Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2005 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 15 February 2005 2005) . . Page.. 392 ..
MR STANHOPE: It is the ACT government’s position that when the public housing tenants return to Pierces Creek—and that is the government’s strong desire—they should not only be able to move back into housing at Pierces Creek, they should also be able to own their houses. That is the position of every other public housing tenant and it is our intention in relation to those who would move again to Stromlo or Uriarra. But, because of the current position of the commonwealth, the residents who may return to Pierces Creek, particularly if only 13 houses were to be rebuilt—if that were to be the ultimate decision—would be the only public housing tenants in the ACT who would not have security of tenure.
That is one of the issues that we are still seeking to negotiate. A fundamental position that we are seeking to put to the commonwealth and the NCA, and one of the sticking points, is that the ACT government is determined that the residents of Pierces Creek not be disadvantaged in that way. We urge the commonwealth and the NCA not to leave public tenants at Pierces Creek in limbo.
MRS DUNNE: My question is to the Minister for Children, Youth and Family Support. On 23 June 2004, Mrs Burke asked you:
… given that it is now clear that section 162 (2) of the Children and Young People Act was not complied with, can you assure the Assembly that the 71—in total—delegations under the act—
That is the Children and Young People Act—
have been complied with by your department …
As far as I am aware, yes, I can. I have sought advice on that and have been advised that those obligations are being met.
Minister, the Community Advocate advised in her annual report that 70 per cent of reports under section 267 of the Children and Young People Act had not been received in her office within the statutory guidelines during the 2003-04 financial year. Did you mislead the Assembly on 23 June 2004?
MS GALLAGHER: On reviewing Hansard, Mrs Dunne might find the question was asked on 24 June, so, no, I did not mislead the Assembly on 23 June. The answer to the question was given on 24 June, and the answer was correct. I had sought advice from the department about meeting statutory obligations under the act and I had been given advice that current statutory obligations were being met. So, my answer at that time was entirely correct.
I do like to talk about section 267, though, because I do not think people have an understanding of exactly what goes into a 267 report. A 267 report is an annual report that is made about a child or young person in the care of the territory. It is a history report, essentially, of the previous 12 months. It falls due within 31 days of the