Hansard debates

Mr FOLEY (Minister for Housing, Disability and Ageing) — I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Speech as follows incorporated into Hansard under sessional orders:

The bill substitutes a new section 17 of the Children, Youth and Families Amendment (Permanent Care and Other Matters) Act 2014 (the amendment act).

This will have the effect of retaining the existing requirements of section 276 of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 when the amendment act comes into effect on 1 March 2016.

Section 276 will continue to require the Children's Court to be satisfied that reasonable steps have been taken by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to provide services in the best interests of a child before the court can make a protection order.

The new section 17 of the amendment act will make some minor amendments to section 276 of the Children, Youth and Families Act.

These amendments substitute the word 'care' for the word 'custody' where it is used in section 276 so that section 276 becomes consistent in its use of terminology with other parts of the Children, Youth and Families Act when they are amended on 1 March 2016 by the amendment act.

When the amendment act was debated in August 2014, I promised that a bill to repeal section 17 would be introduced if a Labor government was elected.

This is that bill and it is the fulfilment of the promise I made at the time.

The amendment act introduces tighter time lines for making a decision about future permanent care arrangements for children in out-of-home care, either by reunifying those children with their families or by finding an alternate permanent care family for them.

This is a significant change to the child protection system.

It is clearly desirable to make timely decisions and avoid harmful 'drift' in care arrangements where children are subjected to lengthy periods of uncertainty about their future care. However, this has to be balanced by a strong emphasis on timely service provision.

It would not be fair to say to families that changes have to be made within one or two years and then not ensure they are provided with the assistance they may need to make those changes.

The effect of this bill is to retain the existing requirements of section 276.

This ensures that the Children's Court cannot make a protection order unless it is satisfied as to the adequacy of service provision. This ensures that families and children continue to be given the assistance they may need.

I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr PESUTTO (Hawthorn).

Debate adjourned until Tuesday, 9 June.