Page 1373 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 28 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
higher rates of incarceration and have specific cultural needs. While we recognise that the ACT government has from time to time appointed an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander official visitor for corrections, it is based on policy, and there should be assurances that such an official visitor is always appointed. It may be the case that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander official visitor for children and young people could be the same person who is the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander official visitor for adult corrections.
Another of the key goals of the bill is to maximise the collective benefit from official visitors programs. By creating a collegiate model we believe each of the different categories of official visitors can provide a high level of peer support to each other. This is especially important for official visitors that have one or two people appointed to the role, or if their role is to be newly created like that of the official visitor for disability.
All of the current official visitors have expressed support for a collegiate model. However, they did express concerns about maintaining their autonomy if they were to be supported by the Office of the Public Advocate. Official visitors want to know they will still be in charge of their work, priority setting and budget. They do not want to take directions from another entity, including the Public Advocate’s office.
These concerns have been taken into consideration, and in response we have substantially changed the legislation. Where originally we intended to create a bill that inserted new sections into the Public Advocate Act, we now have created a bill that set outs stand-alone legislation for official visitors.
The bill presented today also establishes that the role of the Public Advocate is to provide support to the official visitors when the official visitor requests it. This is a different approach to that taken in other Australian jurisdictions, where official visitors generally sit within the public advocate’s office or ombudsman’s office and those offices have some form of direction over official visitors.
One aspect of the bill that we are proposing as an Australian first is that the official visitor for corrections sits with the other official visitors. In other Australian jurisdictions different models of combining official visitors are used. However, in all cases the official visitor for corrections sits separately from all other official visitors.
One argument that the government may raise in objection to official visitors being moved away from directorates is that the relationship between directorates and official visitors may change and that there would be a lessening of the relationship between the minister and the official visitor. I do question that argument and believe this bill actually strengthens that relationship particularly between the minister and the official visitor.
I would also put to the government that the appearance of independence is extremely important, particularly to the entitled people who can make complaints. We have heard reports that entitled people in some cases mistake official visitors to be government staff and can be hesitant to trust the complaint process or the official visitor. An appearance of independence is vital to a successful official visitor program.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video