*Estimates - QON No. E18-61 O LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FOR THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES 2018-2019 Mr Andrew Wall MLA {Chair), Ms Tara Cheyne MLA (Deputy Chair), Ms Caroline Le Couteur MLA, Ms Elizabeth Lee MLA, Ms Suzanne Orr MLA

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE

Elizabeth Kikkert: To ask the Minister for Multicultural Affairs

Ref: CSD, Output class 2.3 Inclusion and Participation; BP3, pp. 97, 99; Budget Statements G, pp. 11-12, 17-18

In relation to: Citizenship, Participation and Cohesion - 2016-17 Actions and Outcomes from the ACT Multicultural Framework 2015-2020

1. What are the names of all the community sports engagement programs that target newly arrived communities? a. Which of these programs have a particular emphasis on women and youth? b. What measures will be taken to promote these programs? 2. How are multicultural community leaders in the ACT encouraged to disseminate information about general programs, services and community events to their respective members?

Ms Stephen-Smith: The answer to the Member's question is as follows:-

1. The Community Services Directorate {CSD) does not administer community sports engagement programs but does fund the Multicultural Youth Service (MYS) to deliver a range of youth engagement programs, including sports, as well as several grant programs that support newly arrived communities to run sports engagement events.

CSD through the Child, Youth and Family Support program and the Office for Multicultural Affairs funds MYS to deliver: • A weekly after school sports program during school term at Kingsford Smith School, Harrison School and Namadgi School targeting migrant and refugee students and is open to their friends and other students. Sports involved are mostly indoor soccer and basketball and both boys and girls attend; • Weekly dance classes at Kingsford Smith School; • An annual Learn to Swim course for recently arrived refugee boys and girls which concludes with a trip to the beach; • Annual community sporting events including Harmony Day football, Refugee Week football and an End-of-Year football knock tournament; and • The annual National Caneball Championships with over 30 teams from every State/Territory and overseas teams participating.

MYS also sponsors community sporting events including Karen, South Sudanese and Sierra Leone sports events by providing trained referees, trophies and catering. Approved Signature:

By

2.

the

The

tennis,

groups Association Cultural community Community

continue Canberra

introductory/junior multicultural

Many

newly Recreation

websites,

and

community

Multicultural

Minister

a.

b.

for

CSD

disseminate

ACT

arrived

youth

Tanzania, to Supported As

All

Advisory Incorporated e 200

organisation program

Power's Royal programs Individual

circulation

basketball,

received

School

annual

Newsletters

for

to

celebrate

Punjabi

well

the

CSD

community

youth

Grants

groups

ACT

meetings

be

Support

Multicultural

Life

sports

community

community

Multicultural

communities

as

grant

supported,

"Girls

Inc

for

Councils Participation

funding

Inc

Burundi, Saving's given information

the

deliverers

and

Sports

programs

to

.

football

Program

to

ACT

children

from

received and programs

Additionally

programs

and

the

(Youth

MYS

including

on

and

their

promote

sporting

their

Youth

games

for

and

Select

Bike"

and

Infrastructure

groups

the

leaders

Partnership

forums.

sports Affairs, Rwanda

across

and

families

e

within

a

and

with sports

of

Group)

established

funding Cultural

News, CALD

Committees

about

(Multicultural)

range

like

Week. are

program,

the

newly

cultural

cricket. Committee

organisations day

various

are

the

engagement,

a

are

numerous

Minister

Aussie

promoted

their

and

fortnightly

particular engagement:

.

community,

from

of

programs,

social received

This

encouraged

Republic

for encouraged

Association;

arrived

with

The

additional

South

Grants diversity

core

program

and

Night

a

inter-generational

the

Hoops

and

media

East

sports

ACT

Rachel

on

sports

Grant

specific

programs,

on funding

East families.

emphasis

participate

have

of

E-News,

Estimates

community Hoops

CSD

services

program

African

Playgroups

are

or

the

South

and

Celebration

to

targeted

platforms

partners,

engagement

to

African

Stephen-Smith

and

Program

Mini strong

which

provides

the

apply.

CSD

use

reach

social

to

(basketball),

the

social

Community

Sudan-Australia

on

and

primary

whether

specifical

Roos.

host

.

a

website

2018-2019

Community

have

representation

programs range

women

ACT

information

to

often

to In

harmony

and

community sports

provides

$25,000

media

an

of

2017-18

the

support

Through

program

Tongan

recently

African

face

means

East

of

this

a

as

l

target

Date:

y

Football

engagement

and

representative

Association

mechanisms

targeting

platforms,

well

.

to

have

African

to

be

$260,000

New

(Kenya,

a

several

youth

sessions.

Language face

of

Australians

Community

the

events

through

community

included

water

competitions

audience.

as

of

been,

promoting

\°f

and

United

in

Sport

through

people

Community

youth.

include

a

Uganda,

\ community

safety

Ministerial

including

emerging

of

to

range ,

saw

and

to

the

table

and

Page

and

the

and

) share

ACT

from

groups

over

CSD

\

Pedal

ACT

of

or

f

2

Inc

of

.

;

2

In

Elizabeth

Ref:

relation

4

3.

1.

5. 2.

CSD,

.

The

What

What What assist

will What Grants)' calendar diverse

each

nursing

Output

Kikkert:

to:

11-12,

Multicultural

the

a

b

ACT

.

year

.

them

training

is

programs cultural,

capitalising

backgrounds?

program

homes What d.

a.

the c.

How b.

in

Multicultural

and

class

for

To

17-18

its

with

current

many

ask

directory

the

2015-16

are

and

SELECT

2.3

Mr

M

religious

LEGISLATIVE

F

to

for

if multicultural can

in

If is how

are

s

OR

Framework

basic

operate?

the

past

Andrew

the

on

the calendar

the Elizabeth

be

the

Inclusion

operation?

mechanisms

Honorary

its

developmental

available

community

the

more

T

is

Minister

selection

calendar

on

ANSWER

Framework

3

delay workplace

COMMITTEE

H

the calendar

that

action

and

years?

E

line

benefits

Wall

Lee

culturally

AUSTR

and

incorporates

linguistic

in

2015-2020

multicultural

Ambassadors

specifically

plan?

plan

MLA

for

MLA,

operation

will

is

criteria

are

members

Participation;

TO

not

training

of

Multicultural

2015-2020

.

(Ch

be

implemented to

status

A

Ms

ON

cultural

being

QUESTION

responsive

available,

LI

events

a

made

Suzanne

ir),

for

ESTIMATES

AN

for

, the

and

Ms

view

of

CV

calendar

promoted

an

will

youth

available

diversity.:....

CA

the

have

promotion

Tara

when

drafting

Honorary

committed

BP3,

Orr

Affairs

are

be

it

towards

PIT

A

'Honorary

ON

the

Cheyne

been

appointed?

MLA

from

there

pp.

currently

S

should

2018-2019

encourage

A

to

calendar?

NOTICE

in

and

SEMBL

L

97,

Objective

the

Ambassador?

supported

culturally

the

of

older

T

still

MLA

to

interview

99;

ERRITOR

the

the community

Ambassador'

ACT

future,

'create

plans

in

(Deputy

Budget

people

Participation

retirement

full

Multicultural

*Estimates

Three

diverse

by

to

operation,

what

an

coaching?

Chair),

the

create

Y

Statements

from

Y

on

from

program

are

line ACT

backgrounds

villages

expect

culturally

M

(Multicultural

an

the

-

the

community?

multicultural

s

Government

and

QON

Caroline

on

reasons

ACT

to

G,

and

line

where

and

see

pp.

No.

how

to

Le

it

E18-612

Couteur

MLA

, Ms

Stephen-Smith:

1.

2.

3.

The

to year

A

Community The The (Multicultural) Multicultural

The In

deliver

workplace http://www n

learning Multicultural

support options

People

complete

the

multicultural

stage

a c. d.

b.

• • • •

ACT

Community

MES

MES

.

including

past

services

from

•

•

•

Job

for

Individual

Preparation

Employee

through

events.

Government

and

program

program

culture

three

flexible

The The The the through

Yes, The

platforms. E list $1,000 with

Mother International

Mother . Mother Service Multicultural interview

communityservices.act

CALO

practice

Festival.

Employment

newsletter

Diwali,

Grants

of

to

digitalised

Office Office

digitalised

answer

Services

there

grants

For the

years,

CIT.

grants

assistance

also

provides young

rights and

backgrounds

to

and

Directorate's

Tongue Tongue Tongue

of

Ministerial Councils

example

Mother

CIT

in

Ramadan,

supports

skills;

assist for

are

for for

customer

job

provides

funding

on

a

to

program

and

recipients

which

provides

Directorate

people

to

Festival. Mother

range

Multicultural Multicultural

still

line

Multicultural

Service

the

applications,

Multicultural

Workplace

and

with

Multilingual Multilingual communities Multilingual

Tongue

responsibilities. with

in

plans

learning.

Member's

a

will

has

of

are

a 2017-18

International

from

service

range

the

website

Language

'Job

job

accessible

(MES)

skills

for

incorporate

.

been

also

to

gov

Annual

funds

Multilingual

searches;

culturally

Club'

the

make

Culture

of

Affairs Affairs

CIT .

including:

CVs

E

: and au/multicultura

able

E

and

Poetry

Poetry Poetry

program.

provided

questions

to

cultural,

at:

newsletter

newsletter

past

Multicultural

offers

Movement

three

and

support

Language

vocational

employee

an

Committees,

to

Mother

is

is

and

three

an Showcase

received received online

access diverse

resumes;

working wo

Poetry

apprenticeships

afternoons

communication

religious

through

online

Communication

are

r

king

the

and

years

and

Language

Walk;

multicultural

training and

rights

(IMLM)

as

education

backgrounds,

l

Showcase;

/programs/grants/participatio

Youth

ACT

funding

funding

to to

calendar

multicultural

calendar

follows:-

at

print

can

the

and

incorporate digitalise

the

and

multicultural

and

per

Services

received

be

Participation

media

linguistic

Day

2018

of of

week

responsibilities.

and

found

and in

available

will

training

employment

$1,440

$500

calendar

and

the

the

including

National

and

training,

certificate

calendar

be

which

(MYS)

funding

and

workplace;

the

on

to

events

Multicultural

promoted

community

social

to

to

the support

in

to

National

Page

available.

assist

provides:

to

2019.

provide

the

make

with

.

each

of

media

level

2

of

the

3 Signature: Approved

By

the

4

5.

