Page 5771 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 7 December 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
contemporary research is particularly relevant in respect of operational practices in youth detention settings and that such research can be applied at Bimberi. Much youth justice research is already captured in other substantive pieces of work on the youth justice system that has been developed and distributed by the government.
For example, the discussion paper “Towards a diversionary framework for the ACT” released by CSD in February summarises much of the literature and better practice on models of diversion. All of this research and more is informing the development of the blueprint. As a vibrant and dynamic approach to inform the youth justice system, the blueprint will be informed by new and emerging research about what works to improve outcomes for vulnerable children and young people as it evolves over the next few years.
In its response to the commission’s report, the government attempted to meet the intent and objective of each of the 224 recommendations. Of the 224 recommendations, 124 have either been commenced or completed. Overall, 105 were agreed, 84 were agreed in principle, 29 were noted and six were not agreed. I think the government has been very clear that we have been supportive of the commission’s report and have met the intent of its recommendations. I note that, yes, we do not often get a response to a response to a response, but I may be compelled to respond to the response to the response to the commission’s report.
As my colleagues are aware, I have established the youth justice implementation task force to take forward the recommendations of the commission’s report. The role of the task force is to provide advice to the ACT government to inform its response, to develop a blueprint for youth justice and to monitor the implementation of the blueprint over a period of 12 months.
I have identified the membership of this task force in this place previously. The members are: Ms Emma Robertson, who is the Director of the Youth Coalition of the ACT; Mr Peter Sandeman, Chief Executive of Anglicare; Danny O’Neil, Director of Richmond Fellowship; Peter Murphy, Chief Executive of Noetic Solutions; and Mr Rod Little, the Chairperson of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elected Body.
I find it somewhat incomprehensible to think that any one of those members would be considered unsuitable or without obvious qualifications, history, ability and expertise to make comment on supporting services for children and young people. To have the chair of the Indigenous body seen as not to be able to provide comment to government on how best to support the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community in the ACT really is a slight on their ability to speak for their constituency.
The task force has provided advice to the government in respect of the government’s response to the commission’s report. The task force evidenced significant commitment to the process and I thank them for their work. The task force is now engaged with the government in its major task of developing a blueprint for youth justice. The blueprint will provide a strategic direction for the development of the youth justice system over the next five to 10 years.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video