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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Thursday, 1 July 2004) . . Page.. 3167 ..

MR CORNWELL: Thank you. One has to ask, sir: if mandatory reporting is not being enforced, then what is the purpose of it? I personally think it is a necessary thing, but I do believe it needs to be enforced. And I am naturally suspicious of any government, any minister or any department that fails to fulfil the law as it is set out. Therefore, I would imagine that perhaps they want to get rid of it. I would be very concerned, incidentally, if that were the case, because clearly children in this territory do need to be protected. And without mandatory reporting, I seriously fear for their safety, though I must admit that I have every reason to doubt their safety even with it.

There seems to be a culture of not wishing to enforce child protection services here in the ACT. I accept that your comments, Minister, indicate that a lot of good work has been done—you claim—over the last six months. I am happy to accept that assurance. But may I say that I still believe that the jury is out on this matter. We have still to see what you and your department will do about these issues. We do not want any more child deaths in this territory and we, at least on this side of the house, will be watching very carefully because to date the answers that I have received are totally unsatisfactory.

MR HARGREAVES (4.32): If time permits I will list all the significant things that this government and the department of education, youth and family services have done to address the lack of satisfactory mandatory reporting obligations. This matter of public importance is the most appalling and thinly veiled attack on the hardest working bureaucrats in this town by the most shallow shadow minister that I have ever had the misfortune to encounter in this place. In debate on this matter this queen of clichés referred to “a shroud of secrecy”, “a can of worms”, and to “a Vegemite sandwich today and a jam sandwich tomorrow”. I happen to like jam sandwiches. This so-called shadow minister is a disgrace. She is full of rhetoric and innuendo.

Mr Smyth: On a point of order. The member should be relevant to the subject matter of the matter of public importance.

MR SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

MR HARGREAVES: The shadow minister is full of rhetoric and innuendo and there is no substance to her argument. She talked about a leadership failure, when she is sitting right behind the biggest leadership failure into whom God ever blew breath. The shadow minister referred to this government showing leadership in the area of child protection. There has been an administrative failure and a number of people have not discharged their statutory reporting obligations.

The relevant minister immediately introduced changes in the child protection area. She obtained a budgetary allocation of $68 million and directed it into that area. She organised international recruiting programs and implemented organisational change. She also stood up in this place and defended those who work in the child protection area. They need protecting from those opposite. Members opposite should hang their heads in shame. People who work on behalf of somebody else ought to be congratulated and not attacked as they have been by this shadow minister. I cannot tell members how much this matter sickens me.

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