Minister

.

for

Vocational training The training focus foundational The

The of Certificate The seeker their diverse care the If

In

an Health

Framework.

a

December

student

circulation

Honorary

young

Honorary

Commonwealth

establishment

Framework

Multicultural

providers

for

facilities

on

Aged support,

background

through

provided

Multicultural

providing

person

support

I

Pathways.

in

Care

Ambassador.

skills

2017,

Ambassador

to

to

Access

in

migrant

provides

the

to diplomas,

meet

the

Advisory from

in

Diversity

courses,

of

practical

services,

the

aged

in

Select

Government

ACT

the

to

Affairs,

the

ACT

CALO

Office

Vocational

supports

.

guidance

Honorary care

needs This

Program,

Council,

aged

Committee

Framework

including

skills

including

background

bachelor

Minister for

facilities.

will

care

of

Veterans

and

and

is

to

be

Ambassador

as

the Pathways

responsible

including

Certificate

facilities.

aged

experience.

career

study

captured part

Rachel

on

degrees through

people from

is

Estimates

and of

care

a

support.

advice,

student

its

and

Stephen-Smith

the

Seniors

and

its

facilities in

I

for

work

Program

in

CIT

Certificate

selection

the

networks,

skills

aged

graduate

a

2018-2019

international

also of

plan,

culturally

2019

circulated

CIT

to

for

care

is

provide

embed

will

yet

criteria

reporting they

Vocational

II

which

Date:

certificates,

facilities,

in

to

discuss

and

have

Skills

the

student

be

a

good

and

include

number

linguistically

progressed.

Department

against

2

access

for

how

including

Pathways,

how

:I

practice

with

Work

support,

/

many

to

of

to

-,

Page

to

the

a

progress

appoint

a

and

}

strong

into

aged

range

of I

3

job

8'

of

3 *Estimates - QON No. E18-613 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FOR THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES 2018-2019 Mr Andrew Wall MLA (Chair), Ms Tara Cheyne MLA (Deputy Chair), Ms Caroline Le Couteur MLA, Ms Elizabeth Lee MLA, Ms Suzanne Orr MLA

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE

Elizabeth Kikkert: To ask the Minister for Multicultural Affairs

Ref: CSD, Output class 2.3 Inclusion and Participation; BP3, pp. 97, 99; Budget Statements G, pp. 11-12, 17-18

In relation to: the Participation (Multicultural) Grants Program applications for 2018-19

1. What are the selection criteria for successful applicants to the grant program? 2. Do grant applications ever receive funding that is less than the requested amount? 3. Under what circumstances will an application be rejected? 4. Why was the radio program 'Australian Muslim Voice' unsuccessful in their grant application? a. Why was 'Australian Muslim Voice' successful in their 2017-18 grant application?

Ms Stephen-Smith: The answer to the Member's question is as follows:-

1. The guidelines for the 2018-19 Participation (Multicultural) Grant Program are currently being reviewed and will be available in the near future.

2. Yes, grant applicants may receive less funding than the amount requested in their application. This is made clear in the guidelines and applicants are asked to indicate if the project can only proceed if they receive the full amount of funding sought.

3. An application may be rejected for a number of reasons:

• non-compliance with eligibility requirements outlined in the program guidelines; • overdue reporting obligations for previous grants round or other CSD programs; • does not meet the aim of the program; • limited information provided about the projects; • not addressing the assessment criteria; and • applications that are suitable but are not ranked highly enough to be accommodated with the available funding. 4

Approved Signature .

By

The

Australian $126,173.40

applications.

a. application (Multicultural)

best

Broadcasters Purpose;

the

and

organisations

(Multicultural) In

Eid

Minister assessment

meet

2017-18

:

for

al-Fitr

Inclusion

Exclusions;

i

ng

Muslim

circulation

did

with

for

category).

the

Festival

Grant

Australia

not

panel

Multicultural

aims

Initiatives

$41,890 as

Voice

Grant

demonstrate

possible

and

Program

to

at

assessed

and

Total

Muslim

the

was EPIC

Alignment

Program,

available.

criteria

category.

Select

unsuccessful

benefited

funding

under

Affairs,

(in

all

Voice

alignment

the

applications

of

the

Committee

w

the

Funding

the

Community

In

i Minister

requested

th

received

panel

from

assessing

Multicultural

Funding

grant

in

with

its grant

sought

the

was

Rachel

on

program.

against

grant

grant

for

grant

Priorities.

Radio

appl provided

Estimates

the

to

Community

application

funding

Stephen-Smith

i

funding

cations

funding

the

ensure

Stations

radio

four

to

Australian

2018

of events

broadcasting

for

that

.

priorities

criteria

$1,000

and

Participation,

in -

the

2019

as

the

Multicultural

and

Date:

2017-18

many

Muslim

:

2017-18

towards

as Eligibility;

initiatives

strongly

grant

local

')s::>

Social

Voice's

Participation

Participation

the

multicultural round

/

Funding

Community

1

as

assessed

Harmony

Page

\

other

\

was

2

of

as

2 In

Elizabeth

Ms Ref:

relation

Stephen-Smith:

4

3.

1.

2

1.

CSD,

.

.

The

Services The

Strait Standards

about

What Children Quality Quality

child

{ACT} are In

Directorate?

How

Practitioner, Management How is

Each It

Reportable

Practitioner.

Output

Kikkert:

also

managed

what

to

11-12,

regulated

a.

2018-19

2017-18

:

many

many

safe

regulated

-Act

Islander

is

Human

both

provided

Assurance Assurance

the complete ways

reasons

If

each

and

class

there

services

.

To

17-18

Those

incidents

incidents

2013;

government

Conduct.

through

The

who

ACT

Legislation

Budget

Young

ask

is

year services

by

Policy

children

SELECT

Ms

2.3

Mr

LEGISLATIVE

FOR

sector

stronger

were

funding

for

answer

the

the

Budget

for

feedback Andrew

will Elizabeth

.

Inclusion

and and

for

Providers

the

People

(CHaMP}.

the

provided

and

and

Human

THE

Care

Minister

complaints

work

process

ANSWER

is

the

delivery

COMMITTEE

Improvement Improvement

and

non-referral?

for to

was

required

internal

and

oversight

complaints

complaints

provided

Wall

and

last

Lee

the

Act

AUSTRALIAN

young

with

on

stronger

and

Services

introduced

non-government

are

MLA

for

for

ongoing

MLA,

10

the

Protection

Member's

and

2008,

Participation;

providers

TO

Community

required

that

years?

to

Disability,

investigating

people

quality

of

(Chair)

for

investigation

Ms

ON

demonstrate and

QUESTION

have oversight

have

Committee Committee?

and

human

Registrar

were

funding

Suzanne

funding

ESTIMATES

on

,

Community

question

involved

and

Ms

of

to

been

been

to

7

not

Children

the

CAPITAL

services

comply

Services

Tara June

reduce

Disability

BP3,

service

for

of

under

Orr

incidents

for

referred

made

referred

ASSEMBLY

Community

of

ON and

human

Cheyne

the

2018

the

MLA

with

is

pp

complains

2018-2019

with

and

and

as

a

NOTICE

delivery

the

Housing

Directorate

.

Child

providers?

about

maintain

establishment

97, 99; 97,

review

follows:- Child

specifically

to

to

to

and

TERRITORY

services

MLA

eliminate

Youth

Disability

other

provide

the

the

and

Child

Services

complex

and

(Deputy

being

Providers

of

Budget

committee,

Child

compliance

Youth

legislation,

*Estimates

Aboriginal

delivery.

Youth

Complaints

and

powers

Services

restrictive

include

undertaken

and

of

Directorate's

Chair),

Statements

complaints

Protection

Youth

an

National

Protection

Youth

Service

to

ACT

what

the

including

Act

with

and

Ms

Protection

-

the

Handling

pract

QON

provision

Caroline

Senior

1991,

Protection

Torres

within

specific

are

and

Law Senior

made

G,

providers

.

services

i

ces

the

pp.

No.

.

and

the

Le

of

E18-614

Couteur

MLA, 12-13 16-17 13-14 17 14-15 15-16

2.

-

18

Assurance

Committee Better Strait Budget Better More

Better More

Protection

The

education

The

incidents Investigation

The

Engagement did (CYPS)

• • • • • •

•

Jul

11

not

8

6 2 • 8 6 3 6 6 3 2 6 9 6 9 3 9 6 9 8 3 4 5 2 4 5 •

• Focus

steps

following

support support

Complaint Islander Assessment

Information Discussion

Findings Possible

Depending

support support Government-

Measure

complaints

record

Disability 98/current/pdf/1991

Children

Community 19/current/pdf/2008-19.pdf http://www.

and

Aug

are

of

14

services.

is

4 9

6

for for

children

on

investigation

when

Improvement when

and

directions

investigated of and

table

complaints

families

families

received

with education

internal

on

Sept

and

of

gathering

Client

Services

recommendations

11 13 10 11

it

it

unit

Stronger

the

information

provides

and

Housing

matters

matters

complainant

legislation

Young

and and

legislation, regarding

for

Services

young

CSD

Oct

14

16

Committee

for 7 6 5 3

and

Act under

data

inclusion inclusion

oversight

action

-

-

People

Providers

complaints

the

Children

Office

-

both

98.pdf

1991:

people

guidance

.act.gov.a

on

gathered,

Nov

team,

the

number

15

11

CYPS

6 6 6 7

re:

under

review

a

internal

of

Act

-

-

of

central http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1991-

relevant

involved Child

matters

Review

and

Senior

human

National

each formerly

2008:

Dec

for

is

relevant

u/a/2013-18/

Young

4 4

3

5 7 7 5 7 6 7 6 5 6

of

options

and

policies

described

and

Practitioner providers

database. complaints

of

month

with

for

services

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/2008-

legislation

Youth

Aboriginal

People

ext

Jan

Law

the

3 8 8 8 9 3 4 5 2

investigation

legislation

Child

are

and

_

ernal

since

Protection

Child

(ACT)

in

delivery

of

available.

Death

cu

procedures

and

CHaMP.

Feb

recorded

13 10

14

guided

disability, and complaints

rre

July

and

-Act

Youth

nt/pdf

Torres Review

(external):

2012.

Youth

Quality

Mar

12

11

by

External

2013

8 7 6 8 8

by

/2013-18.

care

the

Prior

are

the

Protection

Apr

principles

10

and

2017-18

9 as

Budget

Community

complaints

to

follows:

•

•

this

protection,

pdf

May

12

23

Services

date,

of

Page

2018-19

Budget

CHaMP.

and

CYPS

Jun

•

•

•

23

2

3

1

and

of

3

Total

120

134

85 69 71

73 Approved Signature:

By

3.

the

The

from

complaints

and complaints

December

Responding

Minister

for

Quality,

Improvement

this

circulation

for

period

2016

to

review

to

Complaints

Disability, Children Disability,

the

complaints

and

forward.

to

Quality

.

Committee's

It

June

the

was

and

Select

Of

and

established

2018.

is

not

the

Regulation

Complaints

Committee

Terms

and

a

complaints

part

Youth,

in

of

of

(QCR)

this

Reference

the

Team

on

above,

Minister

current

Child

Estimates

branch

in

QCR

and

15

or

iteration

Rachel

is

were

role.

