Page 1400 - Week 05 - Thursday, 18 June 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I wondered what kind of instructions would warrant terminating a phone call. Could it be that the instruction was, “You are not allowed to swear,” and the mother did and kept swearing and eventually, after many attempts to get her to stop, she did not and finally the call was terminated. No, absolutely far from the truth. The mother was actually talking truth after attempting to see her child for months without success. When she finally spoke to her daughter after days, weeks and months of lonely, painful time without speaking to her daughter, she said on the phone, “They won’t let me see you. I tried to send you presents but they wouldn’t let me give them to you.” And that was it.
The mother was not allowed to say this: “They won’t let me see you. I tried to send you presents but they wouldn’t let me give them to you.” So they terminated her phone call because she was telling simple truths. They terminated the phone call because they did not want to appear as the bad government in this kid’s life. They terminated the phone call because they wanted to hide something, as they often do. They were the ones putting this restriction on the mother.
The state of the department is the fault of Ms Rachel Stephen-Smith. The care and protection principles include that a child’s contact with his or her family must be encouraged. How does the minister for children, Rachel Stephen-Smith, reconcile this principle with the practice of terminating a phone call between a mother and her child? How does Ms Stephen-Smith justify not allowing a parent to see their child at a happy place, such as a park or the mall?
How does Ms Stephen-Smith justify restricting a mother from telling her daughter, “I’ve been trying to see you. I had brought presents for you”? How are these phrases of love and displays of affection to her daughter a reason to terminate the phone call? I wonder if Ms Stephen-Smith has had those words said to her—“I have been trying to see you. I have brought presents for you, but they wouldn’t let me”—and then someone terminated the phone call because that was deemed inappropriate? I do not think Ms Stephen-Smith would like that at all, or anyone for that matter.
This mother was wrongfully dealt with and an apology should be given by the government. The state of child and youth protection services is directly the result of Ms Stephen-Smith. This is a tired, old government that has no care for and no compassion towards this kind of work as we deal with our most vulnerable people in our community—both children and parents. We, the Canberra Liberals, will take a restorative approach to child protection seriously. We are caring, compassionate and wise to deliver good child and youth protection services.
Workers—COVID-19
MS CODY (Murrumbidgee) (6.32): I rise tonight saddened to learn that, during this terrible COVID pandemic, workers are being vilified, bullied and treated unfairly. Last week it was brought to my attention that workers at Casino Canberra had been stood down. I understand that. At the time of being stood down in March, they were told they were valued employees, that they would be cared for and would be contacted throughout the shutdown. Unfortunately, just last week some of these employees were
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video