Child and Youth Protection Quality Assurance and Improvement Committee is also up and running. It was funded in the 2016-17 budget as part of the ACT government’s safer families package, which included $2.47 million to enhance quality assurance and support improved decision-making within child protection services. Recently, I released two communiques issued by the committee following its recent meetings, and announced that communiques will be issued after each future meeting of the committee.
I would also like to remind the Assembly that there are already a number of independent and external systems in place to review decisions at different points within the child protection process. These include the Childrens Court, the Human Rights Commission, specifically the Public Advocate, the Children and Young People Commissioner—to which Mrs Kikkert referred—and the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal. All of these bodies represent established and legislative avenues already in place to review decisions, having access to all of the available information, and with the interests of children and young people being paramount. These are all external avenues available to parties who seek to dispute decisions.
There are also a number of internal processes for review of decisions. All of these review mechanisms will be considered in the commitment made in response to the Glanfield report to review which CYPS decisions should be subject to internal or external oversight. I repeat that that work is ongoing.
Members of this Assembly must understand, and I am sure that they do, that decision-making in child and youth protection services about matters of placement and stability can be contentious and complex, and these decisions are guided by the principles of the Children and Young People Act 2008. These principles focus decision-making on the best interests of children and young people, with their needs, protection, safety and wellbeing being paramount over the needs of others involved.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video