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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 08 Hansard (Thursday, 5 August 2004) . . Page.. 3491 ..

response we find that it is not very different. It would have been more honest if the government had left some of its original responses.

I wish to refer to a couple of recommendations in which I am particularly interested. Recommendation 3 states:

The Committee recommends that the Government develop model legal rights and responsibilities units and include them as part of a core curriculum for ACT high schools and colleges.

The government’s revised response agrees with that in principle. That issue was noted in the government’s first response. There is very little difference between the government’s revised response and its first response. I am concerned because the government’s revised response states that most colleges offer legal rights and responsibilities units as part of their legal studies courses, which is not good enough.

The point of the committee’s recommendation was that this was a fundamental part of empowering young people and educating children to understand their rights. It could be argued that that is one of the key ways in which we can assist children to deal with neglect and abuse. I am sorry that the government’s response then states:

The ACT Department of Education and Training also employs a civics and citizenship curriculum officer and the Commonwealth-funded discovering democracy program is actively promoted in ACT government schools.

That program, which ceased on 30 June, was never that actively promoted because it was flicked over to the Association of Independent Schools. That is really just a basic error. We asked for a supplementary review but if something as basic as that was not looked at I am not confidant that these issues have been taken seriously. Recommendation 4 states:

The Committee recommends that the Government provide funding for a psychiatric inpatient facility for young people …

That critical recommendation was agreed to in principle in the government’s original response. It is still agreed to in principle, but we have heard that a feasibility study has to be undertaken. We know that that recommendation is not feasible economically. That need was identified in a couple of reports that I have done over the years. Once again, I am really concerned about the fact that we are being fobbed off with a feasibility study. What we are hearing from the government is a no to that recommendation. Recommendation 6 states:

The Committee recommends that the Government investigate and report on the feasibility of a secure residential treatment facility for young people engaging in sexually offending behaviour ...

That is another issue that has come up over the years and that has only just been agreed to in principle. The government, in its previous response, talked about considering options, but in its supplementary response it has now backed off. I would like to see what work has been done so we can get some idea of why the government has backed off. The government has agreed to recommendation 7, which refers to non-government providers. The government noted that recommendation in its first response, which states in part:

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