Page 3109 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 17 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
which are non-partisan - a few political points were made as well, and a colleague will get to that in due course - have been overshadowed tonight in an acrimonious debate as to who was where, and when, at the time of that last meeting.
I hope that in future estimates committees it will be possible to arrange the committee's affairs in such a manner that all the members who deliberate in the committee feel, rightly or wrongly, that they had an adequate opportunity to contribute to the final product. Then perhaps we can have a debate which is less acrimonious and bitter than the one we have had tonight. Most of that bitterness was focusing not on the merits of the bulk of what the committee had to say but rather on that last - as it would appear - less than half-hour's worth of meeting.
On the specific recommendations, ACTEW did appear for the first time this year as a result of a government offer. I note the suggestion from the committee, although not a formal recommendation, that other agencies that are off budget may appear in the future. I think that is positive and it is something that I would be quite happy to facilitate.
There is also a recommendation that there be a review of the processes involved in the construction of the special care units at the Remand Centre, including the involvement of both agencies within my control. It is obviously within the power of the Assembly to have such a review - probably the PDI committee would be the appropriate one. I can indicate to the Assembly that I will be seeking a departmental review and report on that. The units have now been operating for a couple of months and it is an appropriate time to see how they have gone. As would have been apparent from the questioning, I think I said that that was not a model of how one would expect a public works project to go. There were some problems with it; it did not move as quickly as it should have. That whole saga spanned several administrations. I would be happy to have some internal work done and report back to this Assembly in due course. What seems to be suggested is an internal review.
The other suggestion, which I cannot accede to, is that there be a review of the activities of the adoption unit. It focuses on allegations that that unit is overstaffed. I have had a meeting with the Adoptive Families Association - the group which up until the day before I met them had been known as the Adoptive Parents Association, and many of us would know them by that title - which is the community group that is representative of the vast majority of adoptive parents in the ACT.
They said that, were I to reduce the staffing level of that section, they would scream and shout very loudly. They feel that the responsibilities of those four full-time equivalent staff - it is scattered across part-time consultancy staff rather than four full-time staff - are such that they are spread very thinly on the ground at the moment. The enormous responsibilities of the process of adoption, which requires extensive pre- and post-placement counselling and in-home interviews and all the rest of it, could not adequately be carried out with any fewer staff. I believe that that organisation spoke to opposition members and Independents as well. That is their strong view, which leads me to believe that that is not an overstaffed unit and thus a review is unnecessary.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .