weekly hansard - Queensland Parliament - Queensland Government

More documents

Recommendations

Info

23 Aug 2005 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2639 The Liberal Party supports the family as a fundamental institution for the raising and nurturing of children and for making each individual an integral part of society. When circumstances dictate that it is no longer appropriate for a child to be with his or her immediate family, the emotional stability of the child is far better addressed through placement with a relative who is familiar with the child rather than with strangers. In particular, grandparents should be recognised as being the preferred foster-carers when a child is removed from his or her parents and the grandparents seek custody. In such a case it should be up to the department to demonstrate why the child’s best needs would not be served by being placed with grandparents. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in Australia in 2003 there were 22,500 families where grandparents were the guardians of their grandchildren. Today’s grandparents are healthier and living longer than generations before them, and many have proven their ability to be well and truly up to the task of raising children in their retirement years. After all, they were parents themselves in years gone by. Grandparents should receive the same financial assistance from the state government that is available to other foster-carers. The current provision for foster-parents’ names and addresses to be given to people from whom the child was removed is, in my view, an unacceptable and dangerous practice. Talking to local residents who have dedicated many years to fostering children in this state, I learned they have decided that they can no longer be foster-parents as the availability of their name and address is an unacceptable risk to their own safety and to the safety of children in their care. This was an extremely difficult decision for them to make as they genuinely loved the role they had previously played in displaced children’s lives. When we think about it, who would want their address given out to potentially abusive and angry people who may resort to any lengths to take their children back? It is certainly not in the best interests of the child. After becoming settled in a new environment, the sudden appearance of emotion-charged parents making demands upon foster-parents would be confusing and upsetting to many children. Perhaps the minister will take this issue on board and comment on it in his summary. The training of foster-carers was a major concern of the CMC report. During Foster Care Week in March the minister announced the new foster care training package the government had implemented. However, reports continue to emerge that the minimal training received by foster-carers is inadequate to cope with the complexity of issues that arise. A first-hand example came through my office from a fosterparent who had been promised extra training to cope with dealing with a child who had experienced sexual abuse. The situation became intolerable, and the foster-carers had no choice but to ask for the child to be removed from their care. I emphasise that this was after months of asking the department for counselling for the child and additional training for themselves which, sadly, never eventuated. Improvements in this area are urgently required. Clause 5 in part 2 of this bill outlines new reforms for Indigenous child placements. This is the key part of this legislation causing concerns within the wider community. It seems that a trend of placing Indigenous children with non-Indigenous foster-parents is becoming the norm instead of the exception. A spokesperson for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women’s legal service was noted as saying that the growing number of interventions was creating ‘a new wave of stolen generation children’. Indigenous elders are up in arms about a recent episode where a midnight raid on a Brisbane house caused a toddler to suffer the secondary effects of capsicum spray. A delegation is asking for an inquiry into these events as well as this child protection legislation which assists in allowing Indigenous children to be placed with non-Indigenous foster-carers. I do believe it is important that the state government tracks the frequency of these placements and makes the data available to Indigenous elders and leaders. In recognising the shortage of suitable carers, it would be prudent to make a concerted and urgent effort to encourage Indigenous people to become registered carers. It is imperative that Aboriginal children do not lose their cultural identities and are able to remain within their community with either a relative or another respected member of their society. The minister has repeatedly stated his wish to double the number of foster-carers in Queensland. An increase in carer numbers would certainly provide more protection for children, but it is preventive measures and early intervention that must also be a priority. Such measures were not only recommended in the CMC’s report but also promised by the Beattie government. To date there is little evidence of the supposed whole-of-government framework as touted previously. Action is required now. As I previously stated, the concept of kinship carers is one that I view with keen interest and support. However, there are several stages within the proposal that seem to contradict other parts of stage 3. Firstly is the requirement of kinship carers to have a separate certificate for each child as this seems to work against the preferred model of keeping siblings together who are under protection or voluntary orders. This appears to be even more self-defeating for Indigenous children. Perhaps the minister would be kind enough to point out the reasoning behind this clause. As has already been mentioned earlier in my speech, the majority of Australians acknowledge the significance of keeping Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in their own cultural environment whenever possible, and I commend the bill’s recognition of this. Surely streamlining the kinship concept
