Page 2484 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 29 June 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
As I have said, we have a demountable coming down which will provide an additional 24 rooms for accommodation options, one of the most critical issues outstanding at Quamby, which will allow us to segregate certain population groups and which will allow for extra capacity to deliver appropriate accommodation options in line with our obligations. We have moved as fast as we can to get that demountable down here, but things take time. I am frustrated by the time being taken. I wish we had a new juvenile detention facility ready to open tomorrow, to move everybody in, and I know everyone who works at Quamby wishes the same. I have been there a number of times recently and I know all the young people would like to be living in a new facility as well.
This government has a good record. We have put in the resources. We have put the money where it needs to go to make sure that children and young people are given the opportunity that they deserve once they leave Quamby. The working party has been established. We are meeting the recommendations of that standing committee report, but we are doing much more than that. One day Quamby, or whatever it is named if it is renamed, will be a fine facility that meets all of our obligations under legislation.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (5.36): While initially sharing some of Mr Seselja’s broad concerns about the establishment of the Quamby working group, I cannot support this motion. I believe that Ms Gallagher has today provided a full explanation and a refutation of Mr Seselja’s imputations.
In August 2004 the Standing Committee on Community Services and Social Equity released an important report titled One-way roads out of Quamby: Transition options for young people exiting juvenile detention in the ACT. The recommendation in question regarding the working group resulted from the standing committee’s investigation into the effectiveness of programs being run for young people in Quamby and their need for social competence training, life skills and therapeutic programs. It was seen as important that a working group examine current and proposed programs so that young people in Quamby receive the most effective training possible to ensure that they have positive interaction with the community upon release. I note that on 17 February this year the Minister for Children, Youth and Family Support responded in the Assembly to the report and supported that recommendation.
I appreciate the point that Mr Seselja is making through this motion that the working group did not appear to be at the forefront of the minister’s or her office’s minds when Quamby was discussed in estimates hearings on 31 May. Interestingly, the working group had its first meeting on 6 June, just a week later. One would not want to read too much into this. Perhaps Mr Seselja chooses to read more into it than I do.
This motion expresses concern that it took the department almost four months to put the group together. In that context, it is ironic that it took only a week to do so once the matter had been raised in public—an observation that no doubt inspired this motion. However, without evidence to suggest that the group’s work had not been successfully pursued in the previous months, I cannot see that we have grounds to pursue this matter further. I would be interested, however, in seeing an action plan or a work program for the group so that we know when to expect the assessment to be complete and can make an informed judgement on the quality of consequent programs.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .