Page 2122 - Week 07 - Thursday, 16 May 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
arrangement. As a result, it may be that the most appropriate arrangement that can be put in place for them is for them to live independently, with the appropriate supports and in line with a transitioning from care plan. Recent changes to the territory’s responsibility now see the ACT come into line with other jurisdictions by providing care beyond the statutory age of 18, which can further increase the likelihood of a successful transition to independent living.
In each of these two scenarios the bill imposes clear criteria to ensure that such an arrangement is appropriate and that the territory continues to provide the level of support that is needed by the particular young person. It is not the case that a child or young person can ever be placed anywhere without the territory continuing to do what it can to provide for the welfare of the child or young person that we are responsible for.
I now turn to the third alternative to placement with an out-of-home carer. The act recognises that the best outcome is for a child or young person to be raised by their parents and that where this is possible this is the outcome that we want to achieve. The changes in the bill recognise this and provide that, where the director-general considers it appropriate, and of course where it is in the best interest of the child or young person, they may be placed in the care of their parents. This is not a departure from the current accepted best practise approach to family reunification, but simply a clear and transparent description of powers that currently reside with the director-general.
The fourth situation is essentially just a clarification that if a court orders that a child is to be cared for by a particular person or in a particular way that such an order must be given effect by the director–general and that there is no conflict with any of the requirements of the section. This recognises that, having had the opportunity to fully consider all the issues around the welfare of a child or young person, a court will always be in the best position to determine how they should be cared for.
These are the only circumstances where it is appropriate that the care of a child or young person is not entrusted to a suitably assessed carer under the requirements already in place in the act.
The bill imposes appropriate safeguards to ensure that the decision on how the child or young person is to be cared for, no matter how short that period of time, is made having properly assessed the person or entity that will be entrusted with the care of the child or young person. Alternatively, if another arrangement is required for the provision of daily care that best suits the young person’s needs, that arrangement must meet the criteria required to ensure the wellbeing of the child or young person.
As I said at the outset of my speech, this bill is an important clarification of the operation of a very delicate statutory scheme, one where even relatively minor mistakes have the potential to have a profoundly negative impact on young lives. It is important that we get it right and that we have a clear framework in place for the people we trust to make the decisions under the scheme to operate in. This bill also offers greater clarity and guidance to the many service providers, families and advocacy groups and, importantly, the children and young people who are involved with the care and protection system.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video