2640 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 23 Aug 2005 where these communities are concerned would be an advantageous move towards meeting the special needs of these children. Secondly, while I applaud the introduction of voluntary care orders as one means of preventing child safety issues, I would like to know how this measure is going to be actioned. It has been repeatedly reported in the media that priority 1 cases—where children are considered to be at an extremely high risk of sexual or violent abuse, torture or suicide—are not being investigated within the required 24-hour period. If the government budget cannot extend to employing sufficient staff within the department to meet this most urgent situation, how will the department possibly find the staff or have the time to undertake the complex process of not only deciding what preliminary measures may prevent having to take out a protection order but also facilitating such actions. On the issue of staff, I was deeply concerned to read an article in the Courier-Mail on 4 August that showed case workers receive low, uncompetitive pay rates compared to administration officer and receptionist positions in the same department. The article went on to say that the Queensland government web site was advertising five jobs for case workers and specified that tertiary qualifications in social work or behavioural sciences were a must. When one considers the toughness of the job undertaken by case workers and the poor pay rates, it must be difficult to attract staff with seniority and experience. I would also appreciate the minister’s response in this regard. I applaud the amendment circulated by the minister today. Section 142D(2)(d) has been added to allow the transfer of information between the Queensland Police Service and the Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian of offences or alleged offences of any person who applies for a certificate of approval or licence. This amendment is designed to make certain that the commissioner has the latest information on every applicant. No doubt the question whether this is an encroachment upon human rights will be raised by some in the community, but I am sure that honourable members will agree that the safety of our children is paramount. It is good to see the minister is tightening up some of the loopholes remaining in this important bill. In summation, many of the recommendations of stage 2 are yet to be implemented. There are budget and time frame blowouts surrounding the new integrated client management system and an ongoing failure to apply sufficient funds at a grassroots level. The Beattie government must now honour its promises to protect our most precious gifts in life—our children. Rather than merely rolling out this final stage, the government needs to continually check the successes and the failures of what has already been implemented. Nonetheless, the concept behind stage 3 of the Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill is well intentioned and offers hope to shattered young lives. With that I commend the bill to the House. Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (9.29 pm): We all know how important child safety is. I rise to speak tonight specifically about how this bill will improve outcomes for children who are in contact with the child protection system. This bill is the third stage of legislative reform to support implementation of the recommendations of the CMC report, Protecting Children: an inquiry into abuse of children in foster care. The opposition spokesperson would have us rush through these recommendations. However, that is not the answer. These problems are ongoing and we are looking for the best outcomes and sometimes this takes time. Stage 3 addresses the regulating of voluntary placements, the regulating of all carers, refining the Indigenous child placement principle and consulting indigenous agency stakeholders. These amendments, which are expected to commence in April 2006, are directed at improved outcomes for children in the following ways. Firstly, the regulation of voluntary placements will enable the chief executive to enter into care arrangements, without a child protection order, with a child and a child’s parents. Care agreements emphasise working cooperatively with families to support and help them undertake their parenting responsibility to care for their children safely. This may include placing a child in alternative care with kin or a foster-carer. A care agreement for the child cannot extend beyond 30 days unless a written case plan has been developed for the child. This means that the department must pay careful attention to the child’s needs while the department is working with the child and his or her parents. Care agreements will not be extended without a review of the progress made under the child’s case plan. Secondly, regulating all carers is based on the presumption that all children placed by the department in out-of-home care are entitled to the same standard of care in accordance with the statement of standard in section 122 of the Child Protection Act 1999. Whether a child is placed with an approved kinship carer or foster-carer or, for a period, with a provisionally approved carer, the carer and adult members of their households will be screened for suitability to care for a child. Foster and kinship carers will also be assessed, including by interview, home visit, checks on employment history and health status, and personal references. All carers will be required to meet the statement of standards, including respect for the child’s rights, dignity and culture, and meeting the child’s emotional, physical, health and educational care needs. The statement of standards prohibits corporal punishment or other behavioural management techniques which would cause emotional harm to the child.
Page 1 and 2:
PROOF ISSN 1322-0330 WEEKLY HANSARD
Page 3 and 4:
Table of Contents — Tuesday, 23 A
Page 5 and 6:
2536 Papers 23 Aug 2005 PAPERS PAPE
Page 7 and 8:
2538 Ministerial Statement 23 Aug 2
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
2550 Scrutiny of Legislation Commit
Page 21 and 22:
2552 Private Members’ Statements
Page 23 and 24:
2554 Questions Without Notice 23 Au
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
2564 Members’ Ethics and Parliame
Page 35 and 36:
2566 Matters of Public Interest 23
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
2576 Constitutional and Other Legis
Page 47 and 48:
2578 Transport Legislation Amendmen
Page 49 and 50:
2580 Transport Legislation Amendmen
Page 51 and 52:
2582 Housing Legislation Amendment
Page 53 and 54:
2584 Education (Queensland College
Page 55 and 56:
2586 Succession Amendment Bill 23 A
Page 57 and 58: 2588 Succession Amendment Bill 23 A
Page 59 and 60: 2590 Queensland Competition Authori
Page 69 and 70: 2600 Racing Venues Development Amen
Page 81 and 82: 2612 Plumbing and Drainage and Othe
Page 99 and 100: 2630 Child Safety Legislation Amend
Page 107: 2638 Child Safety Legislation Amend
Page 111 and 112: 2642 Adjournment 23 Aug 2005 One pa
Page 113 and 114: 2644 Adjournment 23 Aug 2005 years.
Page 115: 2646 Adjournment 23 Aug 2005 Finall
show all

weekly hansard - Queensland Parliament - Queensland Government

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?