Page 2499 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 1 July 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
did increase staff, if we look at care and protection, from around 50 positions to 110. We know we have got some vacancies there that we are working very hard on filling, but the resourcing is there. We need to, of course, attract staff. Our rate of retaining staff is very good, but we do expect some turnover and, in fact, some real difficulties in recruiting to this area.
There are a number of other issues which we could probably go into in detail in a substantive debate. In relation to access to open hours, that is merely a statutory minimum entitlement which I expect will be exceeded. If you have had a look at Bimberi you will see that the opportunity for being out and about is much greater than it is at Quamby, just in terms of the open space and the variety of locations at which that can occur.
Mr Stefaniak, Mr Seselja and Mrs Dunne raised concerns on the lack of a statutory remissions scheme in the bill. This is, as I have said, the first child welfare legislation that has been subject to a human rights compatibility test. I guess the issue here is—and the view that the government has taken—that the decision on sentence and good behaviour periods is really a decision that the judicial officers should make, not the executive. It does not mean that it cannot happen, but it does mean that at the point of sentencing the judicial officer can say, for example, an 18-month sentence with six months on good behaviour which does mean that only 12 months is served within the youth detention facility.
For all practical purposes, it will continue and it will be there, but the government has taken the view and accepted the human rights compatibility assessment that it should be the judicial arm making these decisions, not the executive arm of government. And we stand by that. We will, of course, monitor it as we monitor all matters and particularly new legislation as it goes through.
I welcome the opposition’s support for Bimberi. I must say it was news to me that they were supporting it. I think the last time we discussed it in detail I was criticised for building some $40 million facility for 40 children. I think the media commentary at the time was $1 million per head, which we know is not the case. I sincerely welcome the opposition’s position on this—late but nonetheless welcome all the same. It is due to open in three months time so I do not think they had anywhere else to go other than to support it.
In conclusion, I would really like to thank a whole range of people who have worked on this legislation. It has taken four years. I think I have said before that I have had two children in the time that we have been consulting on and negotiating this legislation and that certainly crystallised in my mind how long it has been on the table.
From DHCS, I would like to acknowledge Sandra Lambert, Martin Hehir, Bronwen Overton-Clarke, Meredith Whitten, Tracy Chester, Angela Buchanan, Fiona McIntosh, Megan Mitchell, Frank Duggan, Paul Wyles, Neil Harwood, Jenny Kitchin, Lou Denley and Ingrid Cevallos; from JACS, Renee Leon, Stephen Goggs, Sarah Byrne, Sean Moysey, Anthony Williamson, Nicole Mayo, Jessica Gallagher; from PCO, John Clifford, Mary Toohey, Sandra Georges, Julie Field, Felicity Keech; and, last, with 20 seconds to go, from my office,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .