Page: 21754
Second Reading
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [9.58 p.m.]: As I indicated earlier, the Opposition does not oppose the bill. However, we have raised some concerns, particularly the tardiness of the Government in introducing it. As I said earlier today, the Government has been tardy in dealing with child protection issues, which are of great importance when considering matters that involve a conflict of jurisdictions. This legislation has come about as a result of the Hague Child Prevention Convention. For many years it has been unclear, when there is a contest between jurisdictions, which jurisdiction should take control of the proceedings in the best interests and welfare of the child. For example, during a dispute about a child protection order or a Family Court order in New South Wales, a child may be spirited away to France or another overseas country. If the overseas country is a signatory to this convention, arrangements are laid down in this bill to clarify who has the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. This is a critical piece of legislation. Proposed section 12 states:
A New South Wales authority may, if it considers that it is in the child's best interests, accept or reject a request made under Article 8 of the Child Protection Convention by a competent authority of a Convention country for the New South Wales authority to assume jurisdiction to take a New South Wales personal protection measure relating to the child.
A New South Wales authority, which would generally be a court but may be a public official, if it considers it is in the child's best interest, can accept or reject a request from an overseas country that is a signatory to this convention for New South Wales to assume jurisdiction. This provision allows New South Wales the final determination as to whether it is sensible and reasonable and in the best interests of the child for New South Wales authorities to accept responsibility.
Similar provisions are contained in the balance of the legislation. The Opposition does not oppose the legislation. However, when children at risk of harm notices have reached a figure of more than 300,000 a year in New South Wales, we consider it ironic that we can deal with the international aspects of child protection far better than child protection issues within New South Wales. Roughly one in ten of the children at risk of harm notices is fully investigated. Many reports are closed by the Department of Community Services [DOCS]. That is not a reflection on the DOCS officers. I know many DOCS officers who work very hard under enormous stress and pressure. The Government has not put sufficient resources into the Department of Community Services.
We often hear that the Government has allocated large sums of money to the department. To some degree the Government has provided money but it has failed to restructure the department. Government members have criticised the Opposition for refusing to confirm that we would employ the same number of DOCS officers as the Government has committed to. I remind the House that it was only after the Opposition raised this issue for three years—and I was the shadow Minister for Community Services at the time—that the Government was finally forced to act and agreed to put more money into DOCS. The Opposition made the point prior to the last election that we wanted to restructure DOCS. We agreed with Maurie O'Sullivan from the Public Service Association that the Department of Community Service needed to be restructured to better protect children. To that extent, the Opposition said that we would look at how to implement the measures that Maurie O'Sullivan and other witnesses had recommended to an upper House inquiry.
Government members have carried on with a lot of hoo-ha, but even with all the resources the Government has thrown at this issue it still has not managed to get child protection right. This is an appropriate opportunity for the Opposition to remind the Government of its obligations. It has implemented the international measures in response to the Howard Government's push to include the Hague convention in State legislation. It is time the Government looked in its own backyard and made sure that our own children are given the support and protection they need under the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act. The 83 Community Service Commission officers around the State need additional resources, additional support and better methods of dealing with child protection.
Ms ANGELA D'AMORE (Drummoyne) [10.04 p.m.]: I support this important bill. Australia's ratification of the Child Protection Convention imposed certain obligations on Australia. Until now both the family law and child protection aspects of the convention have been implemented in New South Wales by Commonwealth legislation, namely, the Family Law Act 1975 and the Family Law (Child Protection) Regulation 2003. At the time of ratification of the convention the States agreed with the Commonwealth that they would take responsibility for matters that are traditionally State responsibility, such as child protection orders and orders to protect a child's property. This bill will make New South Wales the third Australian jurisdiction to assume the child protection aspects of the convention from the Commonwealth, as was originally contemplated.
Consistent with the convention the bill, which is based on the Queensland model, aims to ensure the best interests of the child, promote co-operation between convention countries, overcome conflicts over jurisdiction and its limitations in respect of child protection measures, determine applicable laws, and provide for the recognition and enforcement of measures to protect children and their property. Currently, only seven countries have both signed and ratified the convention. However, it is expected that up to 27 counties will have done so in the not-too-distant future. We look forward to that. This will in time lead to a significant increase in the number of children who will benefit from the provisions of this legislation.
In addition to the significant benefits already identified by the Minister, this bill will overcome some jurisdictional confusion that has arisen as a result of the child protection aspects of the convention being implemented by the Commonwealth, pending the commencement of State legislation. Under the current scheme, State child protection orders are given different priority when the Hague convention applies, compared to the usual priority under section 69ZK of the Family Law Act. This section normally gives priority to State child welfare laws. However, according to the rules of the convention, if a New South Wales care order conflicts with a foreign child protection order that is registered under the family law amendments, the Family Court order prevails.
For example, a child in New South Wales is removed from his Latvian mother because the child is at immediate risk of serious harm. The director general applies to the Children's Court for an emergency care and protection order. The allegation is that when the child goes to his father's place for contact he is physically abused. The mother allows her child to go to his father's place. When the matter is heard in the Children's Court, it comes to light that a previous foreign parentage order has been registered in the Family Court. That order allowed the child to have unsupervised contact with his father. On the most recent occasion the father has severely beaten the child. That has led to a report to the Department of Community Services Helpline and the emergency removal of the child. The issue then arises as to which court would hear the matter.
