Page 476 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 20 February 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The way this case has been reported would seem to indicate that some people consider that it is in fact a caseworker who can make a care and protection order. That is not the case. As you know, Madam Speaker, where caseworkers take emergency action, or where CYPS takes emergency action, it is taken as a last resort to ensure a child or young person’s safety.
The ACT Children’s Court has the jurisdiction. It is the appropriate forum to hear and make determinations on the evidence provided in relation to care matters. That evidence must be provided within two working days to the Children’s Court after emergency action is taken. Any decision that is made regarding the need to ensure a child’s immediate safety by removing them from current circumstances is subject to such an application.
MS LAWDER: Minister, is an expensive, drawn-out five-year legal battle against this government the only way to right incorrect decisions?
MS STEPHEN-SMITH: I do not think that is a correct characterisation of the case. The case was heard in full in 2014. The decision was handed down in 2018. Clearly matters have changed between 2014 and 2018. This is currently a matter of further review.
Children and young people—care and protection
MR HANSON: My question is to the Minister for Children, Youth and Families. According to lawyers and Legal Aid the ACT has the most restrictive legislation in the nation when it comes to releasing even anonymous details of child welfare matters. For example, the ACT family that recently won a five-year court battle against the ACT government cannot legally discuss their case in any detail even if they wish to, including what the Court of Appeal determined the government got wrong. Minister, why does the ACT government find it necessary to silence families in ways that other states and even the federal Family Court do not?
MS STEPHEN-SMITH: I thank Mr Hanson for his question. Again, there were some errors of fact in the reporting of this matter. All jurisdictions protect child protection information, including matters such as child concern reports. The confidentiality of reporters making child concern reports is absolutely paramount in ensuring the confidence of the community at large to make reports of concerns about children.
My recollection is that this article indicated that the journalist was unable to get a copy of a child concern report. That is exactly the situation, as I understand it, that would apply in other jurisdictions. Their legislation is drafted in different ways, but all jurisdictions protect information in the child protection system to protect the interests of children and young people, and the system itself, to ensure that the confidentiality of reporters is maintained, ensuring the confidence of the community to make a report when they have a concern about the safety and wellbeing of children.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video