Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 11 Hansard (19 October) . . Page.. 3308 ..

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Clauses 5 to10, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 11

MS TUCKER (5.03): I move amendment No. 1 circulated in my name, which reads:

This clause embeds in the general principles in the beginning of the Act an additional principle: The Government should only intervene in the life of the child or young person and his or her family under this Act, if intervention is likely to improve the circumstances of the child or young person.

While other principles in the section refer to least intrusive intervention in the life of the child or that the best interests of the child should be of paramount importance, the Greens' amendment here is saying something slightly different: that any state intervention should only improve the welfare and the circumstances of the child.

We have been advised by a number of organisations that this principle, while subtle, is absolutely necessary. The state has a long history of intervening in the lives of families, particularly indigenous families and poor families and those headed by single parents. This provision, along with other provisions, will protect families from unnecessary interventions.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education) (5.04): While I can sympathise with what Ms Tucker is aiming at here, I would submit to the Assembly that subclauses (d) and (e) well and truly cover what is appropriate government intervention and covers the situation. Subclause (d) states that if the child or a young person is in need of care and protection and family members are unwilling or unable to provide the child or a young person with adequate care and protection, whether temporarily or permanently, it is the responsibility of government to share or take over their responsibility. Subclause (e) states if intervention by government in the life of the child or a young person, and his or her family, is appropriate, the intervention should be least intrusive consistent with the best interests of the child or young person.

That summarises what this whole Bill expects government intervention to be. It would go without saying that government intervention would, or be likely to, improve the circumstances of the child, or the government would not do so. But I do not know whether they would be concerned with perhaps some inadvertent consequences of Ms Tucker's amendment. I think it is probably best if it were not included here.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .