Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Tuesday, 10 February 2004) . . Page.. 21 ..

Young People Act, a prescriptive piece of legislation, clearly establishes the duties and obligations of those under the act for the safety and care of children. It places a heavy onus on the chief executive of the Department of Education, Youth and Family Services to ensure that action is taken in relation to a number of child safety issues.

It places that responsibility on the highest departmental officer because this Assembly reflected community concerns accurately. It expressed the view that the best means for protecting children and young people was to delegate responsibility in a number of key areas to the highest echelons of the ACT public service. The chief executive has a responsibility to conform to those legislative requirements but he or she is also given the task of ensuring that stakeholder and other state institutions such as the Children’s Court are given an accurate picture of cases in action. An essential part of the legislation is to ensure that all those involved in child protection perform their essential functions and are better informed and directed.

Under the legislation the Office of the Community Advocate is given a special place—that of advocate and overseer. It is there to provide children with an independent advocate and also to ensure that the department is accurately addressing the needs of children through its reporting, appraisal and assistance programs. The act is constructed in such a way as to place a clear role on the OCA as watchdog over the department. Under section 162 (2) of the act, the chief executive of the department is required to report any allegations of abuse made in relation to children in the care of the territory.

It has now become clear that the Department of Education, Youth and Family Services has not adhered to the word or the spirit of the act in this matter. The Community Advocate states that the OCA has not been supplied with reports pursuant to section 162 (2) of the act since its enactment in 2000. It is also now clear that the OCA raised issues with the department in correspondence and in annual reports in the time of the previous government. Until now no government has systematically responded to those issues.

It is the intention of this government to address the failures of the department in this area through a thorough review of the operation of the child protection system. Any necessary reforms will occur with the full benefit of Ms Vardon’s report, which is due to be handed down to the government on 16 April. On reflection, I believe I should have picked up on the issue of non-compliance under section 162 (2) of the act earlier than I did—an issue of considerable regret to me personally and professionally. I do not walk away from my responsibility as the relevant minister. However, I want to impress on members that there can be no greater responsibility than ensuring the safety and wellbeing of our children. I take that responsibility seriously.

I am disappointed in the performance of my department in this matter but I am also disappointed that this issue took so long to come to my attention. It is of no comfort that the issue of non-compliance predates my time as minister and predates the term of this government. I read the entire committee report within days of its being tabled in the Assembly. I acknowledge that I did not immediately pick up on the claim in the report relating to non-compliance with section 162 (2) of the act. My main focus in considering the committee’s report at the time was to evaluate and form a view on the recommendations to the government.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .