Page 5324 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 15 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the Australian Government Solicitor wrote to the legal representatives of one of these agencies. The letter says:
As you may be aware, the Children and Young People Act 2008 (ACT) (Act) requires in respect of the provision of certain services that the provider be approved by the Director-general under s63 of the Act as a “suitable entity”. Further, in respect of the provision of certain specific instances of residential care services by a suitable entity, the Director-general must issue—
must issue—
a general parental authority to the suitable entity in terms of s520 of the Act.
I am advised your client has never been approved by the Director-general as a suitable entity in terms of s63 of the Act, nor have they ever been issued a general parental authority. If your client wishes to provide any services that require to be approved as a suitable entity in terms of the Act they should make application to the Director-general.
So the question remains: was this agency ever approved as a suitable entity? The answer is no. The Government Solicitor’s letter dated 30 August 2011 makes that perfectly clear.
We have to ask the question: did the director-general, in terms of section 63, give oral authorisation to the agency as an out-of-home carer or suitable entity? We do not know for certain, but apparently not, because the Government Solicitor’s letter again says that they have never been approved as a suitable entity. And if he did give oral authorisation that he was satisfied that this agency was an entity that met the suitability criteria, did he actually pass that on? We do not know, but again the evidence so far indicates that he probably did not. And if he gave oral authorisation, did he follow that up in writing? Again, we do not know, but apparently he did not. And if the director-general did follow it in writing, did he give, according to law, a copy of that authorisation to the agency? We know for certain that he did not, because the agency does not have it.
Did the minister approve the Barton Highway premises as a place of care? Did Minister Burch or her delegate ever approve the Barton Highway property as a place of care? We do not know that. If the minister approved the Barton Highway premises as a place of care, did the minister satisfy herself that it complied, and was likely to continue to comply, with the out-of-home standards that apply? We do not know.
There are many things that we do not know about the mare’s nest that has been brought to light by the Public Advocate in her inquiry. What we do know is that this minister acted in a dishonourable way this morning, coming in here, producing a piece of paper and saying that the Public Advocate is wrong. What she is trying to do is undermine the entire advice and the entire report of the Public Advocate. What the minister is trying to do is distract the people of the ACT from the failings of the care and protection service over which she presides.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video