Page 46 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 13 February 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
of devices. That will free up their time to spend with the children doing what they do best, giving our children the best education possible.
Health—ministerial priorities
MS LAWDER: My question is to the Minister for Health and Wellbeing. Minister, I refer to an article in the Canberra Times on 2 January this year in which you said:
… as minister I don’t need to know everything that’s happening. That is why there are seven and a half thousand people working in health. I see my role as providing clear priorities for health …
Minister, how can you set clear priorities for health when you are unaware of the key issues in your portfolio?
MS FITZHARRIS: I am aware of the key priorities in my portfolio.
MS LAWDER: Minister, why have you not known about key issues in your portfolio including data, poor levels of maintenance, waiting times in the emergency department and flammable cladding?
MS FITZHARRIS: I have known about all those issues and I have responded with urgency to them.
MRS DUNNE: Minister, has your lack of knowledge of your portfolio resulted in wrong priorities being set in health?
MS FITZHARRIS: Absolutely not.
Alexander Maconochie Centre—mail policy
MRS JONES: My question is to the Minister for Corrections. Minister, on 5 February 2018, ABC news online revealed that a convicted paedophile sent a letter from the Alexander Maconochie Centre to one of his victims. The report stated, and I quote “The family asked the government how he was able to send it from prison as they believed they were on a no-contact list.” Minister, why and how was a convicted paedophile allowed to send a letter from the AMC to his victim?
MR RATTENBURY: Yes, I was disappointed to read that report as well. I am sorry for the family for what happened there. I have written back to them this week. My advice is that they were not on a no-contact list. That has now been remedied. They are now on a no-contact list. That was, of course, for written postage. What I can inform the Assembly is that for email, it is a positive vetting process in the sense that you cannot send emails to particular addresses until it has been approved. So this was exclusively an issue with written postage.
The process for getting on the no-contact list actually requires people to opt in. In this case the family had not done that. I think this has raised some important questions about how people opt in. At the moment, shortly after the completion of the court
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video