Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens’ amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 5397 together:

(1)    Schedule 4, item 1, page 13 (line 7), after “family law order”, insert “or care arrangement”.

(2)    Schedule 4, item 1, page 13 (after line 15), at the end of the item, add:

      ; or (e)    a parenting plan within the meaning of 63C of that Act; or

              (f)    any other formal or informal care arrangement.

These relate, as I referred to in my second reading debate speech, to amending the requirement for these kinship care provisions to apply only under a family law order, to extend the clause to include other care arrangements and to include a parenting payment in the meaning of 63C of the act, or any other formal or informal care arrangements. I will also seek to make similar amendments to the Social Security Amendment (2007 Measures No. 2) Bill.

We are seeking to make these provisions meet the requirements of the community. Many kinship care arrangements are done informally or through parenting plans. As I mentioned in my speech in the second reading debate, the government is seeking to increase the development of more informal arrangements through the family relationship centres, yet they are very heavily limiting the effectiveness of these provisions in their amendments by just restricting them to family law orders. I am particularly concerned about these arrangements and how they are going to apply in Aboriginal communities because there are many children in kinship care in Aboriginal communities. While I cannot quote the percentages off the top of my head, I can virtually guarantee that the majority of those arrangements are informal.

While the government has taken a step to address the kinship arrangements—and I am really pleased that they have recognised that because it is something that we have raised from the beginning when these arrangements were brought into place—it is not addressing the heart of kinship arrangements, which is that many of them are done through informal arrangements. We are seeking to make these effective and to meet the circumstances that are really happening in the community. Can the government explain whether they have done any statistical analysis of the proportion of children that are in kinship care through family law orders, as opposed to those who are in informal arrangements or those who have parenting plans, and why have they restricted them just to family law orders? Also, have the government given thought to the fact that that only addresses a portion of the problem when they have acknowledged that there is an issue there but are only addressing part of the problem?