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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 08 Hansard (Thursday, 5 August 2004) . . Page.. 3494 ..

So the government is really only noting that recommendation. I do not understand how the government can agree to something and then state that it has to go through a review process. Either the government is agreeing with it or it is not. It would have been better if the government just said that it had noted the recommendation. Recommendation 19 states:

The Committee recommends that the Government investigate alternative remand options for young people and report back to the Assembly by September 2004.

That recommendation was agreed to in principle but I am interested to know whether that timeframe will be met, as the government does not state that in its response. Recommendation 20 states:

The Committee recommends that the Government consult with staff … regarding the appropriateness of increasing pay …

Originally that recommendation was noted but it has now been agreed to. Basically, the response is the same; there is really no change to it. Recommendation 21 states:

The Committee recommends that the Government fund an onsite, daily drug and alcohol counselling service at Quamby ...

That recommendation has been agreed to in principle now, but prior to that it was noted. The government used the same words in its response. It said that that recommendation would be picked up in the alcohol and drug strategy. I have to confess that I have not had a chance to find it in that strategy. I hope it is in there because it is something that has been identified for a long time as being an area of need. Recommendation 22 refers to juvenile justice systems. The government noted that recommendation in its original response.

I think I have made my point. I am concerned about the fact that I am taking up too much of the time of the Assembly, so I would be happy later to give to Ms Gallagher my comments on the remainder of the recommendations. I want briefly to refer to the audit and to the fact that it demonstrates an administrative failure. The audit states in part:

There is a high proportion of children and young people who have become progressively more developmentally delayed and emotionally damaged over the years.

The audit continues:

Many of these children have remained living with their parents in abusive situations. Other children have moved through many places returning home to live periodically or on visitations.

The evidence in this audit report is that children have been damaged. It shows that the system is an absolute and total failure. I commend the minister for the way in which she has responded to this information and I commend her for implementing various strategies. I have already made it clear that I am concerned about the revised report, but I still have to ask: how it is possible to have confidence in the person or persons—I am not saying who, as I think it is the job of the government—in charge of this issue?

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