Youth for

an

2018

further

internal

escalated

Stephen-Smith

-

in

Protection

2019

December

Date:

review,

escalation

as

Quality

complex

between

2016

point

and

Assurance

Page

for

data

3

CSD

of

is

3 *Estimates - QON No. E18-615 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FOR THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES 2018-2019 Mr Andrew Wall MLA (Chair), Ms Tara Cheyne MLA (Deputy Chair), Ms Caroline Le Couteur MLA, Ms Elizabeth Lee MLA, Ms Suzanne Orr MLA

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE

Elizabeth Kikkert: To ask the Minister for Multicultural Affairs

Ref: CSD, Output class 2.3 Inclusion and Participation; BP3, pp. 97, 99; Budget Statements G, pp. 11-12, 17-18

In relation to: Relationship manager visits to funded services

1. Which services have been assigned visits from a Relationship Manager during the year 2017-18? 2. How often does a Relationship Manager visit each of these services? 3. To whom does a Relationship Manager report to for subsequent discussion and review of these visits? a. Which services no longer require a visit (as anticipated by the 2018-19 target) owing to being transferred from Service Funding Agreement to Deeds of Grant?

Ms Stephen-Smith: The answer to the Member's question is as follows:-

1. During the 2017-18 financial year a total of 36 organisations were visited, including:

1) Australian Capital Territory Council of Social Service Inc; 2) ACT Playgroups Association Inc; 3) Anglicare NSW South NSW West and ACT; 4) Barnardos Australia; 5) Belconnen Community Service Inc; 6) Canberra Police and Community Youth Club; 7) Canberra Rape Crisis Centre; 8) Care Inc; 9) Companion House; 10) Conflict Resolution Service; 11) Domestic Violence Crisis Service; 12) Everyman Australia; 13) Families ACT; 14) Girl Guides Association; 15) Gugan Gulwan Youth Aboriginal Corporation; 16) Lighthouse Business Innovation Centre; 2 3

.

.

The

year.

are ensuring outcomes productive available

possible has Relationship Relationship 3a.

arranged

22} 33} 23} 28} 34} 24} 30} 29} 20} 35} 25} 31} 26} 21} 36} 32} 17} 27} an 18} 19}

arrangement

2014.

Looking

role

For

idea

The Valley The Tuggeranong Volunteering Society Tuggeranong

Youth

Woden Queanbeyan YWCA Majura Manuka Menslink; Relationships Migrant Rotary Northside 4} UnitingCare Prisoners

5} 1) 7} 2) 3} 8) 9)

10) 6} 11) 12)

outcomes of

compliance

example,

as

Organisations

of

working

a

to

Awards

ACT

Community appropriate Community

Girl

Prisoners Lifeline Lone Trustee Majura Families National Smith Noah's

forward

Managers

Managers

service

Relationship

as

Coalition

discuss

Canberra; FM

Club

Women's

of

Community

needed,

Guides

and

Playgroups Occasional

Fathers

in

Aid;

St

Community Broadcasters;

Family;

for if

Ark

Women's

Canberra;

relationship

ACT

line of

ofthe

Kippax;

visits

Vincent

ACT;

to

an Refugee

Association

with

Multilingual

and

Community

Link

Australia

Aid;

with

our

Canberra;

aim

are

2018-19,

Association; Resource

of

organisation

Services

with

Radio

to

include:

Incorporated;

which

and

Association;

Group;

Contact

Manager

as

contracting

of

the

community.

Salvation

the

visit

supported

to

Service;

Child

Association;

Community

needed

de

the

Settlement

Group;

visit

ACT

2XX;

Service;

Relationship

can

Canberra

the

Paul;

is

#1;

a

for

intent

Centre;

Care

Centre;

Arts

ACT;

fostered

.

total

an

result

is

service.

.

Army

Prevention

requires

to

organisation

arrangements

by

Association;

Association;

of

of

provide

their Houses and

Services

in

the

Property

17

.

The

Manager,

multiple

Region;

services

additional

red

respective

of

productive

support

and

of

tape

Child

once

Trust;

the

with

service

Centre;

the

are

reduction

Abuse

support,

ACT;

per

to

Executive

the

funded

team

an

working

year.

visits

aim

organisation

and

will

is

initiative

by

of

However

over

Neglect

Directors running

make

relationship

delivering

a

recurrent

the

themselves

implemented

course

service

ACT

to

an

to

ensure

event, the

discuss

Inc;

grant

assists

Page

of

best

visits

the

or

a

2

the

in

of

in

3 Approved Signature:

By

the

Minister

for

circulation

14) 15) 16) 13) 17)

for

Tuggeranong Scout Valley

Youth

Warehouse

Community

to

Association

Coalition

FM

the

Broadcasters

Circus;

Select

Services

Link

of

of

of

the

Committee

and

Australia;

Community

and

ACT.

;

Social

\

on

Inclusion,

Houses

Estimates

and

Minister

2018-2019

Centre;

Rachel

Date

:

Stephen-Smith

Page

3

of

3

pilot pilot

ln ln

Ms Ms

In In

Ref: Ref:

Elizabeth Elizabeth

relation relation

relation relation

Stephen-Smith

2. 2.

1. 1.

2. 2.

1. 1.

Community Community

for for

evaluation evaluation

The The

Broader Broader

different different

families

the the

Islander Islander

Family Family

In In

the-home the-home

differ differ

Up, Up,

arise arise In In

currently currently

are are

protection protection

successful successful introduce introduce

principles principles

children children

Early Early

family family

Kikkert: Kikkert:

the the

the the

to: to:

to: to:

pilot pilot

Budget Budget

ongoing ongoing

the the

b. b.

a. a.

Functional Functional

described described

out out

data data

The The

from from

2018-19 2018-19

The The

hearings hearings

Group Group

group group

. .

experts experts

The The

families

What What

Indigenous Indigenous

program program

access access

children children

for for

This This

remaining remaining

Services, Services,

models models

of of

focussed focussed

family family

: :

newly newly

behind behind

support

To To

from from

newly newly

undertaken

way way

Paper Paper

system? system?

the the

family family

The The

care care

functional functional

delivery delivery

is is

conferencing conferencing

Conferences Conferences

ask ask

other other

by by

SELECT SELECT

Family Family

budget, budget,

Ms Ms

Mr Mr

to to

one one

to to

LEGISLATIVE LEGISLATIVE

FOR FOR

in in

the the

, ,

of of

the the

answer answer

announced announced

of of

and and

group group

and and

in in

to to

announced announced

Marymead Marymead

3, 3,

the the

this this

recognition recognition

it it

engage engage

Andrew Andrew

'. '.

Children Children

Elizabeth Elizabeth

their their

group group

on on

functional functional

all all

support support

families. families.

in in

proposed proposed

sound sound

all all

pp. pp.

family family

On On

in

of of

protection protection

by by

TH

Minister Minister

the the

-

Therapy-

program program

Aboriginal Aboriginal

aspects aspects

. .

ANSWER ANSWER

families families

the-home the-home

family family

COMMITTEE COMMITTEE

the the

the the

conferencing conferencing

Family Family

95-97, 95-97,

own own

to to

whom? whom?

conferencing conferencing

E E

Wall Wall

with with

home. home.

like like

group group

will will

the the

ACT ACT

Lee Lee

and and

surface

AU

which which

What What

functional functional

situation, situation,

in in

functional functional

therapy therapy

of of

by by

family family

of of

for for

they they

MLA MLA

Group Group

MLA, MLA,

Member's Member's

remain remain

families, families,

99-100; 99-100;

in in

STR

their their

will will

Youth, Youth,

Government Government

matters

the the

Child Child

Marymead? Marymead?

the the

In In

and and

TO TO

conferencing conferencing

support support

the the

Disability, Disability,

target target

plans plans

, ,

(Chair), (Chair),

the the

be be

could could

this this

Ms Ms

A

overrepresentation overrepresentation

ON ON

budget budget

therapy therapy

chi

QUESTION QUESTION

to to

ACT ACT

Torres Torres

Conferencing. Conferencing.

LIAN LIAN

pilot

Welfa

conside

focused focused

Output Output

are are

family family

Suzanne Suzanne

hearings, hearings,

family family

Budget Budget

all all

to to

l

sounds sounds

. .

d d

ESTIMATES ESTIMATES

have have

different different

What What

solve solve

question question

programs programs

who who

protection protection

Ms Ms

, ,

experts experts

let let

families families

like like

r

Children Children

submission

Strait Strait

committed committed

e e

program program

C

Tara Tara

fam

therapy therapy

been been

r

therapy therapy

Class Class

(FFT

could could

on on

APITAL APITAL

pilot pilot

ed ed

Statements Statements

many many

Orr Orr

plans plans

family family

similar similar

ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY

Ms Ms

ON ON

i

as as

Aboriginal Aboriginal

Cheyne Cheyne

lies lies

Islander Islander

families. families.

in in

-

is is

who who

MLA MLA

discussed discussed

CW) CW)

are are

At At

3.3 3.3

appear appear

2018-2019 2018-2019

Pappas Pappas

further further

benefit benefit

their their

as as

and and

system, system,

have have

of of

NOTICE NOTICE

make make

was was

pilot pilot

group group

this this

pilot pilot

to to

. .

Child Child

currently currently

follows:-

come come

the the

of of

$1.44m $1.44m

and and

How How

TERRITORY TERRITORY

MLA MLA

Youth Youth

the the

own own

been been

families, families,

described described

time time

Aboriginal Aboriginal

G, G,

and and

FFT

positive, positive,

and and

most most

their their

called called

data data

from from

and and

the the

conferencing, conferencing,

and and

or or

including including

home-based home-based

does does

(Deputy (Deputy

into into

pp

-

children'. children'.

CW CW

the the

the the

prior

discussed discussed

made made

funding funding

. .

PAIRup PAIRup

Torres Torres

*Estimates *Estimates

being being

own own

is is

Youth Youth

common common

19-20 19-20

it? it?

contact contact

this this

the the

available available

specifically specifically

continuation continuation

yet yet

continuation continuation

with with

i

a a

ty ty

and and

Chair)

decisions. decisions.

to to

'family 'family

OzChild OzChild

'a 'a

out out

offered offered

its its

for for

Strait Strait

Protection Protection

proposal proposal

over over

This This

introduce introduce

particularly particularly

18 18

Torres Torres

or or

success success

with with

prog

complaints complaints

targets targets

of of

, ,

allocation allocation

Ms Ms

out out

and and

made made

-

pilot pilot

home home

four four

Islander Islander

based based

targets targets

QON QON

to to

program program

r

the the

Caroline Caroline

am, am,

of of

Families Families

Strait Strait

of of

of of

are are

Canberra Canberra

and and

years years

is is

Services; Services;

21 21

to to

this this

the the

child child

the the

care. care.

Pair Pair

..

No

very very

of of

. .

that that

the the

in­

Le Le

for for

. .

E18-616 E18-616

Couteur Couteur MLA, MLA, Signature:

Approved

By

the

A

The

to The

support

a.

b. while

of

being

Families

Minister

Step

home

parents

for

jurisdictions

The

The

The

families Strategy

will specific or work

and service.

managers

and model in intensively includes

preservation up Karinya

provides In

Uniting Family

PAIRup

PAIRup

decreasing

removed.

the

regard

drug

circulation

Up

to

be

FFT-CW Intensive

reducing Family

Uniting

and

with

for

care

with

12-18

for

family's

with

in

evaluated

Based

Children

and

needs,

House

is

proposal

whose

Disability,

counselling

in

introduced

in

the

to

Our

children

system

more

link

families

with

home

Preservation

home

young

Children

alcohol

families

FFT-CW

will

months.

on

ACT

and

intensive

the

Program

to

kids.

