Page 5910 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 8 December 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I acknowledge absolutely that there are issues at Bimberi. Two weeks ago I went out to Bimberi and met with staff and young people, who were frank in their discussions with me about improvements and changes that they wanted to see. These meetings should be seen as a genuine effort to hear first hand the concerns of youth workers, teachers and young people at Bimberi in the absence of the centre’s management—during which I asked them to be frank and fearless and talk to me about their concerns. Those conversations have informed the work that my department has been doing and will continue to do; the work of Mr O’Neill is part of that.
If it is the will of the Assembly that an inquiry be held, we have to accept that. In fact, I will more than accept that, given the concerns raised today. I will welcome an inquiry in addition to the work that I have already initiated. Concerns have been raised. We here as an Assembly, responsible for our vulnerable young people, need to know what we need to do so that we can put in place systems and structures that afford them the security and benefit that they rightly deserve—and similarly for the staff there.
I will welcome an inquiry. But I do, at the outset, reject Mrs Dunne’s suggestion that we need a royal commission. Our preference is for an independent inquiry. It is my intention that the inquiry be absolutely and entirely independent, and will allow staff and stakeholders to have input into the inquiry with absolute confidence that they will not be victimised for anything they say or any of their input. I will make these two things explicit and absolute to whoever is appointed to undertake this work, and I will instruct DHCS to respect those undertakings.
Let me be very clear that an inquiry is welcomed. I will do absolutely whatever I can to make sure that the appointment is sound, that the terms of reference are sound, that anything that needs to be looked at and considered is included in the work and that anyone coming forward will be offered absolute security and confidence that they can come without fear of retribution or consequences from them coming forward. As I have said, we need to hear of the concerns for all those involved.
I am as interested as Ms Hunter to see that the concerns have been raised. Some very serious allegations have recently come to my attention. I want to see those addressed as seriously and as quickly as possible. In part, this is why Mr O’Neill will be on the ground, working with the team there, with the young people there and with the stakeholders that visit Bimberi. I do not believe that the equivalent of a royal commission will deliver timely outcomes as well. The benefit of having Mr O’Neill actually walk through a day at Bimberi will give us profound insight into some cultural practices that need to be reviewed, considered and changed.
On the matter of royal commissions, there have been only three previous inquiries under the Inquiries Act since self-government. The most recent one was almost a
decade ago and followed the deaths of three clients in government-run residential services for persons with a disability. As I said, that was 10 years ago. That inquiry lasted more than a year, and it took a further nine months before the ACT government presented its response to the recommendations of the inquiry. The three previous inquiries under this act have all lasted at least six months—at least a year once you factor in the government response to the recommendations. Such a process is complex, costly and lengthy. I do not think that it will deliver the outcomes that we want to see.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video