Page 4158 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 21 September 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
There are a range of protections in the Children and Young People Act. Even though at times they might be said to be administratively heavy, they are all important and it is essential that we have all the checks being properly followed. That includes ensuring that those organisations who are contracted or who are performing a task on a fee-for-service basis are achieving all of the sorts of qualifications, achieving all of those benchmarks that need to be done to ensure that we do have providers out there who have qualified and have shown that they are a safe pair of hands to care for these children and young people.
It is of great concern that this issue has arisen. It appears that the correct process has not been followed in this case. It is appropriate that the Assembly be given a copy of the Public Advocate’s findings so we all have the opportunity to understand what went wrong and then address how best we might rectify it.
We have standards within our community about how people, whether young or old, should be treated. It is my understanding that the circumstances surrounding the reported breaches are not in keeping with these community standards. Regardless of social standing or vulnerabilities, we have a responsibility to protect and assist those who are less fortunate and find themselves in crisis.
I believe it is crucial that this type of investigation is given the opportunity to report back to the Assembly on issues such as why an organisation that has not yet been assessed as a suitable entity by the Community Services director-general and has no previous history of providing residential care in the ACT was asked to provide emergency care for five children. I believe some were not younger children; some could be classified as young people.
I will briefly turn to the residential property that has been part of this conversation and part of the public conversation. I am very disappointed that that property was publicly revealed. We saw a picture of that property on the front page of the Canberra Times. It means that that property has now had to be taken out of circulation. I think that we always need to be very careful when matters occur, particularly matters around care and protection, that we are very circumspect about what we say and what we say publicly, particularly in the media.
Mrs Dunne talked this morning about the redacted letter being tabled yesterday. It seems to be the latest, because the first version—well, there was some correspondence, I believe, that was put out publicly. Mrs Dunne, I believe your office did it. I understand that there was an attempt to try and cover the name of the organisation, but because it was sent electronically, that disappeared and so the RiotACT had that letter up along with the name of the organisation within a very short time. These things do happen. I understand also that it was a member of this place who did tell the media the location of the house. I think we need to be quite circumspect when we do talk in this area.
I would like to turn to the residential property. I understand that this was quite a good property for children and young people in care. It is a shame that the qualities of this property will no longer be able to be enjoyed by many children. It had very wide open
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video