Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches

[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]

COMMUNITY WELFARE AMENDMENT BILL 1999

Bill presented and read a first time.

Mr DUNHAM (Health, Family and Children’s Services): Mr Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would allow the bill to be passed through all stages.

Motion agreed to.

Mr DUNHAM (Health, Family and Children’s Services): Mr Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

The Community Welfare Amendment Bill proposes a much-needed urgent amendment to the current act so that the Family Matters Court will be able to exercise some discretion in deciding whether or not a child is required to be present during a hearing. The court hearing I refer to is in respect of an application made to the court that a child would be found in need of care as defined under the Community Welfare Act. Section 36 of the Community Welfare Act states that, and I quote: ‘The minister, the child and the parents, guardians or persons having custody of the child are parties to the application’.

Currently the child must be present in court unless, under section 41 of the act, evidence of a medical practitioner indicates that the attendance of the child for the purposes of giving evidence would be injurious or dangerous to the health of the child; and the evidence is not essential to the hearing and determining of the application. The court may then proceed with the application in the absence of the child.

Magistrates and members of the community have raised concerns about the limitations of section 41. Clearly, a child of only some weeks old or months old can add nothing to the proceedings and, in the case of other young children, their attendance may not only serve no useful purpose, but in addition has the potential to cause serious distress or further harm to the child who may be in need of care. For example, under the current legislation the child may be forced to listen to a distressing recital of abuse he or she has experienced and which the perpetrator has already acknowledged. This is inconsistent with the welfare and best interests of the child and has prompted this urgent response.

It is proposed that section 41 be repealed and replaced by a provision which will allow the court, subject to there being reasonable grounds, to make an order at any stage following the making of an application that the child is not required to attend the hearing or a part of the hearing of an application.

Reasonable grounds will include:

Minor amendments are also being made to procedures in respect of an application for a temporary holding order when a child is initially taken into custody either under section 11 by an authorised person or the police, or under section 15 by a person in charge of a hospital.

Application for a holding order must be made within 48 hours of detaining a child and, in accordance with the new section 11A, application is made to a magistrate or registrar of the local court. Where it is impracticable to make the application in person it may, under the proposed changes to the legislation, be made by telephone, radio, facsimile or other facility. Under existing legislation, an application may be made to a justice of the peace. This provision was made because of the possible difficulties in contacting a magistrate, but changes in technologies such as the wide spread use of facsimile means that there should no longer be such difficulties.

Section 17 is also to be amended to clarify the procedure after a holding order is made. If authorities conduct an assessment and decide that the welfare of the child would be provided for if the child is returned to the parents or guardians, or cared for in another place but with the consent of the parent or the guardians, there is no need to make an application to the court. If this is the case, then written advice must be given to the court that an application will not be made under part 4 of the act to the Family Matters Court. In any other case, application must be made under part 4 to that court for an order that the child be found in need of care.

I commend the bill to the Assembly.

Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.

Mr DUNHAM (Health, Family and Children’s Services): Mr Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would allow the bill to be passed through all stages.

Motion agreed to.

Mr DUNHAM (Health, Family and Children’s Services): Mr Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

The Community Welfare Amendment Bill proposes a much-needed urgent amendment to the current act so that the Family Matters Court will be able to exercise some discretion in deciding whether or not a child is required to be present during a hearing. The court hearing I refer to is in respect of an application made to the court that a child would be found in need of care as defined under the Community Welfare Act. Section 36 of the Community Welfare Act states that, and I quote: ‘The minister, the child and the parents, guardians or persons having custody of the child are parties to the application’.

Currently the child must be present in court unless, under section 41 of the act, evidence of a medical practitioner indicates that the attendance of the child for the purposes of giving evidence would be injurious or dangerous to the health of the child; and the evidence is not essential to the hearing and determining of the application. The court may then proceed with the application in the absence of the child.

Magistrates and members of the community have raised concerns about the limitations of section 41. Clearly, a child of only some weeks old or months old can add nothing to the proceedings and, in the case of other young children, their attendance may not only serve no useful purpose, but in addition has the potential to cause serious distress or further harm to the child who may be in need of care. For example, under the current legislation the child may be forced to listen to a distressing recital of abuse he or she has experienced and which the perpetrator has already acknowledged. This is inconsistent with the welfare and best interests of the child and has prompted this urgent response.

