Page 4493 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 18 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
children, and they were providing transport and supervision services. Yes, they were not an approved entity, but were they able to provide a safe and caring environment for children? Yes, they were.
The Public Advocate’s recommendations have merit, and we will be working to provide a response. For the benefit of the opposition, I will go through some of the recommendations and say some of the work that is already progressing. The Public Advocate’s report establishes that there were breaches of the Children and Young People Act in relation to placements with organisations which are not suitable entities. The act is to ensure that children are protected, and, as I have said on the public record, a breach of the act is unacceptable, and we need to work with the directorate to ensure that it does not happen again.
I have been very clear with the directorate that I consider it should be an exemplar practitioner in this environment, and where it has not been that, the areas for improvement certainly need to change. We will look at the systems and recommendations to ensure that they comply with the act for all placements.
There is some commentary about working with people checks. We are looking to work with ACT police checks plus suitability information and the CHYPS checks, which we think are more comprehensive. But I am looking forward to bringing to this place next week the working with vulnerable people background checking system, which will provide assurance and security for people working with vulnerable children.
I also want to comment in relation to the engagement of this provider and some dispute over payment. I understand that it has been frustrating for everybody that this matter has not been resolved. I have instructed the directorate to resolve this as a matter of urgency. There has been ongoing discussion between the agency and the department around payment but also around their reinstatement to provide transport services. I have been informed this morning that they have been reinstated, and a memo will be forwarded to the organisation today. That is a good news outcome and it shows that we have been working with this agency proactively over time to ensure that any concerns we had about the adequacy of process are resolved.
The Community Services Directorate has also recognised the issue of having a reception area at 11 Moore Street. Again, I have instructed the directorate not only to look to developing a place at 11 Moore Street but to identify a property for use for emergency placements so we can be assured that accommodation is suitable at all times. As to the property that Mrs Dunne likes to so frequently talk about, it has been disclosed that it can no longer be used for care and protection placements. But I have asked the department to find a property so there will never be another question of the property being in a suitable condition to receive children and carers.
As for Mrs Dunne’s comments on policy and procedures, I understand that the majority of policies and procedures are up to date and there has been a process of continuous improvement and updating of those policies over time. I have made it clear to the directorate that this must be a priority for completion. As to the question of the Public Advocate not receiving a copy of the reports, the director-general of the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video