Family

families

home

offers

and

babies

the

akin

the

commence

the

and

and by

over

and

support

work

is

support

and

children

Children

in

supports

applicability focused

programs

family

Marymead

a

to

Select

improves

known

to

using

Based

and

Families

their

The

both

to

the

-

number

might

young

with

and

representation

negativity

toward

parents,

early

support

Program

Families.

Children

Directorate

programs.

for

a

the

own

for

Family

Committee

{0-4

Program

and

other

to

on

in

residential

parents

be

intervention

people

.

up

offers

family

up

the

the

of

Homebuilders

family

supporting

homes,

years).

has

at

Youth,

as

of

to

a

family

and

to

offers

locally

Preservation

second

risk

child

and

child

well

models

three

an

15-20

in

These

is

to

aged

dynamics,

(

restoration

will

dysfunctional

of

of

home

a

early

on

Families

Minister

and

as

or

connect

or

protection

preservation

flexible

safety

these

based

coming

months

continue

programs

face

Estimates

half at

birth

hours

young

Aboriginal

of

programs

outreach

intervention

an

support

model.

support

of

to

families

focused

services.

Program.

communication

to program

alternative

support

Rachel

with

. per

2018.

into

person

face

for

Children

17

system,

to

patterns

and

2018-2019

week.

Children

families and

education,

are

based

programs

years,

and

out

for

consider

outreach,

This

in

Stephen

preservation

supports

in

tailors

being

delivered

vulnerable

Children

focus

of reunification

statutory

Torres

the

and

the

home-like

first

suppo

at

home

of

Date:

involved

and

family

risk

evidence

A

returned

and

Families

behaviour.

-

including

support

and

Smith

introduction

mental

mentoring

Strait

Step

available

r

Families

and

care.

of

t

by

services.

is

supportiveness

program

families

service

entering

home

to

environment,

Up

Karinya

Families

with

Islander

services

to

ACT's

health Karinya

provide

from

home

the

for

each

staff

under

their

and

to

delivered

The

in

Page

Our

Intensive

of for

other

case

House

the

sustain

after

services

the

can

families

that

work

support

the

family's

House

phone

pilot

Kids

out

2

ACT.

for

of

2 *Estimates - QON No. E18-617 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FOR THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES 2018-2019 Mr Andrew Wall MLA (Chair), Ms Tara Cheyne MLA (Deputy Chair), Ms Caroline Le Couteur MLA, Ms Elizabeth Lee MLA, Ms Suzanne Orr MLA

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE

Elizabeth Kikkert: To ask the Minister for Disability, Children and Youth

Ref: Community Services, Children and Youth, Output Class 3.3 Child and Youth Protection Services; Budget Paper 3, pp. 95-97, 99-100; Budget Statements G, pp. 19-20

In relation to: The handling of complaints and appeals with regards to care and protection decisions

1. It has come to our attention that when carers are told that a care and protection placement decision is not subject to further internal review, they are told that they may direct 'any concerns regarding [the] decision ... to ... the Children and Young People Commissioner'. In hearings, however, Ms Griffiths-Cook said, 'I am unsure, I guess, why the recommendation has been made for referral to us because there is very little we can do for family members' who have concerns about care and placement decisions. She did acknowledge that her office does take a 'significant number of enquiries, particularly from parents and often grandparents, in response to care and protection actions'. If the Children and Young People Commissioner is not legislatively tasked to handle these complaints, where are parents/carers told they can take their concerns to her office? 2. In the hearings, Ms Pappas noted that, in relation to residence decisions and contact provisions, those with concerns have the opportunity 'to make an application [to the Children's Court] to amend an order and to seek a contact provision', and she further stated that 'there is no cost associated'. This option of making an application to the Children's Court for an amendment makes no appearance in the Glanfield Inquiry, which instead notes the financial obstacle of securing 'judicial review' (p. 76). Can you please clarify specifically which CYPS decisions (including decisions of the director-general) can be appealed to the Children's Court, without cost, who can make such an appeal, and the exact process that needs to be followed? a. To our knowledge, letters of decision provided to parents/carers do not include notification of this opportunity to appeal a decision by application to the Children's Court but rather suggest that concerns may be raised with the Children and Young People Commissioner and that legal advice may be sought. Why is this option not made explicit in such letters? b. Where would a parent/carer with concerns currently go to learn the details of this option? c. In relation to making application for amendment to the Children's Court, Ms Pappas in the hearing said, 'It does not happen that often . It is not a pathway that people will pick or choose to use'. What specific obstacles cause this pathway to be rarely used? Is lack of awareness one of those obstacles? 3. Are there CYPS decisions that can only be contested in the Supreme Court, as noted in the Glanfield Inquiry (p. 76)? a. If so, has the CSD ever requested that their court costs in such a situation be reimbursed by a complainant? 4. Under what circumstances are reasons for a decision in regards to a placement or as part of a care plan of a child or young person provided to their parents and carers?

Ms Stephen-Smith: The answer to the Member's question is as follows:- 1. Children, Youth and Families (CYF) receive requests from the Public Advocate and the Children and Young People Commissioner (CYPC) for information regarding concerns that have been raised about Child and Youth Protection Services' (CYPS) services, conduct and decision making. The CYPCinvestigates the matter and provides findings and recommendations to CYF for consideration. For specific information about the powers, process and purpose of the CYPC, please contact the Human Rights Commission or view information about their services at http://hrc.act.gov.au/.

In addition to providing contact details for the CYPC, CYF also provides contact details for the Public Advocate as an alternative for pursuing concerns regarding CYPS.The Public Advocate may request information regarding child protection matters and has authority under the Children and Young People Act 2008 to make an application to amend a care and protection order or seek an initial care and protection order. Section 704 of the CYP Act states that if the Public Advocate makes an application to the Court under the care and protection chapters, the Court must grant the Public Advocate leave to join the proceeding as a party.

In recognition of the need to improve information available to foster and kinship carers, CYPS has partnered with ACT Together to develop a comprehensive Carer Handbook. The purpose of the handbook is to provide a single source of useful information about the important role of carers in supporting children and young people in care. Content has been informed through direct consultation with foster and kinship carers, as well as carer advocacy groups and children and young people.

2. Any party impacted by a decision of the Director-General, or her delegates, may make an application to the Children's Court to amend, extend or revoke a Care and Protection Order. The grounds and criteria for such applications are outlined in the Children and Young People Act 2008. There are no costs associated with lodging an application with the Children's Court.

a. CYPS does not provide legal advice to families regarding taking legal action. The advice provided to families who are dissatisfied with a decision made by CYPSis to seek advocacy and/ or professional legal advice regarding their options for legal recourse.

b. Advice regarding legal recourse should be sought from a legal professional. Birth families and carers can also seek support and advocacy from the Australian Red Cross Birth Family Advocacy Support Service, for birth families or Carers ACT, for carers.

c. It is difficult to answer a question regarding the reasons families opt to not pursue a review avenue as this data is not collected. The majority of CYPSfamilies have access

Page 2 of 4 to legal advice and legal representation during care proceedings and it is expected that their solicitor will provide appropriate legal advice regarding interactions with CYPS.

3. As per page 76 of the Glanfield Review, any decision made under an enactment can be reviewed in the Supreme Court under the Administrative Decisions Judicial Review Act 1989 (ADJR Act). This includes decisions made under the Children and Young People Act 2008 (CYP Act) which meet the requirements of the ADJR Act. The CYP Act does not specifically provide that there are a unique set of decisions which can only be contested in the Supreme Court. The ADJR Act provides a general right to individuals to seek review of any administrative decisions made under ACT law (with a few stated exceptions).

For further information as to the circumstances in which an application under the ADJR Act might be made, please refer to sections 5, 6 and 7 of the ADJR Act which set out the grounds upon which an application may be made. The CYP Act also specifically provides a right of review of certain decisions by the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (please see section 839B of the CYP Act) without the need to commence proceedings in the Supreme Court.

CYPSprovides an information sheet to all clients, which includes children and young people, parents, families and carers, which outlines the type of decisions made by Child and Youth Protection Services (CYPS)that are subject to review and how to commence the review process. This information sheet is provided in accordance with section 839A of the CYP Act and is titled 'About Reviewable Decisions'. This document can be found on the website www.communityservices.act.gov.au . a. There is no historical data in relation to previous applications of this nature. In light of this, CYF is not in a position to state if this has ever occurred.

4. All changes to a Care Plan must be completed as per s457 of the Children and Young People's Act 2008 with all necessary consultation undertaken before the plan is decided and finalised.

The Child and Youth Protection Services Practice Standards launched in August 2017 note the Community Services Directorate's commitment to transparent practice and ensuring timely and effective communication surrounding decision making.

CYPSis committed to providing client focused services, and ensuring that client rights and responsibilities are upheld. Everyone involved has a right to an explanation of decisions made by CYPSand to ask for a review of the decision should they wish.

CYPSstaff consider appropriate supports for carers and family members involved in any placement change and ensure that their views are recorded Carers, parents, and other relevant stakeholders are invited to become members of declared care teams. Care teams are used to discuss issues and make shared decisions in regards to children and young people. Information is able to be shared freely in care teams, and includes understanding why and how decisions are made. These meetings are also used.to check the progress of plans over time, to ensure they are meeting the current and future needs of the child or young person.

Page 3 of 4 Signature: Approved

By

the

The

collaboratively

(i.e.

Minister

for

'Working

all

circulation

services

for

Disability,

Together

and

involved

to

actively

the

Children

for

Select

with

Kids'

engage

the

Committee

and

publication

child

in

Youth,

consultation

or

young

on

Minister

also

Estimates

person)

addresses

with

Rachel

not

2018-2019

but

the

Stephen-Smith

only

also

Directorate's

the

'all

established

relevant

need

people'.

Care

Page

to

work

Team

4

of

4 *Estimates - QON No. E18-618 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FOR THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

SELECTCOMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES 2018-2019 Mr Andrew Wall MLA (Chair), Ms Tara Cheyne MLA (Deputy Chair), Ms Caroline Le Couteur MLA, Ms Elizabeth Lee MLA, Ms Suzanne Orr MLA

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE

Elizabeth Kikkert: To ask the Minister for Disability, Children and Youth

Ref: Community Services, Children and Youth, Output Class 3.3 Child and Youth Protection Services; Budget Paper 3, pp. 95-97, 99-100; Budget Statements G, pp. 19-20

In relation to: Adoption and permanency

1. Budget Statements G {p. 20) indicates that the 2017-18 target for number of permanency placements was 25, with only 10 as the estimated outcome. How many of these estimated outcomes are predicted to be enduring parental responsibility {EPR), and how are predicted to be adoption? a. Of those estimated to be adoptions, how many are intercountry, and how many are domestic? b. Of domestic adoptions, how many are local, and how many are known? 2. How many applications for permanency placements are currently awaiting finalisation in the ACT? a. How many of these are EPR, and how many are adoptions? b. Of those that are adoptions, how many are intercountry, and how many are domestic? c. Of domestic adoptions, how many are local, and how many are known? 3. Some Australian jurisdictions are discussing shifting responsibility for adoption finalisation from the Magistrates Court to the Children's Court. What discussions on this matter have occurred within the Community Services Directorate?

