Page 814 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 9 March 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
What I will say is that it is the government’s absolute expectation that the report will be released and the government response will be released well ahead of the conclusion of the term of this Assembly. That is our commitment. But we do not agree to the arbitrary time frame suggested by Ms Lawder. On those two points about public submission and about release of the review and any government response, I think the government’s record is very clear, my commitments are very clear and I have put them on the record this morning.
I turn to the issue of the scope of the review. The terms of reference for Mr Glanfield outline that the review will be conducted in the context of the death of Bradyn Dillon, but it is not a review or an investigation into the specifics of that case. As I say, matters around individual personal or criminal responsibility are matters for the courts. Instead, the issues raised and highlighted by this case will be investigated at a system level across government agencies and service providers. These include systemic issues such as mandatory reporting, information sharing and the effectiveness of responses to family violence, particularly where children are involved.
They will necessarily involve consideration of the role of care and protection agencies and how they fit into the system response. It is very clear that that is the scope of the review. It is not meant to be a broader review of child protection services but about information sharing between those different agencies and coordination between those different agencies to keep children safe. The government does not see justification for broadening the scope as suggested by Ms Lawder’s motion.
Ms Lawder raises in her comments this morning questions about what has happened as a result of the recommendations put to the government by the Domestic Violence Prevention Council in its extraordinary meeting in April last year. The council reported to the government as a result of that extraordinary meeting last year. It recommended that the government consider allowing information sharing between agencies, government and non-government, with integrated responses and with appropriate safeguards, particularly where a risk assessment indicates it is important for the purposes of protecting the safety of the victim and their immediate family.
I can advise the Assembly that this key recommendation has already been incorporated into the second implementation plan of the ACT prevention of violence against women and children strategy. The implementation of these recommendations is being overseen by the Coordinator-General for Domestic and Family Violence. Practical work is being done to implement that recommendation.
The Justice and Community Safety Directorate has developed an information-sharing guideline to assist law enforcement agencies and other government agencies to identify and exercise their legislative duties and powers to share information. My directorate is currently working to finalise the guideline, notwithstanding the complex legal nature of that document.
In addition, the better services task force in the Community Services Directorate has developed an information-sharing protocol that is focused on improving the workforce practice in sharing the information on common clients between different
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video