weekly hansard - Queensland Parliament - Queensland Government

2630 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 23 Aug 2005
To overcome the deficiencies identified by the CMC, the Beattie government committed to
implement the 110 recommendations of the CMC in line with the recommendations of the blueprint for
implementation developed by Peter Forster.
The legislation we are considering addresses the third-phase legislation which, in accordance
with the Forster blueprint, is supposed to address recommendations 8.5 and 8.6, to refine the
Indigenous child placement principle; 7.11 and 9.2, to address regulating voluntary placements; 8.11,
dealing with consulting Indigenous agency stakeholders; and, finally, 7.1 and 9.2, regulating all carers.
This legislation relates to four specific aspects of the child safety legislative regime. These are the
regulation of voluntary placements, the regulation of all carers, consultation with Indigenous entities and
refining the Indigenous child placement principle.
The CMC made four recommendations for specific legislative changes; namely, recommendation
9.1 in relation to notifications, 9.2 in relation to the approval of individual carers, 9.3 to require case
planning and, finally, 9.4 in relation to a report on implementation. Recommendations 9.1 and 9.3 have
been addressed, to some degree, by previous amending legislation, and 9.2 is to be addressed in this
bill, as I just indicated. Recommendation 9.4, which requires a legislative provision for a report on the
implementation of this report to be provided to the CMC within two years of the report, has not been
included in this legislation. As the minister has referred to this as being the final tranche of the legislation
required by the inquiry report, the minister must tell the parliament why he is ignoring this quite specific
recommendation of the commissioner. It will not be good enough for the minister to say that he is going
to report anyway, because the commissioner has made a specific recommendation in this regard. He
wanted to see quite specific recommendations for the same reason that the opposition does. That is, he
obviously did not trust the government to do what it says, and nor should he.
The whole protecting children inquiry would not have been necessary if this government could be
trusted to do as it said. Therefore, I am indicating to the minister that I shall be moving an amendment to
this bill which will give effect to recommendation 9.4 of the CMC report which the minister was happy to
let fall through the cracks. The minister has frequently spoken about the need to fix the culture in the
department that owes its genesis to previous administrations. As this House is aware, the destructive
culture of the department was strongly criticised by the CMC. I simply make the observation that the way
to fix the culture that continues to exist within the department is by honesty, openness and accountability
and that the actions of the minister to gild the lily, to obfuscate and to avoid accountability only
perpetuate the culture of deceit within the department. I believe that the minister is genuine in his
concern for reform, so I take this opportunity to ask the minister to be more critical of the advice that he
receives and to actually practise what we hear him telling us so often.
The minister is well aware of the opposition’s concern that the department routinely uses privacy
and other legislative restrictions to avoid accountability. I appreciate that this is a complex issue and that
there is a genuine need to protect privacy and the identity of children in care. The problem for members
of this parliament is that we are unable to represent the concerns of constituents who are engaged with
the department. When we are asked by a constituent to raise concerns at their treatment by the
department, we get the routine response that the department has been advised of the concerns and if
the constituent wants further information they should contact the relevant person in the department. As
the minister well knows, it is often the actions of that same relevant person that are the cause for
concern in the first place. This is a classic catch-22.
I hasten to add that I know these issues are often very complex and emotive and that there are at
least—at least—two sides to a story, and often many sides to a story. However, when we, as local
members, are never apprised of the other side of the story, what are we to do? I refer this issue to the
minister because I believe that there should be a more open and accountable system. I believe that
there has been a genuine attempt in this bill to redress some of the deficiencies and I shall refer later to
that particular provision.
As the minister well knows, during previous debates in this House about the earlier phases of this
legislation, I raised concerns about the reporting arrangements regarding the monitoring role of the
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian, particularly as reports to the minister
do not have to be reported to this parliament. One can only presume that this monitoring is occurring
because, until an annual report is provided to this House, there is no way of knowing what is actually
happening. I ask the minister to advise this House in his summation if he has actually received any
reports from the commissioner in relation to issues identified by them.
It is very instructive to look at the progress thus far in implementing the recommendations of the
CMC report. The minister has claimed that 50 of the recommendations of the commission have been
implemented thus far. The minister is very proud of this accomplishment and has been spending
taxpayer funds to tell the world about it. Of course, as we have come to expect from this government,
the truth is often entirely different. In reality, 87 of the recommendations are supposed to have been
implemented to date. Is it any wonder that the legislative provision for reporting progress has apparently
been conveniently omitted from this legislative package. Contrary to the picture painted by the minister
in his second reading speech, the reforms in relation to child safety are not on track. The reality is that
the reforms are behind schedule.