Ms Stephen-Smith: The answer to the Member's question is as follows:-

1. As of 30 June 2018, the number of permanency placements is 16. Of these, nine are an Enduring Parental Responsibility Order and seven are Adoptions.1 a. There were five domestic adoptions finalised in 2017-18 and two intercountry adoptions finalised in 2017-18. b. There is zero local adoptions and five known adoptions finalised in 2017-18.

1 It should be noted that adoptions are counted in the State or Territory that the child resides, not the State or Territory that the Child Protection Order was made in. There were 6 children referred to other States for adoption in 2017-18. Approved Signature:

By

2.

3.

the

As The

being

underway

Minister

at

for

c. a.

b.

ACT

1

progressed.

circulation

July

Of

stages

Of currently permanency

'known', lntercountry

Supreme

for

in

the

the

2018,

regards

Disability,

36, of

permanency

that

permanency

12

36

to

Court

18

intercountry

the

permanency

to order,

adoptions

of

is,

Children

changing

these

has

they

Select

EPR

assessments

jurisdiction

are

are

assessment

Committee

are

or

and

the

children

adoptions

placements

for

adoption,

not

Youth,

legal

an

counted

of

EPR.

referred

in

jurisdiction

and

adoptions

on

Minister

being

out

has

The

for

Estimates

a

in

of

decision

yet

children

to

remaining

progressed

the

home

in

to

Rachel

in

for

response

response

be

the

2018-2019

care. on

decision

in

determined.

ACT.

Stephen-Smith

18

out

the

.

are

to

of

to

most

There

Date:

making

question

home

2a,

currently

appropriate

all

are

care

of

in

tC,

no

2.

these

the

in

f

discussions

are

There

the

l

ACT.

Page

currently

\

are

type

initial

'

are

g-

2

of

of

2 *Estimates - QON No. E18-619 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FOR THE A USTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES 2018-2019 Mr Andrew Wall MLA (Chair), Ms Tara Cheyne MLA (Deputy Chair), Ms Caroline Le Couteur MLA, Ms Elizabeth Lee MLA, Ms Suzanne Orr MLA

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE

Elizabeth Kikkert: To ask the Minister for Disability, Children and Youth

Ref: Community Services, Children and Youth, Output Class 3.3 Child and Youth Protection Services; Budget Paper 3, pp. 95-97, 99-100; Budget Statements G, pp . 19-20

In relation to: Parent/carer concerns with a CYPScaseworker

'Working Together for Kids' notes that disliking a caseworker is, by itself, not sufficient grounds to request a new caseworker. If a birth parent were to lose a child whilst that child was in the oversight of a certain caseworker, would that history alone be sufficient grounds to request a new caseworker for any other of the parent's children in care?

Ms Stephen-Smith: The answer to the Member's question is as follows:-

lt is recommended that family members who are experiencing challenges with their case worker, or any other aspect of their engagement with Child and Youth Protection Services (CYPS), contact an advocacy service such as the Red Cross Birth Family Advocacy Support Service. This service has been engaged as part of A Step Up for Our Kids to assist families to manage their relationship with CYPSas effectively as possible.

Guide 4 of the 'Working Together for Kids' booklets identifies that where there is information that a case worker has engaged in unprofessional, unethical or ill-informed conduct then it is appropriate for a complaint to be lodged. That complaint would be thoroughly investigated in the context of all available information.

Approved for circulation to the Select Committee on Estimates 2018-2019

Signature: Date: I "'2 l 7 ' \ Y

By the Minister for Disability, Children and Youth, Minister Rachel Stephen-Smith *Estimates - QON No. E18-620 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FOR THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES 2018-2019 Mr Andrew Wall MLA (Chair), Ms Tara Cheyne MLA (Deputy Chair), Ms Caroline Le Couteur MLA, Ms Elizabeth Lee MLA, Ms Suzanne Orr MLA

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE

Elizabeth Kikkert: To ask the Minister for Disability, Children and Youth

Ref: Community Services, Children and Youth, Output Class 3.3 Child and Youth Protection Services; Budget Paper 3, pp. 95-97, 99-100; Budget Statements G, pp . 19-20

In relation to: ACT Government-funded support for grandparent carers:

1. We understand that funding for the Marymead-sponsored Grandparents Group, which supports Canberrans caring for grandchildren, has been dramatically cut, and these grandparents have been told to find their support through ACT Together. a. In addition to carers with children subject to ACT Care and Protection Orders, does ACT Together provide support to grandparents with children under Family Court Orders or in informal family arrangements? b. If no, where exactly can such grandparent carers go to find the support that is available to other carers through ACT Together?

Ms Stephen-Smith: The answer to the Member's question is as follows:-

Marymead continues to receive a grant to deliver a support program and information group for grandparents who are preparing to be, or who are the primary carer for their grandchild/ren aged Oto 18 years. This funding will enable the Marymead Grandparent Group to continue to meet and foster social connections.

a. Under A Step Up for Our Kids, the ACT Government's five-year out of home care reform strategy, ACT Together provides support to foster and kinship carers, including grandparents caring for children on short and long-term Care and Protection Orders.

b. It is not the case that members of Marymead's Grandparents Group have been advised solely to seek support from ACT Together. They have been provided with information about a range of supports that are available to formal and informal carers of children in the ACT. This includes Carers ACT, which is funded by both the Australian and ACT governments to provide a wide range of supports to carers of all kinds, including grandparent carers providing informal care to children.

Other organisations also provide case management services and supports within the Canberra community, including the Child and Family Centres in Gungahlin, Tuggeranong and West Belconnen, which offer a range of group programs and one-on-one support. Signature:

Approved

By

the

The

impact

action carers

Minister

for

ACT

in

plan

circulation

they

Government,

for

the

under

make

Canberra

Disability, Children Disability,

to

the

in

the

people's

ACT

in

community,

Select

partnership

Carers

lives

Committee

and

Strategy

and

including

Youth,

with

the

Carers

2018-2028.

on

broader

Minister

grandparents,

Estimates

ACT,

community.

Rachel

This

is

currently

2018-2019

Strategy

acknowledging

Stephen-Smith

Date:

developing

will

better

the

the

support

positive

Page

first

2

of

2 *Estimates - QON No. E18-621 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FOR THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES 2018-2019 Mr Andrew Wall MLA (Chair), Ms Tara Cheyne MLA (Deputy Chair), Ms Caroline Le Couteur MLA, Ms Elizabeth Lee MLA, Ms Suzanne Orr MLA

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE

Elizabeth Kikkert: To ask the Minister for Disability, Children and Youth

Ref: Community Services, Children and Youth, Output Class 3.3 Child and Youth Protection Services; Budget Paper 3, pp. 95-97, 99-100; Budget Statements G, pp. 19-20

In relation to: operational lockdowns at Bimberi Youth Justice Centre

1. The occurrence of operational lockdowns at Bimberi Youth Justice Centre keeps increasing, from 4 in the second half of 2016 to 30 in the first half of 2017 to 95 in the second half of 2017, with another 61 occurring in just the first 15 weeks of this year. a. No extra funding for staff has been included in this year's budget. What steps is the government taking to make sure that lack of staff is not resulting in frequent lockdowns? b. When do you predict that the number of lockdowns will start decreasing? c. How many operational lockdowns occurred at Bimberi during the period January­ June 2018?

Ms Stephen-Smith: The answer to the Member1 s question is as follows:-

la. During 2017-18, significant recruitment was undertaken with 31 new youth workers recruited to Bimberi Youth Justice Centre. Seven new youth workers commenced their induction in September 2017, 12 commenced their induction in March 2018 and further 12 commenced their induction in May 2018.

Since 14 May 2018, when new youth workers became operational, there has been one, one hour operational lockdown at Bimberi.

lb. Refer to question l(a).

le. A total of 84 operational lockdowns occurred for the period 1 January 2018 to 30 June 2018.

Approved for circulation to the Select Committee on Estimates 2018-2019

Signature: I Date:

By the Minister for Disability, Children and Youth, Minister Rachel Stephen-Smith *Estimates - QON No. E 18-622 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FOR THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES 2018-2019 Mr Andrew Wall MLA (Chair), Ms Tara Cheyne MLA (Deputy Chair), Ms Caroline Le Couteur MLA, Ms Elizabeth Lee MLA, Ms Suzanne Orr MLA

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE

Elizabeth Kikkert: To ask the Minister for Disability, Children and Youth

Ref: Community Services, Children and Youth, Output Class 3.3 Child and Youth Protection Services; Budget Paper 3, pp. 95-97, 99-100; Budget Statements G, pp. 19-20 '---- In relation to: the Blueprint for Youth Justice Taskforce

1. The Community Services Directorate established a task force in 2017 to review the Blueprint.for Youth Justice and to set directions for the next five years of the strategy. What is the current status of the taskforce? a. Has a review been undertaken of the previous 5 years and what were the results of the review? b. What directions have been set by the task force for the next five years of the strategy? c. What concerns or issues were raised by the taskforce in relation to the strategy? 2. The development of the Blueprint was informed by a number of professionals and community leaders, including specialists in child and adolescent psychology. a. Did any child and adolescent psychology specialists participate at the workshop on 3 May? b. If not, why were they not included as part of the workshop in reviewing the Blueprint, or in previous workshops? 3. Was there any discussion in the workshop on addressing the specific risk factor of Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASO) and youth in contact with the justice system? a. If so, what was the nature of the discussion, and what are the next steps to be taken on this issue? b. If not, when will the issue of FASO and youth justice be discussed and a plan implemented to address the associated risks? 4. The Community Services Directorate will commission a discussion paper on interventions for young people in early adolescence at risk of offending behaviour. What is the current status of the discussion paper, and when will it be published?

Ms Stephen-Smith: The answer to the Member's question is as follows:-

1. The Blueprint for Youth Justice Taskforce (the Taskforce) was established in August 2017 to monitor progress, identify emerging issues and establish the direction for the next five years of the Blueprint for Youth Justice in the ACT 2012-22 (the Blueprint). The Taskforce met on seven occasions in 2017-18. The Taskforce developed the mid-term progress report on the Blueprint, which was tabled in the ACT Legislative Assembly in March 2018.