Under the current system the Family Court would have jurisdiction as a result of the application of the convention and the Commonwealth legislation implementing it, whereas section 69ZK of the Family Law Act contemplates that the State Children's Court would have jurisdiction. The enactment of this bill will eliminate this jurisdictional conflict and avoid the legal confusion that currently exists. The ratification of the Child Protection Convention by Australia has been a positive step in international co-operation in the interests of all children. The enactment of this bill will further enhance the safety, welfare and wellbeing of New South Wales Children in convention countries and children and young people from convention countries in New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms VIRGINIA JUDGE (Strathfield) [10.08 p.m.]: I support the Child Protection (International Measures) Bill. I compliment the Minister, her hard-working staff and the department for the introduction of this bill. In my brief contribution to the second reading debate, I will refer to practical examples that will result from ratification of the Child Protection Convention. The enactment of this bill will have significant benefits for children and young people. Of course, children are our most precious resource and need to be protected. The best way to illustrate the proposed application of the provisions of the bill is by way of practical examples.
The first example I will give concerns a situation where there is a child in New South Wales from a convention country and the central authority of the foreign convention country requests assistance from New South Wales in recognising and enforcing a child protection measure that was made in that convention country. The mother of a child who lives in a convention country is proposing to bring the child to Australia, perhaps for a contact visit with a relative. The child is the subject of child protection measures in her home country concerning the relative, and Australia has been asked to register and enforce the protection measures here.
The child protection measure requires that contact visits between the child and. the relative are supervised. The central authority in the convention country requests that Australia agree to register and enforce the child protection measure. The foreign protection order can be registered in the Children's Court, which means the New South Wales central authority, the Department of Community Services [DOCS] can legally supervise the contact. Another example concerns a situation where there is a child in New South Wales from a foreign convention country and DOCS proposes to exercise jurisdiction. A family comes to the attention of DOCS for child protection reasons. DOCS establishes that there are child protection orders in existence from Morocco. Under the provisions of this bill DOCS can apply to have the Moroccan measures recognised and enforced in New South Wales. Alternatively, DOCS can take the view that the Moroccan measures are inadequate and that further care orders are required.
The third example concerns a situation where there is a child from New South Wales in a convention country where DOCS proposes to initiate an application. The child is the subject of care proceedings in New South Wales in which certain care orders were made. The child's family are non-residents and they want to go back to live in their country of origin, which happens to be a convention country. DOCS forms the view that it would be in the best interests of the child to transfer the child protection measures overseas. The bill provides a mechanism for the New South Wales child protection measures to be recognised and enforced in another convention country. The fourth example concerns a situation where there is a child from New South Wales in a convention country and the foreign convention country proposes to take action to protect the child. The child is habitually resident in New South Wales. The child travels to England with his mother to visit his maternal grandmother and extended family, all of whom live in England. The child has no relatives in Australia. The child comes to the attention of the child protection authorities in England when the mother dies suddenly of a drug overdose.
The English authorities consider that they are best placed to assess the child's best interests and exercise jurisdiction. The bill provides for the English authorities to make a request to DOCS via the Australian Commonwealth central authority for consent to exercise jurisdiction. DOCS consents, and the English court makes an order, placing the child under the parental responsibility of the maternal grandmother. If one were to summarise the bill, one could say that it basically aims to streamline the protection of children, helps to minimise red tape during visitations and upholds the principles of the Hague Convention of the United Nations relating to children which was passed in 1996 and ratified by the Commonwealth in 2004. Before concluding my remarks on the bill, I point out that earlier today during debate the honourable member for Wakehurst criticised the Government for the time taken to bring this legislation before the House. He cited certain facts and figures. I state very firmly and soundly on the public record that when the Coalition Opposition went to the electors in 2003, its policy was to cut 675 caseworkers from DOCS.
Mr David Campbell: That is a disgrace.
Ms VIRGINIA JUDGE: It is an absolute disgrace. It just an example of people spouting anything, but the key point to note is their actions. Coalition policy would have cut $700 million from the DOCS budget, which is an absolute disgrace, especially when compared to the Government's policy—a government that is prepared to put its money where its mouth is. This Government has employed another 875 new caseworkers and has undertaken a $1.2 billion reform program to double frontline services. This Government puts people where they are needed to ensure that children are provided with the services they need to be adequately and fully protected—as they should be. The next time the honourable member for Wakehurst is inclined to spout all types of inaccurate comments, he should remember what I have said tonight. I would like to see the Opposition's policy for the next election. I would bet it will be even worse than the one I have mentioned, based on the Opposition's current record.
The countries that have ratified the convention are Australia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Monaco, Morocco, as I mentioned in one of the examples to which I referred, Slovakia and Slovenia. A number of countries have signed the convention but have not yet ratified it, and two countries have acceded. In conclusion, I reiterate that it is great that this Government is taking the step of ratifying the convention by introducing this bill. This Government cares about our children and our young people, our families and our communities. This Government strives to ensure that all people enjoy one of the most basic human rights: to be safe and secure. As can be seen from the examples to which I have referred, the bill will provide significant practical benefits for the protection of children and young people and their property in this State and in this great nation of ours. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Water Utilities, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for the Illawarra) [10.16 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members who participated in the debate and expressed support for the Child Protection (International Measures) Bill. I particularly acknowledge the thoughtful and constructive contributions by the honourable member for Drummoyne and the honourable member for Strathfield. They made thoughtful contributions to an important debate on an important bill. I also thank the officers of the Department of Community Services for their contribution and support in bringing the legislation to fruition. I also thank the Minister for Community Services, and Minister for Youth for her foresight in ensuring that this legislation was presented to the Parliament of New South Wales. This legislation will create greater co-operation between international jurisdictions to enhance the safety, wellbeing and protection of children, wherever they might be in the world. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
The House adjourned at 10.18 p.m. until Thursday 30 March 2006 at 10.00 a.m.
_______________
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:42:39 : Update this page