It is proposed that section 41 be repealed and replaced by a provision which will allow the court, subject to there being reasonable grounds, to make an order at any stage following the making of an application that the child is not required to attend the hearing or a part of the hearing of an application.

Reasonable grounds will include:

Minor amendments are also being made to procedures in respect of an application for a temporary holding order when a child is initially taken into custody either under section 11 by an authorised person or the police, or under section 15 by a person in charge of a hospital.

Application for a holding order must be made within 48 hours of detaining a child and, in accordance with the new section 11A, application is made to a magistrate or registrar of the local court. Where it is impracticable to make the application in person it may, under the proposed changes to the legislation, be made by telephone, radio, facsimile or other facility. Under existing legislation, an application may be made to a justice of the peace. This provision was made because of the possible difficulties in contacting a magistrate, but changes in technologies such as the wide spread use of facsimile means that there should no longer be such difficulties.

Section 17 is also to be amended to clarify the procedure after a holding order is made. If authorities conduct an assessment and decide that the welfare of the child would be provided for if the child is returned to the parents or guardians, or cared for in another place but with the consent of the parent or the guardians, there is no need to make an application to the court. If this is the case, then written advice must be given to the court that an application will not be made under part 4 of the act to the Family Matters Court. In any other case, application must be made under part 4 to that court for an order that the child be found in need of care.

I commend the bill to the Assembly.

Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.

Mr DUNHAM (Health, Family and Children’s Services): Mr Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would allow the bill to be passed through all stages.

Motion agreed to.

Mr DUNHAM (Health, Family and Children’s Services): Mr Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

The Community Welfare Amendment Bill proposes a much-needed urgent amendment to the current act so that the Family Matters Court will be able to exercise some discretion in deciding whether or not a child is required to be present during a hearing. The court hearing I refer to is in respect of an application made to the court that a child would be found in need of care as defined under the Community Welfare Act. Section 36 of the Community Welfare Act states that, and I quote: ‘The minister, the child and the parents, guardians or persons having custody of the child are parties to the application’.

Currently the child must be present in court unless, under section 41 of the act, evidence of a medical practitioner indicates that the attendance of the child for the purposes of giving evidence would be injurious or dangerous to the health of the child; and the evidence is not essential to the hearing and determining of the application. The court may then proceed with the application in the absence of the child.

Magistrates and members of the community have raised concerns about the limitations of section 41. Clearly, a child of only some weeks old or months old can add nothing to the proceedings and, in the case of other young children, their attendance may not only serve no useful purpose, but in addition has the potential to cause serious distress or further harm to the child who may be in need of care. For example, under the current legislation the child may be forced to listen to a distressing recital of abuse he or she has experienced and which the perpetrator has already acknowledged. This is inconsistent with the welfare and best interests of the child and has prompted this urgent response.

It is proposed that section 41 be repealed and replaced by a provision which will allow the court, subject to there being reasonable grounds, to make an order at any stage following the making of an application that the child is not required to attend the hearing or a part of the hearing of an application.

Reasonable grounds will include:

Minor amendments are also being made to procedures in respect of an application for a temporary holding order when a child is initially taken into custody either under section 11 by an authorised person or the police, or under section 15 by a person in charge of a hospital.

Application for a holding order must be made within 48 hours of detaining a child and, in accordance with the new section 11A, application is made to a magistrate or registrar of the local court. Where it is impracticable to make the application in person it may, under the proposed changes to the legislation, be made by telephone, radio, facsimile or other facility. Under existing legislation, an application may be made to a justice of the peace. This provision was made because of the possible difficulties in contacting a magistrate, but changes in technologies such as the wide spread use of facsimile means that there should no longer be such difficulties.

Section 17 is also to be amended to clarify the procedure after a holding order is made. If authorities conduct an assessment and decide that the welfare of the child would be provided for if the child is returned to the parents or guardians, or cared for in another place but with the consent of the parent or the guardians, there is no need to make an application to the court. If this is the case, then written advice must be given to the court that an application will not be made under part 4 of the act to the Family Matters Court. In any other case, application must be made under part 4 to that court for an order that the child be found in need of care.

I commend the bill to the Assembly.

Debate adjourned.

 

[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]