Page 952 - Week 03 - Thursday, 30 March 2006

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

(3) The change in financier occurred after the contract (that is, the Project Agreement and Deed of Grant) was signed. However, 2 points are important in that regard.

First, following on from my answer to the previous question, the change in financier became a new requirement upon SCA because the Territory was not prepared to enter into an arrangement with ANZ that imposed unacceptable conditions on the Territory.

Secondly, the Project Agreement and Deed of Grant provided that SCA had to commit all of its funds (including those financed) until there was only the Territory’s grant of $10 million remaining to be expended to complete the project.

(4) The ACT Government at no time believed that SCA had not met its request for tender or contract requirements.

Quamby Youth Centre
(Question No 906)

Dr Foskey asked the Minister for Children, Youth and Family Support, upon notice, on 15 February 2006:

(1) At what stage is the review of Quamby’s (a) operations, (b) guidelines and (c) standing orders;

(2) When are all of Quamby’s (a) operations, (b) guidelines and (c) standing orders expected to be compliant with the (i) ACT Human Rights Act and (ii) Children and Young People Act;

(3) Is the ACT Government attempting to make Quamby compliant also with the (a) United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child, (b) United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty and (c) United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice;

(4) What legal advice has the Minister commissioned to test if Quamby is compliant with those documents listed in parts (2) and (3);

(5) What specific programs does the ACT Government provide to the residents at Quamby in order to meet the supportive and rehabilitative obligations the Government has to them;

(6) What is the range of offences that has led to the confinement of juveniles to Quamby in the second quarter of 2005-06 on (a) remand and (b) under control orders;

(7) Can the Minister assure the Assembly that, while she has been Minister, each case of juvenile detention at Quamby was (a) the measure of last resort and (b) for the minimum possible time;

(8) Given the ACT Government parental responsibilities for Quamby residents, what action does the Government take to assess the appropriateness of continued detention in each case;

(9) How does the Government meet its obligation to advise residents or take action on their behalf to redress detention orders that do not meet the test of last resort and minimum possible time;

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .