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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Thursday, 12 February 2004) . . Page.. 319 ..

That would have afforded an opportunity to trigger someone to raise some questions. The Chief Minister might not read annual reports or committee reports, as he has already admitted, and it might be that his ministers do not read cabinet submissions. Perhaps they do not read them before they sign them off, and perhaps they do not read them before they go to cabinet—and perhaps it is not in the new code of ministerial conduct that they should read things that they are statutorily responsible for.

Some time in October the Minister for Education, Youth and Family Services made a submission to the inquiry. It seems that there was nothing in that process that was a trigger to the minister or any of her colleagues that there was something wrong. On 27 February 2003 the Community Advocate gave evidence to that committee. When I was a staffer I was required to take an interest. I wonder whether there was anyone in the minister’s office who actually listened to the evidence.

I know that some ministers’ staff listen when committees of inquiry are going on because I have got feedback from some of those staff about evidence before committees that I have run, and it seems to me that there was another trigger for someone to say, “Hey, something’s not quite right here.” It seems that no-one paid attention to the evidence. The committee obviously paid attention to the evidence of the committee inquiry, but no-one who was listening took it in.

I commend the committee because the committee is very straightforward. It signed off on its report on 19 August and it reported on 28 August. A few bits should be quoted to be put on the record. Paragraph 6.23 says:

The Committee is extremely concerned at reports Family Services has failed to comply with its obligations under the Act.

In answer to a question the day before yesterday, the minister said that, on reading the paragraph, it was very ambiguous. I know that I am older than the minister and went to school in the olden days, and it might have something to do with the way people were taught to read in the 1980s, but I do not understand what could be ambiguous about this:

The Committee is extremely concerned at reports Family Services has failed to comply with its obligations under the Act.

Paragraph 6.27 reads:

It is disturbing that the OCA had to make 45 applications to the Children’s Court in 2001-02 for an order that a report be provided. No less disturbing is the statement that the Chief Executive responded to just 3% of all letters written by the OCA in regard to concerns over Review Reports.

I have come recently to this issue, and I do not have the benefit of an incoming minister’s brief and being in touch with what is happening all the time, but I read that once and I understood it. I understood it the first time. What did the minister read? Was she in the same time-space vortex as the rest of us when we read this report?

Concerns are raised later. The report says, at paragraph 6.52, that the committee is greatly encouraged about the Refocus program, but at paragraph 6.57 it states:

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