In May and July 2018 the Taskforce participated in two half-day workshops on key themes to assist the development of advice to the Minister for Disability, Children and Youth on focus areas for future work under the Blueprint. 2.

a.

b. Communiques

http c. he

a.

b.

act

Organisations Youth Commission, : Community Community fields Taskforce government Youth Children Taskforce's Development

Community leaders determining community, During

Panel,

progress

The

youth the The ce the Torres Some The stage http the on criminal enhancing support progress Children focus detention

It

pages //www

is

pages

in

ACT

number

next

anticipated

Taskforce :

mid-term Taskforce

//www

of

of

Justice areas Coalition,

of

justice

a

the 31

2011-12,

Strait

.

communityserv time-limited

child

Legislative the

and

offending,

the

stage

report.

and

report

41 to

has

and released

act

work,

Safety

Services

for

.

41

as

of

with the

Blueprint.

and

themes communityservices

Young the

Islander

Youth

Implementation system

and

Directorate.

been represented

.

progress

has

has

implementing of

young

well

and

future

that

and

Woden

as

future

Community

42.

the

different

in

adolescent

identified

identified

Directorate,

the

for

Assembly

established supporting

by

are

as

and People

in

response

the

Directorate,

the

identified

panel

has

young Blueprint.

people

work. 2018

specialists

the

young

These

strategic

focus

being

report

i

Community

ces

representatives

summary

Taskforce

significantly

Taskforce

Co-chairs

at

areas

comprising Commissioner

.

on

act.gov

people,

key

a

Services

of

coming

stronger

the themes

psychology,

in

considered

people

to

Taskforce

on

number

young

to focus

and

with

the

These

March

.

direction

the

themes

act

of

in

led 3

the

date

can

will

May

.

expertise

disability,

Chief

.

Blueprint,

au/ocyfs/you

Jodie

Services,

gov

preventing

emerging a

can

the

areas

with

into

were

declined

Blueprint

people

Directorate,

range

are throughcare

be

experts

include

provide

2018 of

.

2018

sought from

au/ocyfs/youth/the

workshop.

be to

by

Minister,

found

emerging

contact

among of

Griffiths-Cook,

disability

and

identified

for

identified

explore

accessed

.

the

the

of

in Overall,

as

Education workshop

are

the

within

the

Mark

challenges

over

improving

with

advice

representatives

has

early

advice

intergenerational

at:

appropriate

Taskforce

Blueprint

t

many

providing

Aboriginal

with,

h/the

next

Aboriginal

Treasury

been practices

and/or in the

challenges

experience

Collis,

in

the

adolescence

at:

in

the

setting to

from

the

five

other

or

previous

the

were:

Directorate,

the

blueprint completed existing

ACT

outcomes

progress

identified

was

escalating

as

mid-term Deputy

mental

expertise years

mid-term

and

a

for

and

Minister

in

it

Legal

areas.

priorities

blueprint

Public

Youth

the

being

to

develops

youth

from

and

the

Economic

Torres five

strategic

of

be

transmission

at

ACT

Director-General,

report

health

Services,

for

qualifications

in for

next

the

Advocate

and

Justice

The

addressed

through, risk developed, Justice

community progress

years.

and

for justice.

progress

the

Human

for

Aboriginal

youth

Strait

for

Blueprint.

advice

was

of

stage current

Disability;

found

concerns

input

mid-term

framework.

the

offending,

The

Advisory

and youth

PCYC,

Page

tabled

Islander

the

report

and

next

justice

Rights

of

report

of

over to on

full

that

the

and

in ACT

and

the 2

in justi

of

in

the

on

in

3

t Approved Signature:

By

3

4.

the

.

justice

The

The a. explored for on: b

areas papers

Minister

.

young

for

justice The preventing The the

Government

sector or assessments 10

Taskforce

issue

for

FASD.

July system

circulation

will

youth

3 issue

for

by

the

of

May

people

for

sector

2018,

be

the

enhancing

The

Disability,

Blueprint.

of

justice

a

made is

was

2018

the

greater

Taskforce

Foetal currently

and

Disability

issue

in

in

responds

to

identified

intergenerational

conjunction

early

Taskforce

publicly the

system

screening

of

Alcohol

support

Children

understanding

Select

disability

adolescence

considering

in

Justice

to

the

was

available

in

young

workshop

Spectrum

Committee

tools the

for

with

and

mid-term

raised

Strategy

was

young

Terms

Youth,

people

transmission

were

discussion

and

in at

of

discussed

at

2018,

risk

did

Disorder disability

people

of

.

the

providing all progress

on

Minister

with

not

Reference

of

raised

Estimates

10

as

offending.

on

focus

with

disability, July

in

part

, of

(FASD)

the

increased

report.

more

in

feedback

Rachel

criminal

2018

disability

of

specifically relation

development

for

2018-2019

the

and

detail

It

the

workshop.

including

Stephen-Smith

is

Taskforce's

offending

staff

young

on

anticipated

Taskforce

to

in

at

two Date:

improving

on

contact

Taskforce

training,

people

of

FASD

the

draft

The

the

and

advice

and

issue

l-"1

with

. that

need

research

ACT

disability

interventions

in

how

workshop

further

/

contact of

these

the

on

7

across

Page

the

disability

focus

\ \

youth

papers

youth

l'

3

with

the

on

of

3 Ms

In 1.

Ref:

Elizabeth

Signature:

Approved

By

relation

Stephen

with

cannot

Part

protection

her

the

Community

frustration

a. a.

b

Minister

b

16.4

Bimberi

.

Kikkert:

.

to:

Budget

for

include

-

for

Some People

Act?

commencement

protection policy Why

restrictive I

be

Royal

No

See

Smith

have

of

The

circulation

established?

place

young funding

the

Services,

(a)

for

does

being

Commission

elements

To

:

direction

provision

asked

Paper

Act that

detainees.)

previous.

The

Children

in

Disability,

ask

people

the

practices.

SELECT

Mr

Ms

2008,

LEGISLATIVE

FOR

provisions

the

the

has

she

answer

CSD

3,

the

Andrew

Elizabeth to Children

ACT

ACT.

only

.

pp.

been

had

of

of

This

the

of

and THE

.

do Minister

and

ANSWER

therapeutic

COMMITTEE

into therapeutic

not

Children 95-97,

the

other to

no

Yet

not

Select

This

work

allotted

Young

Wall

the

of

Lee

the currently

and

A

Senior

such

Institutional

in

the

align

USTRALI

work

ACT

for

MLA

option.

MLA,

December

will

99-100;

Member's

Committee

Youth,

People

Act and

place

TO

in

Disability,

with

Human

Practitioner

also

(Chair),

protection,

will

protections

Ms

this

to

ON

have

QUESTION

Youth

(And

Output to

the current

align

Suzanne

commence

consider

Budget

Act

ESTIMATES

Responses

A

budget

which

last

question

a

Ms

Rights

N

,

on

by

outlines

therapeutic

Minister

Children

with

CA

Tara

year,

Class

Estimates

definition,

Bi/12018

as

Statements Orr

places

she

for

PIT

ASSEMBLY

recent

Commission

ON

envisaged

best

Cheyne

best

in MLA

is

Canberra's

to

such

could

3.3

the

2018-2019

A

Rachel

and

as

2018-19.

NOTICE

Child

in

practice,

T L

Child

recommendations

practise

for

follows:-

protection

establishment

the

2018

a

MLA

a

Youth

send

space.

E

therapeutic

G,

reducing

Sexual

in

Stephen

ACT

RRITORY

and

to

-

(Deputy

pp

the

2019

chief

an

current

in

review

.

*Estimates

When

Youth

Date:

19-20

11-year

Children

trauma

Abuse

place

magistrate

-

and

Smith

Chair),

of

protection

knowledge

the

can

Protection

eliminating

as

and

a

-

~

informed

made

old

and

therapeutic

therapeutic

described

we

M

-

the

s

offender,

I

QON

expressed

Caroline

expect

Young

7

by

proposed

\

place

Services;

and

the

I

support

No

f'

in

it

Le

the

.

to

E18-623

Couteur

MLA, *Estimates - QON No. E18-624 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FOR THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITOR Y

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES 2018-2019 Mr Andrew Wall MLA (Chair), Ms Tara Cheyne MLA (Deputy Chair), Ms Caroline Le Couteur MLA, Ms Elizabeth Lee MLA, Ms Suzanne Orr MLA

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE

Elizabeth Kikkert: To ask the Minister for Disability, Children and Youth

Ref: Community Services, Children and Youth, Output Class 3.3 Child and Youth Protection Services; Budget Paper 3, pp. 95-97, 99-100; Budget Statements G, pp. 19-20

In relation to: Youth recidivism

1. The Minister for Corrections stated in the chamber on 25 October 2017 that 'ACT Corrective Services is working with Child and Youth Protection Services on establishing a framework for information sharing. This will allow AMC staff to have access to relevant information regarding a detainee's prior history in the ACT youth justice system.' What is the current status of this information sharing framework? a. When will the framework be in full operation?

Ms Stephen-Smith: The answer to the Member's question is as follows:-

In relation to: Youth recidivism

1. An information sharing agreement between Children, Youth and Families and ACT Corrective Services was signed in July 2018. This agreement outlines the arrangements for the sharing of information between Child and Youth Protection Services and the Alexander Maconochie Centre.

a. This agreement became operational in July 2018.

Approved for circulation to the Select Committee on Estimates 2018-2019

Signature: Date: 2, J l I I

By the Minister for Disability, Children and Youth, Minister Rachel Stephen-Smith *Estimates - QON No. E18-625 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FOR THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES 2018-2019 Mr Andrew Wall MLA (Chair), Ms Tara Cheyne MLA (Deputy Chair), Ms Caroline Le Couteur MLA, Ms Elizabeth Lee MLA, Ms Suzanne Orr MLA

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE

Elizabeth Kikkert: To ask the Minister for Disability, Children and Youth

Ref: Community Services, Children and Youth, Output Class 3.3 Child and Youth Protection Services; Budget Paper 3, pp. 95-97, 99-100; Budget Statements G, pp. 19-20

In relation to: Circles of Security parenting program

1. When was the Circles of Security parenting program first established in the ACT? 2. How many people have undertaken the Circles of Security parenting program each year for . the past five years? 3. How many sessions make up the Circles of Security program and what is the duration of each session? 4. How many sessions out of the program are delivered individually and in groups? 5. How many participants make up a group session? 6. How often is the Circles of Security program run? 7. Where is the Circles of Security program delivered? 8. How does the Circles of Security program address parenting and disability? 9. What other Parenting Assistance Sessions help parents address disability?

Ms Stephen-Smith: The answer to the Member's question is as follows:-

1. The Child and Family Centres commenced delivering the Circle of Security program in 2014.

2. Until recently, Circle of Security sessions were recorded as part of case management for families with high and complex needs rather than being delivered on an individual basis. Determining annual service user figures for the last five years therefore would be a manual process and represent an unreasonable diversion of resources.

However, from February 2014 -June 2018 a total of 408 individuals have participated in the Circle of Security group program. This included 160 individuals, across 15 groups in 2017-18. In addition, for the 2017-18 reporting period, the Child and Family Centres delivered 47 individual Circle of Security sessions to families. The data for individual Circle of Security sessions to families for February 2014 to June 2017 is the data that would need to be processed manually and is therefore unavailable.

