Page 1844 - Week 05 - Thursday, 16 May 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I agree that there are inconsistencies between jurisdictions in the way that privacy and information sharing provisions are drafted in child protection legislation. Prior to this issue becoming a matter of intense public interest, I had already asked CSD to provide me with advice comparing the ACT provisions with those of other Australian jurisdictions in order to consider whether the Children and Young People Act, the CYP Act, should be updated.
Like so many elements of the CYP Act, the information sharing provisions are complex and require a very careful balancing of interests. The privacy and information sharing provisions in the ACT child protection legislation, like the legislation in all Australian jurisdictions, is vital to protecting the privacy of individuals and maintaining public confidence in making child concern reports when a person suspects that a child or young person is at risk of abuse or neglect. However, this must be appropriately balanced with the necessary transparency to ensure accountability, fairness and justice.
A number of issues have been conflated in public discussion about this matter. One is the apparent confusion between decisions of a court in making care and protection orders and decisions made by CYPS as the territory parent. These administrative decisions include very important decisions about things like contact with birth parents and where and with whom a child will live.
As the amended motion notes, I recently released a discussion paper on options for strengthening internal and external review of child protection decisions, referring specifically to those administrative decisions by CYPS. This consultation process is being undertaken by an independent expert and I have written to a wide range of stakeholders within the child protection and legal systems and to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community to invite their participation in face-to-face consultations. Like Mrs Kikkert, I encourage anyone with an interest to make a submission.
I need to emphasise, though, the importance of a care and protection system providing safeguards to make sure the services it delivers protect and promote the best interests of our most vulnerable children and young people. And there is a strong system of oversight of the child protection system in the ACT, including by the Office of the Public Advocate, the ACT Children and Young People Commissioner and official visitors. These bodies have continued to play an important role in ensuring the integrity of the care system and the services it delivers and providing alternative avenues for people involved in the system to take up complaints or seek advocacy.
For anyone currently in contact with child and youth protection services, I note that the Public Advocate within the Human Rights Commission is empowered to undertake individual advocacy, in addition to system advocacy. The Public Advocate can advocate on behalf of any child or young people involved with child and youth protection services. The Public Advocate can advocate in the best interests of a child or young person if requested by the child or young person themselves or by a parent, foster carer, kinship carer, member of the community or service provider.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video