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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Thursday, 1 July 2004) . . Page.. 3154 ..

minister has herself expressed disappointment, and rightly so, about the level or lack of advice she received over the failings of the department. So one has to ask: how has this changed? How can the minister and others in this place and in the Canberra community have full confidence that, given the serious nature of these failings, the same public servants have changed their ways?

Their support of the minister, compared particularly with Housing ACT officials, was, in all honesty, absolutely appalling and quite sad. Unlike the Housing ACT officials, who all day constantly offered themselves up to address the committee on behalf of Mr Wood, departmental officials from the department of family services merely sat back and allowed Ms Gallagher to flounder and push on. I think the minister finds herself caught between a rock and a hard place, caught between needing the advice and being able to command respect for her leadership and authority.

This is a concern that goes not only to the heart of ministerial leadership but also to the core of departmental culture. Similar to the Whitlam days, when, after nearly 20 years of Liberal federal governments, federal bureaucrats were aggressively reluctant to assist a Labor government, this current minister is now dealing, I suggest, with a similar problem, that is, an arrogant and ineffective departmental culture—a culture that this minister is either unable or unwilling to change—and an issue which is and should be a real concern with regard to child protection services in the territory.

Why do I say this? Unless there is a concerted effort by this minister to address the current culture within the department of family services, I am afraid to say that the government can throw as much money as it likes at the issue but nothing will change. Money does not change a culture and, sadly, the concern is that this Assembly will most likely have to revisit the issue once again in the future.

I fully appreciate the pressure associated with this area of work. The minister has said that money is being pumped into the department. I reiterate my strong apprehension that this will do nothing to change the entrenched culture that has been fostered over years. The minister had a prime opportunity to take real command of the situation and to really take charge of this department. I fear, however, that we still have a situation of the tail wagging the dog.

Unless this change occurs, I can see the system becoming increasingly arrogant, withdrawn, secretive and therefore completely ineffective. This sort of system does not in any way better protect children, because good-intentioned people will continue to pull out of the system because they find dealing with the department no different from dealing with, say, the KGB. As we all know all too well, while this unfolds we will continue to be flooded with children in need. I hope the alternative is not some form of so-called post-modern institutional care.

There is a small window of opportunity. I hope things will change but I hold grave fears that they will not. If I could dare the minister to prove me wrong I would. However, my point remains that if the current culture within family services is not addressed it will undoubtedly lead to a more litigious and bureaucratic system in a vain attempt to cover up poor leadership. This system, if allowed to progress will not serve to better protect children in our community.

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