Page 2036 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 4 June 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
in and of themselves are not that controversial. All they actually do is align the Freedom of Information Act 2016 with the Children and Young People Act 2008 in relation to assessing information that is the subject of care and protection matters and decisions. On the face of it, I would say I support these amendments. Indeed schedule 1.3 already outlines what type of information disclosure is prohibited under the law, and it already lists information that is protected information under section 844 of the Children and Young People Act 2008.
The conversations I have had highlight significant concerns about the transparency and accountability of care and protection staff and decision-makers in relation to care and protection, parenting or adoption orders that are made. Child protection decisions can have—they probably always have—life-changing consequences, whether they be to intervene to place a child in out of home care, to leave the child with their family, or to make other decisions in terms of the child’s placement and contact with birth parents.
I talked about the Greens’ position on these matters previously in response to the referral to the HACS committee put forward by Mrs Kikkert. To elaborate, let me say that ideally information about care and protection decisions should not be sought through the Freedom of Information Act 2016. That really is not the appropriate place. It really should be through the Children and Young People Act 2008.
Furthermore, as young people transition out of care arrangements and into adulthood, they should be provided up front with information about how to access the evidence and information that led to them being in care in the first place. Again the mechanism for this should not be through the Freedom of Information Act 2016.
I see this debate, and the debate we had in the last sitting period which led to the referral to the HACS committee, as a catalyst for the ACT government to get on with their consultation process in relation to review of what care and protection decisions should be subject to either internal or external review and/or a review into decision-making, quality assurance and oversight of the care and protection system. I am pleased that the minister has announced public consultation on these matters—about a month ago now. In summary, we will be supporting this bill.
MR RAMSAY (Ginninderra—Attorney-General, Minister for the Arts and Cultural Events, Minister for Building Quality Improvement, Minister for Business and Regulatory Services and Minister for Seniors and Veterans) (11.34), in reply: I thank the members who have already contributed and also thank, in anticipation, those who will be contributing in the detail stage. I also thank the justice and community safety committee, exercising its scrutiny role, for its very helpful comments in relation to this bill.
The government introduced the Justice and Community Safety Legislation Amendment Bill in March. The bill makes a number of changes to legislation in the Justice and Community Safety portfolio, all to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of the territory’s laws. This regular series of JACS bills represents our approach of continuous improvement. These bills offer a ready and timely vehicle for resolving legislative issues as they arise, and for delivering improvements that are
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video