Page 439 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 18 February 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I have thought long and hard about this issue in recent days. I have read the articles in the Canberra Times. I listened to the minister’s statement very carefully yesterday as well as the many questions that were put in question time. I have also now seen the statement issued by Menslink this morning, which was provided to all members of the Assembly. Through all of that, I think there are three important areas to examine: the role of Menslink, the role of the schools involved and the role of Ms Burch.
When it comes to Menslink, clearly there has been an error made. Those matters are rightly addressed through Menslink’s internal governance procedures, as well as the external scrutiny provided by the Office of Regulatory Services. There is no doubt that this has caused considerable angst within Menslink. We have seen those comments reported in the Canberra Times. We have seen them reflected in Mr Battenally’s statement today. One can only imagine in an organisation, an NGO, the sort of turmoil and angst that this level of exposure has created.
We know that most people that work in NGOs go there because they are absolutely committed to why they are there. They usually work for less money than they can make in the private sector. They are there because they are passionate about it. You can imagine what it is like at Menslink at the moment, with people feeling all sorts of emotions: guilt, a sense of “We should have made a better decision”—all those kinds of things.
But those issues are for Menslink to deal with. Menslink have a governance structure, as an organisation, that they need to work through: whether their CEO made appropriate decisions, whether the board adequately oversaw those decisions. Those are questions for Menslink to sort out, and they have indicated in their statement that they are undertaking a critical review of policies and procedures, as they should.
People will have different views on that, but I think the general view—and I think this has been acknowledged—is that better decisions could have been taken, that Menslink need to reflect on how they interact with the working with vulnerable people program, because, clearly, in breaching the law their systems are not right. They have got work to do to ensure that they line up with the law as it is rolled out. That is for them to work to in their internal governance procedures.
Similarly, there is a level of external scrutiny for Menslink. I think this is one of the moments of absolute integrity in this entire discussion. Menslink went forward to the Office of Regulatory Services and self-reported the breach and were subsequently fined after an investigation by the Office of Regulatory Services. So there is a level of external scrutiny there that has been appropriately applied to Menslink.
I think I can honestly say that there are probably a lot of community organisations out there that are watching this process at the moment thinking, “There but for the grace goes my organisation.” I reckon a lot of community organisations in the last two weeks will have been pulling up their socks very quickly and reviewing their own application of the working with vulnerable people program, because it is new, it is complex, it is detailed and it requires new procedures that, frankly, probably most community organisations do not have and that they are having to put in place.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video