3. The Circle of Security program is delivered over eight sessions, with each session being 90 minutes in duration.

4. The Child and Family Centres have delivered the Circle of Security group program 43 times since 2014. The Child and Family Centres delivered 47 individual Circle of Security sessions to families for the 2017-18 reporting period. Signature:

Approved

By

8. 5

7.

9.

6.

the

.

The

The for The The

the child The Community Child Whilst therapeutic Child with form and catch

of and Centres, and designed Other of development. delivery Developing who

participate

manual participation Families

NDIS

Minister

Security the

service

for

• • • • •

Circle

Circle

additional

Child

carers

maximum

program

Family

families

are

part

and EACH

and

up

Parenting

three

the

circulation

develop

have

be better

understand process

or

case who

it

for

session

may

to

and

Family

Family

of

of

of

Circle

has

with

users

more

program individual

to

Centres

in

Kids

Services

advice

enhance

Child

Security

individual

Security

Disability,

where

in

increased

is

have

managed

group

jointly

have

Family

Parenting

also

manage number

needs.

available

a

disability.

and

which

Assistance skills

and

of

Centre

Centre

if

mindful

range

to

and

they

registered

provided

Security

additional been

are

and

their

sessions

enables

represent

the

and

support

their

Centres

attachment

program

Circle

program

to

The

Family

is

case

of

their

Children

also

on

awareness

of

have

staff

programs

recognise

Select parent

assistance

facilitated

to

delivered

at

of

children

participants

There

group

Child

families

a

of

Sessions

parents

ACT

their

program

management able

needs

child's

parents

by

because

been families

may

Centres.

also

to

Security

needs

is

is

an

Committee

specialists

with

and

Government

and

attend

are

currently

an to

programs

moment

security

unreasonable

work

work

may

are

their

who

of unable

at

basis,

sessions

deliver

by

emotional

and

8

occasions

Family

available

and

Youth,

confidence.

and

is

their

the

who

week

of

inclusive

the

in

session

be

primarily

a

closely

with

may

child's

carers

a

a

there

or

carers

Alexander

Circle

-

records.

between

to

older

offered

complexity

to

Child

to-moment

Circle

have

responses

such

individual on

Centres

relationship-based

to

Minister

will

have

families

attend

account

school

to

Estimates

and

prior

families

where

of

emotional

is

with

of of

than to:

concerns

Development

as

diversion

always

of

families

delivered

complexity

children

Security

additional

all

a

Determining

behavioural

Tuning

Security

parents,

are

to

the

minimum

one

Maconochie

sites

families

Rachel

on

eight

Circle

the

to

for

of

June

parenting

assessed

wheelchair

be

Child

their

an

presenting of

2018-2019

individual include

Child

about

across

needs;

of

into

birth-8

group

from

years

informed

the

individual

of

group

2017

Stephen-Smith

carers

in

resources.

needs

and

child;

Development

Security

Service.

of

Kids;

early

family

and

group

difficulties;

service

their

the

as

Canberra.

three of

choices;

Parents

are

Centre,

would

Date:

years,

a

is

and

accessible not

including

age.

Family diversity

disability

needs.

three

Cool

14.

intervention

by

offered

children's

sessions

casework

circumstances.

session

times

being

children.

user

individual

be

including

Belconnen

Little

as

14i

Child

Centres

These

and

therefore

Service

Teachers

figures

of

an disability.

specific

a

suitable

(,\\cg'

and

.

for

Kids;

year

The

backgrounds

and

basis

individual

The

Page

program instances

families

parents

can

work

Child

and

for

at

and

Family

Circle issues.

where

a and

to

cater

each

2

the

of

3 *Estimates - QON No. E18-626 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FOR THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES 2018-2019 Mr Andrew Wall MLA (Chair), Ms Tara Cheyne MLA (Deputy Chair), Ms Caroline Le Couteur MLA, Ms Elizabeth Lee MLA, Ms Suzanne Orr MLA

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE

Elizabeth Kikkert: To ask the Minister for Multicultural Affairs

Ref: Community Services, Children and Youth, Output Class 3.3 Child and Youth Protection Services; Budget Paper 3, pp. 95-97, 99-100; Budget Statements G, pp. 19-20

In relation to: English class funding for employment agencies

1. Which employment agencies receive funding to provide English classes for culturally and linguistically diverse (CALO) clients? 2. What options are available for CALD people to undertake English classes if they do not interact with an employment agency, i.e., full-time parent, elderly, etc.?

Ms Stephen-Smith: The answer to the Member's question is as follows:-

1. The Community Services Directorate funds Multicultural Employment Services (MES) to develop and implement a 12 month individual, case managed employment program for refugees, asylum seekers and people from non-English speaking backgrounds. MES provide two levels of English language support under the MES Communication for Employment program. These are: • Workplace culture/communication for those with some English language skills who need to speak more clearly; and • Communication for Employment program for those who are job ready needing more intensive English language support.

Additionally, the Commonwealth Government's Job Active employment service will refer people to the Commonwealth Skills for Education and Employment (SEE) program for language, literacy and numeracy training to help job seekers participate more effectively in training or in the labour force. The program is delivered across Australia and caters for job seekers with literacy and/or numeracy training needs including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, youth, people with disabilities, mature aged people, and job seekers from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.

2. Clients from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALO) backgrounds can attend English language programs such as English for employment, English for living and a home tutor program delivered by the Migrant and Refugee Settlement Services (MARSS).

The Canberra Institute of Technology also offers a variety of English language classes. This includes classes for fee paying international students and partially government funded training (up to 90% funded and students pay approximately 10%) for domestic students (Australian or NZ citizens, permanent Australian residents or holders of an Australian Signature:

Approved

By

the

Services

details Additionally,

organisations

CSD, are

migrant permanent

Minister

for

able

where

circulation

available

-

english

to

to

for

deliver

receive

resident

CIT

Multicultural

the

are

-

waives

program

at:

Commonwealth

experienced

to

the

12

http

humanitarian

the

months

Adult

the

:

Select

//www.navitas

-

amep

Affairs,

student

Migrant

English

in

Committee

-

in

providing

Government

Minister

-

visa).

the

portion

English

classes

-

act/

\

-

english

Asylum

Rachel

on

services

of

Program

for

the

Estimates

funds

.

eom

seekers

free

fees.

Stephen-Smith

V

to

.

au/news

Navitas

of

(AMEP)

new

charge

2018-2019

with

migrants

English

-

the

in

and

under

the

Date:

ACT

-

events/news/the

ACT

and

and

an

Services

.

refugees.

KU

agreement

Both

Children's

Access

Page

Further

-

with

adult

Card

2

of

-

2 The

nature a

is where 2

not

unless In indicating ESO

Statement

1.

MINISTER

In

CAROLINE

[Ref:

Signature:

Approved

By

.

decision.

provided

those

A

relation

Schedule

be

the

• •

•

Conservator

2

1.

are

ConseNator's

.

Output

the

a

in

conservation

Minister

Are

Clear

Likely

stage?

conservation

included Is

Do

proposed

instances

accordance

that

the

GENTLEMAN:

Conservator

to:

{EIS)

for and

accordingly

LE

~

you

works

a.

b.

4

Class

more

COUTEUR

to

Conservator

of

Recommendations

circulation

the

Fauna

have

where

Is

If

for

also

impact

the

as

so,

this

where

development

within

2.1- proposal

representative

than

conditions

the

matters

Planning

any

with

provides

what

is

for

changing

.

a

Ms

Mr

SELECT

of

LEGISLATIVE

FOR

overridden

Environment

on

Environment;

MLA:

0.Sha

proposal

an

internal

The

a

nature

to

Flora

the

Andrew

Caroline

of

percentage

reserve,

a

is

ESO

the

inform

listed

T

Flora

answer

and

Conservator's

not

advice

of

To

of

H

and

COMMITTEE

over

Select

may

cannot

conservation

E

native

approval

on

appeal

Wall

is

ask

likely

attends

Le

Development

species

and

by

AUSTRALIAN

Fauna

the

Couteur

Development

time?

impact

on

to

and

QUESTION

the

the

Conservator

MLA

Committee

of

Fauna

to

assessment

vegetation,

the

be

DAs

mechanisms

eventual

Minister

Heritage,

planning

pre-application

provides have

to

or

(Chair),

given,

Member's

advice

on

MLA,

ON

under

the

community,

asked

a

a

Act

ESTIMATES

Development

significant

regulated

the

Ms

ON

Ms

for

on

Applications

DAs

of

department?

is

the

Mick

an

track

or

provides

for

C

Elizabeth

Tara

submitted

Flora

proposal

Estimates

when

the

NOTICE

Environmental

A

question

have

provisions

advice

PIT

ASSEMBLY

Gentleman

that

Cheyne

Environment

meetings

and

tree

the

impact

incorporated

2018-2019

A

triggers

Lee

the

L

by

would

Application

Fauna]

made

.

Conservator's

2018-2019

to

is

TERRITORY

MLA

Any

MLA,

proponents

of

DA

as

the

.

where

the

Any

follows:-

for

trigger

must

Significance

DA

(Deputy

by

Landscape

Ms

and

Tree

the

Date

*Estimates

an

conditions

where

Suzanne

this

appropriate.

be

(DA)

Heritage

Environmental

Conservator

a

:

Protection

Chair)

at

advice

lodged

advice?

full

112...

.

the

pre-application

Review

Opinion

Orr

EIS.

,

t?(I

decision

attached

on

-

in

MLA

QON

and

nature

Act

Impacts

of

Panel

(ESO)

Impact

Flora

2005

advice

may

No.

to

for

an

on

E18-627 MINISTER

CAROLINE

In

[Ref:

relation

4.

3

2

1.

1.

. .

Output

the grasses animals the to grassland danger With

rural Invasive native infrastructure. economy Rabbits because Invasive

What What

For Canberra?

Can

GENTLEMAN:

neighbouring

to

LE

perimeter landscape

each

you

:

areas 2.2

the

COUTEUR

steps

is

c.

a. b. a.

Invasive

animals

and

and

are

for

the

animals

plants

they

-

please

exception of

and/or

and

their

What How Have How

Conservation

of

feed

one

the

in

are

wildflowers

most

can the

this

woodland

causing of

or Ms Species Mr SELECT

are

F LEGISLATIVE

Invasive many many

cats

you

last provide

any

of

stock

other

MLA:

and

prioritised OR

Namadgi

human

The

causing ACT

serious damage

Andrew

Caroline

way

Australia's

introduced

of

three

taking

cats

roaming?

their

THE

fines

people

answer

where

animals rabbits,

serious

resources

To

can

COMMITTEE .

an

grasses

and

been

health. reserves

threat

Blackberry

significant Wall

financial

ask

Le

habit

high

National

to

have update impact

AUSTRALIAN

for

Couteur Land

they

living

ensure

to

QUESTION

the

most

.

environmental

seized

each MLA

plants

control

country

such

of

from

the

been

or

In

Minister

because

Management]

impact

on

constructing

on

years

in (Chair),

the serious

actions

Park

of

Member's

habitat

and

MLA,

ON

enforcement

in as

that cat

public invasive

how

issued

these

in

ACT

cat

peatlands,

African

ESTIMATES

and

-

willows containment

the

on

Ms

spread

ON

Ms

they

for

invasive

environmental

containment

are

invasive

destruction.

safety. feral

natural Tidbinbilla

related

CAPITAL

ACT Elizabeth

Tara

and

the

species?

