Page 406 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 7 March 2006

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


interests of the child or young person. The best interests of the young person will be one of a number of principles to be applied when making decisions about young offenders. I note and acknowledge at this point that Dr Foskey has tabled some amendments which perhaps we will talk about at a later date.

The review process has apparently identified that principles relating to the participation of children and young people in decision making required strengthening. In the area of care and protection, a new principle of helping families understand care and protection procedures is being introduced. This principle is intended to guide the actions of decision makers regarding consultation with, and participation of, children and young people and people with parental responsibility in decision making.

I particularly welcome the fact that the bill seeks to strengthen the representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on the Children’s Services Council through a requirement that at least one council member represent their interests. A few years ago I did raise what was then a real issue and I am pleased to see some moves being taken here to address the issue of better record keeping in terms of Aboriginal and indigenous children in care and the fact that elders in the ACT were not being as fully engaged in the process as they might have been.

I really welcome and appreciate the government’s work in this area. I trust that this placement will further elevate the need for decisions concerning Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people. This seems to be at the heart of what will be the indigenous cultural plan that should preserve and enhance the child’s or young person’s identity as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person.

I note that a new concept is being introduced of a child or young person being at risk of abuse or neglect. This will replace the concept of likelihood of abuse or neglect and reflects contemporary child protection assessment of risk. I agree that by all accounts assessment by way of a test will aid in determining where there is significant risk of a child or young person being abused or neglected. I believe that it is important that examples of cases are made in the act to further highlight a need for the chief executive to make a clear determination that a child or young person is at risk of abuse and neglect.

The categorisation of persons required to report abuse of children and young people was a point of debate had between members of the opposition. It is imperative that a clear line of delineation does exist in the act to clarify and ensure that the public servants working with or persons providing services to children and young people and their families will be mandated to report.

As the current reporting regime appears to operate, all mandated reporters can report their suspicions of non-accidental physical injury and sexual abuse. It was conveyed to me that during the review it was identified that this can result in many mandated reporters in the same setting being required to report identical concerns for a child or young person. The Liberal opposition notes that in settings such as schools or hospitals a person who reasonably suspects or, more importantly now, believes that someone else has already made a report about the same child or young person in relation to the same incident of abuse or neglect is exempt from submitting a report. I acknowledge that this should provide a clearer picture as to the number of children and young people at risk by reducing the number of multiple reports.


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