Page 1848 - Week 05 - Thursday, 16 May 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Decisions that separate a child from their family should be transparent, and the family and community must be assured that such decisions are based on evidence and fact. The Glanfield review points out that many decisions of CPYS are not reviewable externally and that decisions made early in the process are not merits reviewable. This must change. It is my hope that the current review of child protection decisions in the ACT will result in more transparent and robust review processes.
In a context where life-altering decisions are made, based on human judgement in circumstances where carers can never be completely eliminated, a review of decisions and quality assurance mechanisms plays a vital role. A central question has to be how parents are ever going to know what they need to do in order to facilitate restoration with their child or children if they are not aware of the details or concerns that led to the child’s removal in the first place.
Additionally, the role of CPYS should and does include referral to or provision of services to support good and healthy parenting. That leads me to the role of the community more broadly in supporting those who need a bit of help. We need to have a less punitive approach to parents who need a bit of assistance with their parenting, particularly since, unfortunately, some of them have never had any positive parenting role models in their lives. We need to get better at normalising help-seeking behaviour by parents who are doing it tough for whatever reason, because this reduces stigma, which in turn could reduce harm to children.
I am sure there are cases where appropriate and adequate parenting support programs would have negated the need for child protection services to ever get involved. We need to be better at supporting playgroups, giggle and wiggle and breakfast programs at schools and utilising the family and children centres which can increase the capacity of parents to identify and respond to the needs of their children.
Whether we like it or not there is a perception that there is a culture of secrecy about care and protection information and that serious efforts are put towards protecting the identity of those who make notifications or report concerns, rather than sharing information about how decisions are made. This is why proactive attempts by governments to ensure that people know what information is accessible under what circumstances and how to access that information could go a long way to challenging that perception and improving the process.
Community confidence in the care and protection system is vital. Children must be assisted to live in safe and supportive families so that they can grow to their full potential. If we do not have a care and protection system in which people have faith and confidence, we cannot be assured that all actions are taken in the best interest of the child.
I add that the voice of children who are or have been involved in the care and protection system is overlooked. As these children grow they become young people then adults and their journey continues. They need to be proactively offered their personal information as a matter of course, not in an adversarial environment of freedom of information requests and not as a supplicant begging. It is their lived
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video