Before I go on, I'll point out that I'm ambivalent on the matter of homosexual carers. I neither support nor condemn here - to be honest, if a particular gay couple is capable of providing better care than a particular straight couple, then it makes sense to me that they should be given the opportunity to care for the child.

That said, the government farms out the provision of care to agencies, including church agencies, knowing what they stand for. If those in the church agencies sincerely believe that to put children into the hands of gay people is to put them at risk, then the government should not expect them to do so. When the time comes to renew agreements between the government and their agents, perhaps they should rethink. If they continue to run with the churches, they have no place second-guessing the church-based decisions. That is, of course, just my opinion.

Otokonoko.........taken and noted.

Anyone else that thinks discriminating against others, is their rights not too..... that conflicts with the law!

Come on Church people...........you can do better than that! Your whole system falls apart at the seems..........when it comes to teaching children, and its well documented.

Gays DONT ROOT CHILDREN!:)

LEAP

"That said, the government farms out the provision of care to agencies, including church agencies, knowing what they stand for."

The government does not work like that Otokonoko. There is a tender process and organisations compete for a piece of the funding pie in relation to the services being sought. There are guidelines and expectations. If they cannot be met organisations generally do not apply, or they may give it a shot, but success depends not only on cost but on quality of service and ability to deliver within the stated guidelines.

I understand that, pelican. When you put something to tender, though, you have an excellent opportunity to select the best offer. You could go for a cut-price, no-frills service; alternatively, you could go for a more expensive, higher quality service. You can negotiate terms and conditions. None of this changes the fact that the government was aware of (or should have been aware of) the nature of the beast when they took church services on board.

at least two of blue leapers previous posts have imp-lied
and declared gays arnt homo towards children

[something sothing gay pedophiles dont egsist]
or some others such clap trap

gay means homo[same sex]
pedophile means child lover
[yes it must be harsh to be called a child lover]lol

but homo childlovers are BY FAR the most common
i was raped by a man[a homo 'childlover']
i prefer the word pervert
or child assulter

or homo child perversion pervert

or maybe just a child-leaper
or child leaping creepy pervert

or just a sic* leaper

im not sure if your only trying to be ignorant blue[leaper]
but you sure are consistantly stepping in your own doo doo

[its just we cant be botherd
reading ya posts to point it out]
so just ignore your destractions..[usually]

Maybe the problem is that this industry is an “industry” with many private companies trying to build up their individual businesses. Church has been in this sector doing what they want for many generations while only the government is held responsible later as the lead agency. As “later” can mean decades this appears to leave no present accountability or responsibility today.

From www.nsw.liberal.org.au
“ In line with the Wood Inquiry recommendations and NSW Labor's response, commit to continuing the handover process of out-of-home care to non-government organisations.”

All those children considered in terms of a handover process because an inquiry saw something not working and decided the solution was to give the problem to someone else. No inquiry was first made into the non-government sector.

Why are our government departments not required to do their job instead of handing it to the private sector and paying more for the same service to be carried out? If they are failing how can they prevent and police failure in others.

As with the gay couple and other policies in place within the government department it becomes obvious there is no attempt to control the private sector. It sets a worrying precedent as these were adults who could challenge what was happening to them, the children have no voice as OUG knows.