Page 1847 - Week 05 - Thursday, 16 May 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I have been part of much discussion over the most appropriate body to undertake such an inquiry, and the Greens have come to the conclusion that the Standing Committee on Health, Ageing and Community Services is probably best placed, although we acknowledge there may be some limitations due to the Children and Young People Act and even due to the time and resource constraints of the committee itself.
We think the committee is appropriate because it can compel witnesses to give evidence and there is no risk of conflict of interest or breaches of confidentiality. Further, proceedings are covered by certain privileges. Privilege means that witnesses and submitters cannot be sued for what is said or written and evidence may not be used in courts or tribunals to question the truth, motives or credibility of any person. Witnesses, however, have the responsibility to ensure that their evidence is not intentionally defamatory or misleading and to tell the truth. Knowingly providing false or misleading information to a committee can result in a witness being held in contempt of the Assembly.
I am aware that consideration was given to the Human Rights Commission being the appropriate forum. However, the Greens are of the view that an analysis of this particular case could potentially create a conflict of interest for the commission. This is largely because the Public Advocate must be notified of emergency actions taken or any abuse in care allegations. This means the office of the Public Advocate, which is technically an arm of the commission, may have had a statutory role in considering these allegations, and there may well be queries about the Public Advocate in any such investigative process.
As it stands, protections are built into the Children and Young People Act that prevent sensitive or protected information from being disclosed. That is as it should be. However, the Greens also believe decisions that can lead to life-altering changes should be transparent and open to scrutiny and that people party to the proceedings should know and understand the basis on which these decisions are made. This, of course, is consistent with the Greens’ positions on transparency of decision-making more broadly and our previous work on the Freedom of Information Act undertaken by my colleague Mr Rattenbury in the Eighth Assembly. It is also consistent with natural justice, which I am sure everyone in the Assembly agrees with.
The 2016 Glanfield review into system level response to family violence in the ACT highlighted the need for better oversight of decision-making in this context. Specifically, the review recommended improvement in quality and transparency in CYPS decision-making and practices. This is where our attention should lie to address concerns regarding lack of transparency and information on how decisions have been made.
Up until last week, when the Minister for Children, Youth and Families announced consultation on the review of child protection decisions in the ACT, there was a lack of clarity about where this was up to and how committed the government is to improving the child protection system in this way. So I am very pleased this work is now progressing.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video