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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Tuesday, 17 August 2004) . . Page.. 3705 ..

… the information held on files about this small group of 150 children at greatest risk was in such disarray, it raises concerns about the records of all other children who have come into contact with the child protection system in the ACT.

Are you now completely satisfied and confident that all reports of suspected child abuse were definitely made available to her, especially as it was a matter for your department to decide which files to provide? How can you be so confident, given that the records were in such disarray?

MS GALLAGHER: A very comprehensive audit of files of children in the care and protection system was commenced under this government’s review of child protection services in its entirety. That is not relating just to the children who were subject to allegations of abuse in care. There has been a safety audit of every child in the care of the territory this year. It is fair to say that it is no secret that there has been criticism of the way reports have been handled, the way records have been kept and the fact that in some cases reports about certain children have been kept in various locations in a number of files—sometimes in manila files in people’s drawers. That is entirely inappropriate, but that was uncovered through this audit. There is a bit of an implied accusation that the department did not co-operate with Ms Murray in providing her with all the information she needed. That has not been raised with me by Ms Murray. She had working with her a team that was taken from the Office of Children, Youth and Family Support.

Mr Smyth: Did all the files go?

MS GALLAGHER: If you would let me finish, Mr Smyth, I have not finished the answer. I am getting to it, but I am providing the background that is needed. In relation to the team that worked with her, she had a team of eight that went across. It could have been six, but from memory I think it was eight, because four returned when reports of child abuse were increasing all the time and we needed them to return. She was given full co-operation and every piece of material that she wanted and that the audit found. As much as I can give the assurance that every report relating to those children was given, I can say yes, there was 110 per cent co-operation with the retrieval of files, and the reviewing of those files, in whatever form they were in, be it on our computer system, written on a piece of paper, in a case file, in several case files or in sibling case files. As far as I can give that assurance, that is certainly my understanding.

I have met with Ms Murray. She said to me that it was a very comprehensive audit. I think they saw more reports and bits of paper in those file audits than they even imagined having to look at themselves because of the number. There were so many different types of recording of information, their work was much more extensive than they had originally thought it was going to be. So, my understanding is that all of that information was provided and was analysed during the audit, and that there have been improvements in the management of recording of information—probably since February, but certainly since both the Vardon review and now the subsequent Gwenn Murray review have been released.

MRS BURKE: I ask the Minister a supplementary question. Do the Minister’s assurances extend to the files described as “in transit” or “managed cases,” which I understand were not provided to Ms Murray and Ms Vardon?

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