Page 813 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 9 March 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
together with the deputy chief police officer. So we have a very senior group of people working together to improve coordination and our response to domestic violence prevention in our city.
Ms Lawder’s motion deals with the appointment of Mr Laurie Glanfield as the independent board of inquiry into systemic system-level responses to family violence in our city. The government appointed Mr Glanfield on 22 February this year. This is formally constituted under the Inquiries Act and will consider the effectiveness of interactions between government directorates, agencies and service providers in relation to the use of mandatory reporting as prescribed by legislation and the appropriateness of responses to those reports, the effectiveness of government directorates, agencies and service providers’ response to family violence, particularly where children are involved, and the extent to which ACT authorities are legally able to and do actually share and receive information on at-risk families internally and with other jurisdictions.
The government’s mandate to Mr Glanfield is very clear. He is tasked with reviewing the current legislative framework, policy, practices and the operations of ACT government directorates and service providers that respond to family violence. The review is required to inquire into and make recommendations in relation to systemic issues. Clearly, the circumstances involving the tragic death of Bradyn Dillon have been a spur to this review. But the review is not about looking at individual responsibilities in the Dillon case, as these will be considered in the course of the criminal proceedings that are now on foot, and any subsequent coronial inquiry.
But I want to be very clear to the Liberal Party and to Ms Lawder and others that the government is fully committed to making sure that people are able to have their say through this review process and that the outcomes of the review will be made public. Mr Glanfield is required to report to the Chief Minister by 22 April this year. That is a very prompt reporting time frame. I have met with Mr Glanfield and discussed his mandate with him. He has indicated to me that he is confident at this stage that he can meet that time frame.
When it comes to public submissions, the government has already said very clearly that if people wish to raise issues with Mr Glanfield that highlight issues around systemic matters—not individual case management but broader systemic matters—then they are welcome to do so, and Mr Glanfield is accepting submissions on that basis. Certainly, where representations are being made to me or to other ministers they are being referred to Mr Glanfield. Equally, people contacting the government saying, “How do we make submissions?” are being directed to Mr Glanfield. So there is a process that allows people to have their say.
Secondly, the government is committed to releasing the outcomes of Mr Glanfield’s review and any subsequent government response to it. I am reluctant though to agree to the time frame suggested by Ms Lawder because we simply do not know what Mr Glanfield is going to conclude yet or how comprehensive, wide ranging or time consuming considering those matters and responding to them will be. So the government will not agree to an arbitrary time frame suggested by Ms Lawder.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video