Tuesday, 7 June 2022

Children, Youth and Families Amendment (Child Protection) Bill 2021

Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (19:36): (1959) My adjournment matter tonight is for the Minister for Child Protection and Family Services, and the action that I seek is for him to bring the Children, Youth and Families Amendment (Child Protection) Bill 2021 back to this house to enable it to be discussed through the committee stage and then ultimately passed, as it inevitably will be.

Ms Crozier: What happened to it?

Dr BACH: Ms Crozier asks me what happened to it. Until recently I was not sure. You see, late last year the government, with much fanfare, brought the children, youth and families bill to the Parliament. It easily passed the lower house, and my colleagues in the other place made it very, very clear that we supported the bill. I am the relevant shadow minister. When the bill came to this place I led the debate, and I made it abundantly clear that we on this side of the house fully supported the bill. However, after the conclusion of the debate and before the committee stage the bill disappeared, and it has been gone for months and months.

It is fantastic to see Dr Ratnam in the chamber, because it seems that the government has been spooked by Dr Ratnam. Dr Ratnam—quite legitimately, may I say—wanted to amend the bill to raise the age of criminal responsibility. This is a perfectly legitimate debate. This is a very important debate given the crisis in youth justice and given the crisis in child protection that we see in this state. Right now one in 10 Indigenous kids in Victoria is in the care of the state. Last year we saw a fantastic report from our independent children’s commission—a commission that the Liberal Party established last time we were in power, at the same time as establishing IBAC and several other very important entities—and that body made it abundantly clear that the government is shockingly failing Indigenous kids. So it is perfectly reasonable for Dr Ratnam to want to investigate mechanisms that may or may not have the support of the house but nonetheless various other important groups say could help.

However, the government, it seems, has now put the heavies on Indigenous organisations to then go back to Dr Ratnam to try to convince Dr Ratnam to withdraw her amendment before the government will have the ticker, have the basic courage, to debate the bill. It is an astounding and bizarre process. The government said that this bill was supremely important to protect vulnerable kids, and quite frankly I agree. The bill is not a significant reform, but it makes some small steps in important areas. It legislates for the Home Stretch program, which has bipartisan—

A member: Hear, hear!

Dr BACH: tripartisan support. It also shifts some power to Indigenous-led organisations, which everybody in here agrees is really important. It makes some small steps to engage in more evidence-based early intervention practices—all things that I have been, and we on this side the house have been, calling for for years. The bill will pass. Have the ticker to bring it back. Debate Dr Ratnam’s amendment. If you do not like it, vote it down. But the bill is important, and it needs to pass.

Ms Stitt: On a point of order, Deputy President, I just want to seek some clarification from you about whether or not it is appropriate in an adjournment debate for legislation to be called on to be debated. I just seek the guidance of the Chair because I am not clear.

Mr Ondarchie: On the point of order, Deputy President, I draw your attention to standing order 4.12, which talks about members being able to ask questions on the adjournment that are within the administrative competence of the government, and I put to you that what Dr Bach has asked for today is actually compliant with standing order 4.12.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We will take that one on notice and try and resolve it by the end of the adjournment. Thank you very much for pointing out that standing order, Mr Ondarchie.