Page 1843 - Week 05 - Thursday, 16 May 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I am also concerned about the precedent this decision may set. While I understand it is not the intent in this case—and I thank Mrs Kikkert for making this clear in her remarks—I think we all need to be clear that Legislative Assembly committees are not an appropriate forum to re-litigate decisions made in individual child protection cases either by child protection professionals or particularly by the courts.
This is a point that I must emphasise and that is reflected in the amended motion. There have been repeated claims in the media that the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal found that child and youth protection services’ decision to remove the children in this case from their mother’s care was wrong. This is not true. The appeal related to the making of a care and protection order. CYPS cannot make a care and protection order. Only a court can do that.
I am sure we all agree that it should not take five years to conclude legal proceedings regarding the care and protection of children. This is clearly not in the best interests of the child. It was indeed unfortunate that this case spent more than three years in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. However, this was largely because the first decision in the Supreme Court case was reserved for two years and eight months and it then took another seven months for consequential orders to be made and reasons to be issued. This time frame does not reflect the government’s view that decisions about the care and protection of children and young people should be made in a timely way while according all parties natural justice and upholding their human rights to the greatest extent possible.
In relation to the issue of access to information, as reflected in the second element of the referral to the HACS committee, I welcome the committee’s consideration of this issue. As members would be aware, I have a strong record on transparency and openness across my portfolios and since coming into the portfolio I have encouraged CSD to consider how more information can be shared about the operation of the child protection system without compromising individual privacy, community confidence in reporting or decision-making in the best interests of children and young people.
This is a work in progress, but I would point members to a publication issued last year about some of the experiences to date under A step up for our kids. Stepping up for our kids: real stories of keeping children and young people strong, safe, and connected tells the stories of real families and showcases how agencies and child protection practitioners work collaboratively and creatively to support children, young people and their families by using a trauma-informed approach. If you have not had a chance, I encourage you to have a look at this publication.
CSD also worked closely with the Red Cross birth parent advocacy support service to release updates of the working together for kids guides for parents in September 2017. These guides inform parents, families and other parties about the child protection process and also the roles and responsibilities of CYPS. This includes information about how to seek a review of a decision or make a complaint. Most recently, a new carers handbook was completed to ensure that carers also have specific and comprehensive information about the system in one place, again including rights and review processes.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video