Thursday, 14 November 2024

Questions without notice and ministers statements

Child protection

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:00): (741) My question is to the Minister for Children. Minister, an Aboriginal boy with autism and a history of self-harm who has said he has been subjected to abuse has gone missing. The legal responsibility for this boy’s care sits with the Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency. The local MP wrote to you about this situation a month ago, and I am informed he still has not received a response. The issue was raised directly with the Premier yesterday. Why is the Allan Labor government failing vulnerable Victorian children like this Aboriginal boy?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Children, Minister for Disability) (12:01): I thank Ms Crozier for her question. The question was obviously put to the Premier yesterday, and the Premier very appropriately pointed out to the house that individual matters should not be canvassed in such settings. But I would also caution those opposite that there is always, with complex children, vulnerable children and children who have experienced trauma, far more that sits behind individual matters than what may initially be presented to any given member. I would caution members in terms of information that they could put to the house that might identify a child, and I would remind those opposite that simply blanking out somebody’s name is not enough to remove identifying information. I would also remind those opposite that the information that they have been presented with should be approached with a fair degree of caution; I would advise those opposite that they treat information provided to them cautiously. But what I would also assure this house is that each and every piece of correspondence that comes to my office is given due consideration and is dealt with appropriately, and matters are investigated by the department and the appropriate responses are provided to the appropriate people.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:02): Minister, this is a serious situation, and the member wrote to you over a month ago about this serious information. You have not responded at all. I ask: will the minister immediately order an independent review into VACCA’s systemic problems to ensure more vulnerable children like this boy are not failed by the Allan Labor government?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Children, Minister for Disability) (12:03): Again those opposite do not seem to heed the warnings that, one, they are treading on very dangerous territory in terms of revealing individual information about individual cases, which is not in the best interests of any child. But I would also remind those opposite that matters are presented to each and every one of us as members of this place when we have the privilege to serve in these roles, and they need to approach that information with caution and deal with these matters in a non-political and appropriate way.

Members interjecting.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Mr Davis and Ms Crozier, I reject your interjections. I would ask that when people have issues that they would like to raise with me as the minister with responsibilities for child protection that they do it in the appropriate way. I can assure them that they are given due consideration, and they should not be politicised by those opposite.

Members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I made a really boring speech yesterday about the most important right in here being the right of freedom of speech and for a member to be able to put across their information or their point of view without getting howled down, and that was another example of that. Let us keep that in mind when I call Mr Bourman for a question.

Harriet Shing: On a point of order, President, notwithstanding that you are not in a position to require a minister to answer a question in a certain way or ask questions in a certain way, I would seek guidance or a ruling from you in relation to whether questions that are put that might, by their structure, enable identification of people in particular situations be not required to be answered or, alternatively, not be able to be put in a way that would reveal the identities of people in situations of high risk or high vulnerability or compromise their safety.

Georgie Crozier: On the point of order, President, these are very serious issues that the opposition has the right to ask the minister about. The member actually wrote to the minister about this, and if she does not respond, this is the appropriate forum to raise these issues in. The identity has not been revealed, and I suggest that the minister needs to respond appropriately, whether a member writes to her or asks it in this place.

David Davis: Further to the point of order, President, members are entitled to raise matters in this chamber. It is not for rulings to stop difficult questions to ministers being raised. This is the place where members can actually raise questions on behalf of their constituents. The idea that they would be clamped, blocked from raising questions that are legitimate questions about ministerial failure, is extraordinary.

Lizzie Blandthorn: Just further on the point of order, I was going to ask, President, that you give this issue due consideration, but the relevant legislation in section 534 makes it very clear that identifying information about children who are in the child protection system cannot be revealed. It is simply not enough, as I have pointed out to Ms Crozier in the answer to my question, to blank out somebody’s name. There are often identifying factors in some of the propositions that are put around a particular case. Locations, ages, all of those sorts of factors can certainly present a situation where those who know the child know exactly who those opposite are talking about.

Members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I am happy to take all the points of order on this.

Evan Mulholland: Just really quickly on the point of order, President, the government is seeking to gag or limit what can be asked in this chamber on particular issues. There was no identification. The MP wrote to the minister a month ago and did not receive a response, so it is due process that the next step is asking a question of the minister in the Parliament.

Nick McGowan: Further to Ms Shing’s point of order, while the desirability of raising particular cases, and individual members’ names included, is a question ostensibly for the member themselves under parliamentary privilege, it has been a long-held practice, both in this chamber and the other, including by members Thwaites, Hulls, Brumby and so forth, on numerous occasions for decades now, including in this chamber by a number of ministers and members of parties, that members raise particular cases at their discretion.

The PRESIDENT: That is further debating the point of order. There is nothing within the standing orders that does not permit any member to ask a question in line with the question that has been asked. I do not know every ruling, but I do not think there have been any rulings around this. I am always happy to take into consideration that I put thought into certain things, but I think in this case there have been no previous rulings that I know of and the standing orders are pretty clear.

I will take this opportunity to speak on the topic of naming people. We have got an issue where I have to go to the Procedure Committee to see if we can remove someone’s name from a contribution. A member actually named a person, and we have had this about four times this year, where someone writes to us and asks us to take that out of Hansard because they did not want their name there. I am just flagging to the Procedure Committee that we might need to have a policy that when someone requests it, we just ask Hansard to take it out. Anyway, that was a really long answer to a number of long points of order.