Page 1605 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 10 May 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
be a constructive assessment designed to lead to service improvement and preferably undertaken with the directorate’s full support. It should not be obstructed.
An external review could be tendered out, perhaps as a select tender. It could involve appointment of a reviewer nominated or appointed by CSD with the minister’s approval. But what is important is providing a clear scope for the project, timelines, and to guarantee access to information and other CSD supports to complete the review. If there are grounds to believe that the department would not support such a process, a systemic review, the minister could commission an independent review. But this is not addressing the need for review of individual cases. We already heard from Mrs Kikkert’s motion that the ACT is the only jurisdiction not to have a process of independent review.
Staff in this area are working in very difficult circumstances. That is exactly why an external review is necessary. The amendment put forward by the minister identifies quite clearly in paragraph 1(d) that the Glanfield inquiry specifically recommended that a review should be undertaken of what decisions made by CYPS should be subject to either internal or external merit review, that the review should have regard to the position in other jurisdictions and that it should be chaired by the Justice and Community Safety Directorate. The Glanfield inquiry has already identified that this is necessary.
Ms Stephen-Smith: That review is underway.
MS LAWDER: We find ourselves a year down the track—sorry, did you interject in some way?
Ms Stephen-Smith: That review is underway, as I said.
MS LAWDER: That is great but it is a year down the track and we still have not had substantive systemic changes identified. It has not come out, or has certainly not been brought to our attention, that the external review process is now in place.
The fear is—it is really hard to give voice to this fear—that another child or young person may lose their life while we are still waiting. That would be tragic for our entire community. What we saw in February last year gave shape to exactly how tragic that is and how the community responds to that. That is what prompted the Glanfield inquiry.
Mrs Dunne and Mrs Kikkert have already identified that this is not an instance where we can afford to keep waiting. We cannot afford to keep thinking about it and come back with progress reports. We need concrete action because this is about the future of our community right down to the very granular level of our families.
I commend Mrs Kikkert for bringing forward this motion today looking for independent review, external review, of decisions. I look forward to hearing more from the minister in the future about concrete steps that are being taken that will produce systemic change and very real change for individuals who are engaged with the system.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video