Page 394 - Week 01 - Thursday, 16 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In one sense, though, I did almost opt for prescription in this case. Prescription is what is needed for this minister in this government, who are followers rather than leaders. Bare-bones legislated policy has in the past been insufficient for them to be able to deliver the outcomes that are needed for those who are most vulnerable in our community. So we will have to watch this minister like a hawk, for she is yet to demonstrate to this place and to the people of the ACT that she is capable of turning policy into the delivery of outcomes.
I and my colleagues have chosen this path of the government’s bill over the Greens’ bill because we believe that in government it provides us, the Canberra Liberals, with the best means of ensuring that this important policy initiative is put into practice. So we are opting for the government’s proposal. But we do not have high hopes for this minister.
When I took briefings on these two bills the government proudly talked about the processes it follows, the publications it produces and the forms it develops. That is what this government is about: it is about outputs. It is all about processes, publications and forms. It is not about outcomes that our community are looking for. Outcomes are what make a difference for our community. A child in foster care would have preferred an outcome that delivered a Medicare card in something less than eight months. Another child would have preferred an outcome that allowed him to go to school near where he lives instead of on the other side of the city. He would have preferred an outcome that provided certainty and not a protracted process of negotiation across two directorates that resolved the issue just in the nick of time, just before school resumed after the summer holidays.
A group of distressed children would have preferred an outcome that enabled them to live in clean accommodation with beds, heating, electricity and hot water. A grandparent who took custody of her grandson would have preferred an outcome that included nappies, food, clothing, a bassinet and a car capsule when her infant grandchild was handed to her at an airport. A family having to deal with an endless line of caseworkers would have preferred an outcome that gave them one point of contact. And a young 16-year-old girl in kinship care but under the care and protection program would prefer an outcome in which she and her carer are made aware that she is eligible for the development of a transition from care program, so that she and her carer can ensure that she has access to all that she needs to make the most of her schooling and make a contribution after her schooling.
These are but a few examples. The last of those was a young girl that I met two days after I was briefed by the minister’s department, when they told me: “Mrs Dunne, this is all happening. We do this anyhow.” So I met this girl and we talked about her circumstances and at the end of the conversation I said: “You are in college, you are 16, you are doing well at school. Have you had a conversation with the care and protection services about your transition when you finish school, when you turn 18?” The answer was no and her carer said to me: “But she is on final orders. I do not think we are entitled to a transition plan.” I assured her that she was and she said that she would follow this up—because the carer and this young girl want to make every post a winner. They want good outcomes and they are not getting it from the department.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video