Child Development and Wellbeing Bill
13/11/2014
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I speak today on behalf of Dignity for Disability on the Child Development and Wellbeing Bill 2014. I do not think I need to explain to anyone in this chamber, nor any of the stakeholders involved in the drafting of the bill before us, that the issue of a South Australian children’s commissioner has been one of the most fiercely debated and most talked about issues in the state parliament for quite some time.
I know, as other members have pointed out in their contributions, that this commitment has been a long time coming and that some of the delays relate to the fact that, while there is no disagreement that South Australia should have a children’s commissioner, there are very differing opinions as to the best model for such a role.
Whatever the final model—and, frankly, as we have waited over a decade—I would prefer to get it right than get it done quickly. It is important that we are not merely establishing a figurehead or toothless tiger. Complaints processes are not worth anything if people do not know what channels are open to them and if they lose faith in the ability of the system to respond to its failure, not merely to make empty statements about what should have happened in a particular circumstance once it has occurred.
I commend the structure of our SA Ombudsman as a public office that is widely known and well respected, and feel that this model is one that already has been invented and works quite well. Why we have seen a need to branch out into streams of commissioners is unclear to me, and perhaps in future it will become fashionable to reunite officers with similar functions under one roof.
I understand that for many people this debate has been quite difficult, both professionally and personally. After all, those who care about the wellbeing and future of our state’s children should feel very passionate about the issue: this is precisely what makes them the right people for their jobs.
I thank all of those people who have taken the time to brief my office on the issue generally and on the individual merits of both the government and opposition bills, in particular, the Council for the Care of Children, the Youth Affairs Council of South Australia (YACSA), the Guardian for Children and Young People, the minister’s office, as well as a range of other individuals and legal bodies interested in the issue. This information has been invaluable in assisting Dignity for Disability to form the position I am now able to put on the record.
This has not been an easy decision to reach, as both bills have their merits, and I very much appreciate the time and interest that both government and opposition members have put into their respective proposals. Having said that, I can now indicate that, after careful and lengthy consideration, Dignity for Disability has opted to support the government’s children’s commissioner bill, as significantly amended by the opposition.
I think it is fair to say that one of the most contentious aspects of legislating for a children’s commissioner has been the debate around whether the commissioner should have powers to investigate individual cases involving the welfare of children and young people, or make systemic observations and recommendations. It is difficult to make a choice between the two, because they are both vital in different ways.
Systemic advocacy enables us to recognise trends in the sector and common gaps in service delivery; however, I also understand that many in the community feel that greater intervention in the case of a child like Chloe Valentine as an individual, for example, may have prevented or be able to prevent great tragedy in the future.
This is why we are particularly pleased to see that the Liberal opposition has reached something of a compromise in one of its amendments which, if passed, would allow the commissioner to investigate both systemic issues and individual cases where it can be proved that to do so would be in the public interest and that the matters in that case have implications for other children and young people in similar circumstances. I see this as a very worthwhile compromise.
For the sake of clarity, I will put on the record that this amendment does not give the commissioner the power to investigate every individual case involving a child or young person: strictly those where the commissioner can justify that it would be in the public interest to do so and where there is a strong indication that a particular matter may have implications for other children and young people.
While I understand that some in the community may like to see a model where the children’s commissioner has full powers to investigate every single individual case that might come before them, I believe it is preferable to have a more focused approach which is less likely to be influenced by particular circumstances and/or emotions of particular individuals or families. I congratulate the opposition, and in particular the Hon. Stephen Wade, on reaching this sensible amendment, and I hope that it will receive the support of the parliament so as to enable us to move beyond that particular aspect of the debate.
I believe that this compromise amendment, if I may call it that, serves as a reminder to us all about the need for collaboration and cooperation in this place in order to achieve the best outcomes for the people of this state. I believe that, as members of parliament, we should not be focusing on whether our particular bill passes or whether our name will be mentioned in the media in a particular story, but rather on how we can work together to effect positive change for South Australia.
Dignity for Disability is also pleased that giving the children’s commissioner a systemic advocacy role will give the commissioner a broader scope for their work. We must provide protection to children which is broader than merely protecting them from abuse and neglect, vital though this is. We must also work to protect their right to an education—a quality, inclusive education—to health services, and all other opportunities that they need to flourish. I think this kind of cross-departmental systemic advocacy could be particularly beneficial to children and young people living with disability.
It is no secret that students with disability, for example, often miss out on the same educational opportunities offered to their peers without disability. However, if the children’s commissioner is going to investigate the education of students with disabilities, it is likely it will also be necessary to look at things like the transportation of students with disability to and from school or the way the presence of or lack of disability related supports impact upon their education.
For this reason it is pleasing to see that the commissioner has been granted the power to make recommendations requiring the state authorities to change their practices, policies or procedures to achieve specified outcomes, as well as conducting or participating in specified educational programs and to undertake other specified action of their choosing. I hope that these powers will give the commissioner the freedom to make honest and fearless recommendations for the good of all people in this state.
However, having said all this and knowing the need for a commissioner, I feel that it is important to put on the record that parliament, especially the Labor government, cannot now rest on its laurels having had this debate and hopefully at its end appoint a commissioner for children and young people. Yes, the commissioner is a great step forward in the protection of the rights of children and young people; however, it will not automatically fix the problems that have existed for a long time in the area of child development and welfare, many problems that I believe the government could fix without the assistance of a commissioner.
The under resourcing of the Child Abuse Report Line is one glaring example, and so too is the fact that documentation pertaining to the alleged neglect and abuse of children has been misplaced or ignored. We must ensure that even with a fully resourced and accountable children’s commissioner, the government continues its duty to examine and improve processes. With those words, I commend the bill to the chamber.
