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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Tuesday, 10 February 2004) . . Page.. 23 ..

because these are early analyses of the files and she did not want them to be taken out of context.

I urge members to be cautious with the information that is contained in these documents, in particular, the attachment from Ms Gwenn Murray. Whilst the commissioner has made no findings at this stage, she felt that there were issues arising from her investigations that required her to raise them with government as a matter of urgency. Ms Vardon reported to the Chief Minister and to me as a result of her initial inquiry in the following terms:

In the ACT we have a group of children for whom safety is not assured, and that this is directly as a result of the Department of Education, Youth and Family Services not meeting statutory requirement.

Ms Vardon identified a small group of children who may not have been provided with sufficient care and protection in the past—a matter of serious concern to the government. Consequently, this government took the decision to ask the chief executive and executive director to stand aside pending the commissioner’s final report and to ask Mr Tim Keady to act as head of the department. The government is providing additional resources, including a team of senior officers, to assist in the administration of Family Services. On Friday, I sought additional staffing and resources from our interstate colleagues to assist the work of the commissioner and to allow the territory’s child protection workers to concentrate on the day-to-day demands of their work.

The government believes that these measures will place the department in a better position to deal with the care and protection of children and young people, to deal with the increases in the number of reports being received and begin the task of restoring confidence in our child protection system. As a result of Ms Vardon’s correspondence, I also sought immediate advice from the Community Advocate about the six children referred to in the attachment to the commissioner’s letter. She assured me that she did not have any immediate concerns for the safety of the children who had been identified, although she indicated that she would investigate the files associated with those children at the earliest opportunity. I understand that that occurred yesterday.

The OCA has also guaranteed that it will raise with me directly any issues requiring immediate action. This is the government’s response. We will continue to respond to any additional issues if or when they arise. I make the point that this territory is not alone in dealing with issues concerning child protection. National figures demonstrate that the number of child protection notifications in Australia increased from 107,134 in 1999-2000 to 198,355 in 2002-03. In the space of three years that represents an enormous growth in the number of cases and complex issues with which government departments and their staff are dealing.

The ACT is no exception. The recently tabled quarterly report certainly indicates the increases that the ACT is experiencing. These terrible increases have seen repercussions in the way that government agencies respond to the problem. In Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia this issue has arisen and it has been dealt with. In Queensland the administration of its act has raised questions concerning mandatory reporting, the relationship between government and non-government agencies, and staff training and retention.

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