Page 1606 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 10 May 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MRS KIKKERT (Ginninderra) (5.21): I thank Ms Le Couteur for the amendments that she has proposed to this motion. They are good and I and the Canberra Liberals support them. I also wish to thank Minister Stephen-Smith for taking so much interest in this incredibly important matter that she happily rewrote the entire motion for me. Thank you. The actual words used in the motion, however, are far less important than the outcome. If substituting their own words make it easier for those opposite to throw their support behind this motion, I am frankly happy for that to occur.
I wish to thank Madam Deputy Speaker and Nicole Lawder for their support of this motion. It is heart wrenching to hear their experiences and the stories that they had to endure in the past couple of years. I am sorry that they have had to experience that.
It has taken 13 years since the Vardon report discussed the importance of internal and external scrutiny of child protection services. It has been at least that long that a number of parents, carers and agencies have called for processes to be established for external review of CYPS decisions. That means that these concerns have been in the hands of the ACT Labor government for at least 13 years. I have no way of assessing if these concerns have also been in the heads and hearts of those opposite, but I surely hope that that has been the case at least now and then. All we can know for certain is that 13 years later the ACT still lacks external review of CYPS decisions, a unique and dubious distinction amongst all Australian jurisdictions and one that I note the minister’s proposed amendments have carefully scrubbed from my motion.
Another point that these amendments have notably excised is the admission expressed so clearly by the former Children and Young People Commissioner that transparency and accountability are essential not only to enhance community confidence in public administration but also to provide quality control of decisions made. This is, in fact, a common theme expressed throughout the literature on this topic. It would appear that the government feels the need to avoid any implication that might call into question their decision-making ability.
I cannot say that I like that particular change to this motion, though I can try to understand what motivated it. But, as I already said, my interest today is in the outcome, not political grandstanding. I know that the amendments, despite any deficiencies, will still result in the government’s reporting back to this Assembly in August on the same points that I have stated that we need to hear about. So I am sufficiently satisfied today.
It has been 11 months since the government responded to the Glanfield inquiry. Let us not delay any longer. I look forward to hearing back from the government on these matters in August.
Ms Le Couteur’s amendment to Ms Stephen-Smith’s proposed amendment agreed to.
Ms Stephen-Smith’s amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video