Legislative Council, Wednesday 19 June 2024

Ms FORREST (Murchison) - Mr President, as the Leader indicated, I was yet to speak and I will not speak at great length. I do not want to go over all the matters that other members have raised, but to reiterate a few key points, from my perspective.

I welcome this legislation to implement a child monitor. As we know, it is a recommendation from the commission of inquiry. The work of this person, in this role, is very important. As other members have said, it is only when you have someone monitoring the outcomes of reforms that you know whether they are being implemented, and whether they are being effective.

I assume that in the monitor's reports will cover how effective and what the outcomes are. I am a bit tired of having output-based performance information and indicators in annual reports. If this is one of those where we just get numbers, that will not be good. What we need to see is outcomes. We absolutely have to see positive outcomes and see children - hopefully all Tasmanians - being safe, but particularly some of our most vulnerable people, our children.

I am not sure if anyone else asked this question because I was briefly out of the Chamber, but I am interested to know if there is an established timeline for the recruitment and appointment. You never know exactly how long the recruitment is going to take, but is there a timeline? If there is, can the Leader outline it and the anticipated dates for certain events like the recruitment and the commencement?

I know some of those things are subject to other employment arrangements from the person who may be engaged, but we do need to have some indication of a time frame. We know there has work going on, but it does require, in my view, constant vigilance and oversight of that work.

The independence of this office is crucially important. I note the comments from other members that the only truly independent position is the monitor themselves. I understand 'truly independent' means they cannot be directed by any minister. They also have their own reserved by law funding and they have the capacity to call for papers and other information as they need, with some limitations.

That is fine; but it can be difficult when the rest of the staff are not to be afforded that same level of independence; not that it is going to be a huge unit. They are not the person leading the office, but it is important. I consider this as one of our integrity and transparency mechanisms, and I know it can be difficult to attract and retain staff in a really tight labour market if you cannot sometimes offer above award or higher pay rates that may be expected.

That is a limitation that some of our other integrity bodies experience, making it difficult to not only recruit but also to retain. In a lot of these really specialised areas, and this will be a relatively specialised position, we need to be sure that we can keep good people and not have them drawn off into other similar organisations, like the Victorian model this has been based on with regard to family violence.

That is particularly important where you have specialist skills. They are not the sort of things that people with these skills necessarily are available in a broad range of places and, as I said, in the tight labour market.

I reiterate and remind members of the motion that was passed recently to establish a joint committee with oversight of the recommendations of the commission of inquiry. I will reread one of the terms of reference for this committee which was that the Joint Sessional Committee be appointed with power to send for persons or papers - the usual matters there.

Part (d) of that first point says that:

The Committee will have oversight of monitoring progress reports provided to parliament, as provided for by recommendation 22.1 by the Independent Child Safety Reform Implementation Monitor when appointed. 

This committee will have an important role of engagement with the monitor. There will be a need for that relationship to be strong, a bit like the Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee. That relationship is important to ensure that the Audit Office is adequately resourced, as much as we can, and this will be the same for this committee.

There will be other opportunities for scrutiny as there is with the Audit Office through budget Estimates and that sort of thing. I have made the point in the hearing, and I hope the Leader can confirm this, when this person appears before the budget Estimates committee - I assume they will be invited by both House Committees - to provide an update of evidence to the Estimates committees that they will be appearing without a minister present, as the Auditor-General does in Committee A, and they will be able to answer any questions put to them by those committees as well as by the commission of inquiry committee, should that committee have questions of them.

That matter is frightfully important and the same when we created a more independent - I will not say it is totally independent - Environment Protection Authority (EPA). The director of the EPA should come in on their own and answer questions about their office. That will be Committee A's job this time.

Mr Gaffney - I am interested in that point. If the monitor, the person chosen, does not want to answer a question from the committee they are not obliged to, are they? If for some reason because of their true independence, they are not answerable to that committee, are they? Is that what you're envisaging, or not?

Ms FORREST - The relationship I am talking about is working with and to support their work, and to ensure they have adequate resources and that sort of thing.

The motion that we passed here talks about monitoring progress on the report that person provides, but they are an independent person.

Mr Gaffney - That is fine. Thanks, I was wondering.

Ms Webb - They are answerable to the parliament. Parliament should have oversight.

Ms FORREST - If parliament has questions, they should answer.

Ms Webb - Parliament has oversight of this entity.

Ms FORREST - Yes. Personally, I cannot envisage a reason why they would not want to respond to a committee request on behalf of the parliament. It is a properly constituted committee. It has all the powers of the parliament.

If it was a matter that was of great concern then I would expect, as in other similar situations, that the committee would report to the parliament. The parliament could then act as it saw fit, which would be a special report tabled at different times into different matters, mostly when other people will not give us information. I am getting off the track a little bit, sorry.

I welcome the progress on this. I am interested in the timeline. I will support the bill and I commend the government for getting on with it. I know that there was, perhaps, some concern about the timeline for consultation. From what we heard in the briefing there has been reasonable consultation and a desire, if not to meet the letter of the commission of inquiry recommendations, then certainly the intent and to even go a little bit further in some parts, which is positive.

Mr President, I support the bill.