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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2004) . . Page.. 2502 ..

that was not met. That area has been analysed, reviewed and reported on, and the government has made its decision.

I know the opposition have a lot of difficulty with this because they would really like someone to be sacked over it. They are not quite sure who it should be, but they would really like someone to go.

Mr Cornwell: There are about eight on page 112.

MS GALLAGHER: You can name them. Name the people you would like to see sacked over this! Start with Bill Stefaniak for his role in it. That’s where it all started.

Mr Stefaniak: Check your facts.

Mrs Burke: That’s not true. Good try.

MS GALLAGHER: You don’t like that? Well, you tell me who the eight are that you would like to see sacked. The government has made its decision. I know you are uncomfortable. You did not want scapegoats. No—from day one Mrs Burke wanted to sack the entire child protection workforce! They are the people that should go! Then ministers and chief ministers had to be sacked. Chief executives who were stood down could not be scapegoats.

Mr Stanhope: I think Simon Corbell had to be sacked as well at one stage.

MS GALLAGHER: Yes. Mr Corbell, the Chief Minister and I had to be sacked. You are just all over the place on this issue, Mrs Burke. The government has made its decision. You have a problem with it. You cannot accept the fact that the reform process is under way, that the challenges we were faced with have been met and that we are moving on. You can’t cope with it, so keep digging around and name the eight people you would like to see sacked!

MRS DUNNE: Mr Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Minister, why don’t you consider that the clear and repeated breaking of the Children and Young People Act by the then chief executive of the education, youth and family services department made her unfit to act as the territory parent or to meet any other statutory responsibilities she may have?

MS GALLAGHER: I have answered this question a number of times. I have been through it, and I will go through it again. There were a number of reasons that led to section 162 (2) not being met. You can all read about it if you take the time to read the Vardon report. The chief executive in question is no longer the territory parent and no longer holds those statutory obligations, but the government’s position has been that there was a whole range of reasons that led to this non-compliance. That is what the Vardon report says. After our considered reading of the Vardon report and discussion of it, we made a decision that it was not appropriate for one single individual to be held accountable for the failings in family services over a number of years and under two governments.

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