I’ve already agreed to do that on many occasions and I’d be happy to meet with Members and the committee. The example that the Member presented here is a good example. I want to state that the department and government took every recommendation very, very seriously. We
approached it in a very positive way. Our responses are about how do we make this happen. The Member raised a question about the way the law is right is it’s implicit. We would like to make it explicit. The example he gave is under section 7 of the act. It already states very explicitly that child protection has to, it must, it shall consider cultural implications. It must. It’s as explicit as we can get.
I think there’s a philosophical debate about how much force and power do you put into legislation. Our government’s position is we understand what the committee is saying. We agree with what you’re saying. We were there when the committee met with the people. We’re suggesting different ways in which we can do that. Legislating and making it explicit in legislation is only one way. But you know, laws can only go so far. I think what they’re asking us to do is do things differently. Our suggestion is that we can do that.
I’m encouraged by what the Member said. We have a common ground. We want to work together. We should look at the report as water being half full rather than being half empty. I think there’s a lot of ground for us to move on. I think we may have a difference of opinion about whether we should do it by mandated legislation or by policy change or attitude change, but I am definitely willing and prepared to work with the committee and Members.