Page 1019 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 30 March 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
There is no doubt that these young people present very challenging and difficult behaviours and no-one pretends that it is easy or that things will never go wrong. However, I think we have to be careful that we do not lower our expectations of what can be achieved or underestimate the unique opportunities that could be provided within the Bimberi facility to put a stop to the cyclical nature of the offending behaviours. These young people need our support to help them make change and the only way to do that is to acknowledge their strengths and skills and give them opportunities to master new skills, ideas, thoughts and behaviours as a new way of living.
The Inquiries Act process will not foster this type of approach. The current inquiry is the only way that we can have an independent and expert statutory authority review the situation within Bimberi and more broadly and report to the Assembly on their findings and recommendations and then have carriage of overseeing and monitoring the implementation of those recommendations and actions that will drive real reform.
In the previous motions on this issue I set out the relative advantages of the Human Rights Commission inquiry over the Inquiries Act process as I see them and I see no need to cover that ground yet again. However, I would make the additional observation that it is much more appropriate to have the skilled professionals within the commission, who have extensive experience working with children, talking to and engaging with the young people detained in Bimberi to find out what is happening there rather than lawyers examining them in a quasi-judicial setting. These young people already have a negative view of the statutory processes and an Inquiries Act process would do nothing to improve that. In fact, it could cause a lot of harm.
The key difference between the two mechanisms is that the current inquiry guarantees the privacy of, and offers an ongoing protection for, witnesses. An Inquiries Act inquiry compels witnesses without offering those protections. I have not seen any evidence to suggest that the need to compel witnesses is so great that we should sacrifice all the other benefits of the current inquiry.
In relation to the range of other incidents, I would make the following observations. The conduct of DHCS and their internal processes, the management and operation of Bimberi is concerning. All departmental staff, and particularly managers, should be acutely aware of the importance and sensitivity of the inquiry and the need for the utmost vigilance in ensuring that all staff feel they can participate honestly and openly.
In regard to the leaked minutes from a DHCS staff meeting, whilst I do accept that there was no intention on the part of the ATSIS unit manager to do anything untoward, the fact that the minutes clearly give that impression to other staff who were not at the meeting and did not understand the context is concerning. I trust that the minister will now ensure that all managers are aware of their responsibilities and ensure that nothing like this happens again.
Similarly, the issue of the appearance of a reprisal against a staff member for giving evidence is also a significant concern. I doubt that this person was dismissed because
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video