Page 2227 - Week 06 - Friday, 27 June 2008

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

MR BARR: In responding to that question, I would refer Dr Foskey to a study I believe Mr Corbell, when he was in the planning portfolio, commissioned in 2002. The public transport futures feasibility study, I am informed, is the title of that study. That might be worth reading. I understand that that report is publicly available.

I would draw Dr Foskey’s attention to the draft variation for Molonglo and north Weston. There is a very strong indication from the government, through that variation, of the importance of public transport provision, most particularly the need to ensure that our existing public transport system is able to integrate very effectively into the new Molonglo development.

I know, from numerous briefings by the Planning and Land Authority, most particularly the team working on the Molonglo project, public transport provision and its integration into the existing ACT public transport network have been at the forefront of their thinking in the development of the Molonglo variation.


MRS DUNNE: My question is to the Minister for Children and Young People. Minister, with regard to the Ainslie family that we referred to earlier, the Canberra Times states today:

In mid-November, the department was granted a six-month supervision order, which expired on May 15.

Could you explain to the Assembly the reasons behind the department’s decision not to seek an extension of the powers of supervision?

MS GALLAGHER: I am happy to answer that in a general sense around the processes involved. I should say that I have had lengthy discussions today with the case workers who are making the decisions around this. In a general sense, supervision orders are in place. When they expire, there needs to be a body of evidence that would support a continuation of court-ordered supervision or some sort of order in relation to protection of children. If those lapse or expire, and there is not a body of evidence that would support further court-ordered involvement, that is a reason why further orders do not come into effect. But that does not mean that care and protection finish their involvement with a family. In fact, that involvement can continue, does continue, and in this case did continue. The result of that may have been the building up of evidence that would have required further court-ordered care, but at that point in time that evidence was not available.

MR SPEAKER: Is there a supplementary question?

MRS DUNNE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Minister, in the case of this family in Ainslie, what monitoring occurred since 15 May? Can you expand on the nature of that monitoring?

MS GALLAGHER: I am getting a bit uncomfortable about how much detail of the information I can go into. With respect to the information that is already public

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