Labor hypocrisy on Serious Events Review Team

Roger Jaensch,Minister for Human Services

Labor failed to implement the recommendations from the Commissioner for Children in 2006 to implement a process to review the death and serious injury of children.*

As a result, Tasmania was the last state to put in place a review mechanism, and it took a Liberal Government to implement the Commissioner's recommendation.

The review process has the capacity to earlier identify and address any emerging systemic problems, while other independent processes, like Coroner's inquests, are proceeding.

It is important to note that the criteria for the Serious Events Review Team relate to any child who has been known to Child and Youth Services within three years prior to the event; it does not mean any review relates to a child or young person currently in the care of Child Safety Services.

The Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1997 explicitly prohibits identification of individual children and requires complete confidentiality – as Labor is well aware**.

It is also not appropriate to comment on matters which may be the subject of independent inquiry, like a Coronial Inquest.

The Hodgman majority Liberal Government has made a significant commitment for comprehensive reform and improvement of Tasmania's Child Safety System.

In last year's Budget we invested $24 million to fund an additional 25 new FTE Child Safety Officers to ensure children and families are getting the help they need. All of these positions have been filled.

*https://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/32969/16-10-06_Commissioner_for_Children_Child_Death_Review_Advice.pdf

** "A coroner's inquiry into the death commenced at that time and it is ongoing, so it is inappropriate for me to talk about the circumstances, or about the death itself" (Michelle O'Byrne, Parliament, 2011)

/Public Release. This material from the originating organization/author(s) might be of the point-in-time nature, and edited for clarity, style and length. Mirage.News does not take institutional positions or sides, and all views, positions, and conclusions expressed herein are solely those of the author(s).View in full here.