NOTICE

question

needed

spread

lovegrass

underground

ASSEMBLY

are

and

pests

are

agricultural

Cheyne

Environment

of

wetlands,

species

grasses

and to

2018-2019

a

the cat

rabbits,

impact

Lee

areas

threat

rapidly

to

breach

are

Nature

is

areas?

cultural

TERRITORY

MLA

Wild

and

MLA,

manage

pests.

as

prioritised are

are

have

containment

and

follows:-

upon

to

warrens

degradation. serrated

pigs,

(Deputy

and

dogs

of

Ms

affecting

Reserve

and

the

our

values

*Estimates

affect

They

cat

been

Suzanne

this

out

foxes the

are

main Heritage water

containment

Chair),

for

can

compete tussock impact?

compete environment

cautioned

water

controlled

to

by

the

and

threat

control in

areas?

be

Orr

catchments

afford

preying

environment

wild

devastating

-

supply MLA

increase

QON

with

native to

protection

dogs.

about

areas?

around

on

the

and/or

native

No.

fire

to

E18-628 in

3. 3.

2. 2.

These These

TCCS TCCS

the the

which which our our

de-sexing de-sexing

advising advising

aware aware

and and

The The

approach approach

home home

activities activities

inquiries inquiries

non-compliance non-compliance

species) species)

result, result,

Requests Requests

Park Park

displaces displaces

numbers. numbers.

'risk 'risk ecosystems, ecosystems,

Rabbits Rabbits

Managing Managing

native native

lovegrass, lovegrass,

Control Control

Control Control

biological biological

mountain mountain

most most

also also

most most

of of

and and

supports supports

in in

species species

are are

of of

species. species.

managing managing

harms" harms"

with with

Agreements. Agreements.

control control

pose pose

with with

It It

address address

managing managing

likelihood likelihood

commitments commitments

a. a.

budget budget

efforts efforts

needs needs

into into

of of

these these

advised advised

and and

the the

the the

including including

sensitive sensitive

for for

local local

serious serious

to to

programs programs

is is

control control

usually usually

cats cats

serrated serrated

Ongoing Ongoing

the the

important important

managing managing

ie. ie.

compliance compliance

protected protected

grassy grassy

rural rural

both both

status status

a a

through through

forests forests

are are

suburbs. suburbs. to to

RSPCA RSPCA

native native

significant significant

is is

cat cat

model model

continue continue

of of

alter alter

commitment commitment

Blackberry Blackberry

The The

a a

are are

of of

the the

dog-related dog-related

be be

threats threats

considered considered

termed termed agents agents

number number

lessees lessees

priority priority

of of

invasive invasive

lowland lowland

containment containment

ecosystems, ecosystems,

rehoming. rehoming.

tussock, tussock,

the the

control control

of of

woodlands woodlands

and and

advised advised

multi-pronged multi-pronged

2018-19 2018-19

fire fire

effective effective

responsibility responsibility

of of

plants plants

ACT ACT

Similarly, Similarly,

the the

whereby whereby

their their

made made

that that

cat cat

option option

areas areas

In In

Namadgi Namadgi

provides provides

to to

regimes, regimes,

action action

in in

from from

threat threat

TCCS TCCS

transformers transformers

and and

in in

addition, addition,

urban urban

containment containment

of of

and and

species species

is is

of of

other other

be be

the the

suburb suburb

Chilean Chilean

including including

to to

its its

through through

also also

will will

key key

as as

incidents incidents

managed managed

budget budget

rabbits rabbits

control control

is is

focused focused

to to

invasive invasive

high high

threats threats

speak speak

website. website.

around around

such such environment environment

efforts efforts

EPSDD EPSDD

in in

status. status.

an an

able able

to to

invasives, invasives,

trap trap

allow allow

pest pest

a a

significant significant

land land

National National

change change

relation relation

on on

of of

animal animal

transformer transformer

natural natural

in in

to to

signage signage

country country

needle needle

as as

announced announced

to to

to to

is is

the the

to to

the the

rare rare

cats cats

land land

in in

species, species,

be be

managers managers

to to

shares shares

take take

to to

in in

urban urban

by by land land

plants plants

the the

prioritised prioritised

by by

through through

influence influence

2021-22 2021-22

their their

the the

Residents Residents

effective effective

Ainslie/Majura Ainslie/Majura

pet pet

manage manage

early early

public public

water water

EPSDD. EPSDD.

nuisance nuisance

to to

on on

orchids. orchids.

ecologists ecologists

they they

Park. Park.

systems systems

particularly particularly

high high

grass, grass,

precedence precedence

is is

managers managers

funding funding

grasslands grasslands

longer longer

(myxomotosis (myxomotosis

cat cat

owner owner

their their

Canberra. Canberra.

neighbours neighbours

resources resources

provided provided

in in

and and

stages stages

manage. manage.

species species

flows flows

country country

safety safety

the the

providing providing

containment containment

in in

to to

an an

In In

management management

and and

cat cat

in in

and and

of of

with with

own own

the the

term. term.

those those

if if

control control

issue. issue.

additional additional

and and

ACT ACT

to to

the the

because because

cat cat

allowed allowed

populations populations

of of

and and

Coolatai Coolatai

to to

where where

are are

is is

ACT ACT

RSPCA RSPCA

and and

in in

and and

land. land.

base base

and and

over over

grasslands grasslands

TCCS TCCS

considering considering

landscape landscape

and and

containment containment

relates relates

supported supported

strategically strategically

if if

areas areas

EPSDD EPSDD

all all

Residents Residents

nutrient nutrient

advice advice

given given

the the

invasive invasive

also also grassy grassy

and and

its its

knowledge knowledge

cat cat

funding funding

Namadgi Namadgi

cat cat

they they

they they

to to

takes takes

for for

are are

$0.3M $0.3M

grass grass

spread spread

identity identity

through through

it it

two two

take take

to to

containment containment

the the

proliferate proliferate

containment containment

has has

to to

increases increases

cat cat

triaged triaged

through through

woodlands. woodlands.

share share

can can

the the

cycles, cycles,

to to

in in

species. species.

by by

an an

residents residents

with with

strains strains

highest highest

whether whether

(a (a

good good

responsibility responsibility

management management

assured, assured,

with with

plan plan deliver deliver

Namadgi Namadgi

suburbs suburbs

is is

National National

spread spread

transform transform

at at

educational educational

new new

of of

with with

Land Land

a a

a a

concerns concerns

least least

according according

cat cat the

serious serious

and and

communication communication

common common

further further

education education

intervention intervention

fire fire

of of

to to

incursion incursion

priority. priority.

This This

TCCS TCCS

protection protection

to to

suburbs suburbs

Management Management

via via

of of

matters matters

Calicivirus). Calicivirus).

increase increase

large large

displace displace

three three

are are

danger danger

National National

Park. Park.

purchase purchase

African African

Page Page

individual individual

is is

native native

ongoing ongoing

threat threat

to to

made made

about about

for for

known known

to to

border border

As As

ensure ensure

and and

2 2

the the

and and

the the

to to

a a

of of

to to

to to

a a 3 3 Signat

By Approved

the

4a

c.

b

~

.

These

system)

Minister

The

due

operational

facility

owner

No

No

for

to

number

cats fines

2017-18-3

figures

2015-16

2016-17

circulation

roaming

and

obligations

to

for

have

have

house

the

therefore

of

at

have

been

-

-

cautions

been

cats

the

Environment

0

1

seized

to

been

to

end

seized

the

is

issued,

the as

comply

of

Select

issued

cats.

drawn

follows:

accuracy

2018.

in

however

cat

and

Such

with

Committee

by

from

containment

Heritage,

TCCS

a

cat

of

facility

an

where

data

containment

officers

older

on

in

Mick

is

owners

database

the

Estimates

under

areas.

to

Gentleman

former

people

and

construction

are

TCCS

(recently

2018-2019

identified,

management.

database

living

do

not

in

replaced

Date:

currently

and

cat containment

is

TCCS

difficult

expected

21-l"7

looks

by

have

a

to

to

modern

/r:ts

to

verify.

Page

a

advise

suitable

be

areas

3

of

on

3

MINISTER

CAROLINE In

[Ref:

relation

2.

1.

3

2

1.

.

.

Output

The

sick

appropriation. volunteers contribution

a The

budget

required In Jerrabomberra Contacting

as people

Less The ACT

accommodation and

Wetlands.

about

used they

& What Has

Has

2017-18

addition

City

injured

GENTLEMAN:

to:

LE

and

Parks

Environment,

the

2017-18 nature

the

Wildlife

complex

Class

provide

to

COUTEUR

coordination

Funding

where

Services

who

and

do

Government

Government orphaned

equipment

and

kangaroos

Environment

.

2 -

to

either

in

reserves,

will

Pait

have

to

has

ACT

to

to

tasks

previous

the

Environment]

Conservation

In

for

Mr SELECT Ms

LEGISLATIVE

FOR

Wetlands on ACT

continue

wildlife

take

of

MLA:

and

been

late

The

found

Budget

Access

upgrade

Andrew

Caroline

Planning wildlife

where

native

this

such

work

Wildlife

.

allocated

a injured

being

considered TH

considered

2017-18,

answer

provided

drop service

To

funding

COMMITTEE

Grant

injured

injured

as

Canberra A E

to

is

Initiative

animals to

for

Wall

ask

carers

Le

of

injured

directed

done

and

provide

Service take

off

to

wildlife?

Couteur

use

the

USTRALIAN

to

QUESTION

the

of

MLA

level

$80,000

Transport

help

was

point

on

Sustainable

wildlife

with

the

$34,642

by

tendering

by

injured

building

regular,

in

Minister

Better

or

our

birds

(Chair),

agreements?

support

made

ACT

Parks this

the allocated

to

Member's

MLA

ON

license

for

ACT

the

roads?

to

to

ACT.

or additional

Wildlife ESTIMATES

,

wildlife,

injured

services Canberra to

core

at

and

Wildlife Ms

an

improve

ON

Ms

contact

for

Parks

lizards

out

Directorate's

'fit

Jerrabomberra

their

for

CAPITAL

additional

Elizabeth

Tara

to

the

Conservation

funding NOTICE

question

wildlife

out'

the

.

wildlife

upgrade

and

ASSEMBL

and

The

voluntary

in

will

Cheyne

Environment

will

Access

funding

community

and

use

the

your

2018-2019

Conservation

what

upgrade

be

Lee

result

for

caring

City

$10,000

of

.

upgraded

is

directed

community-

TERRITORY

an

MLA

environment

Canberra

MLA,

ACT

this

as

in

information

services

Wetlands,

Services

Service

existing

in

follows:-

2018-19

services,

(Deputy

facility

works

Wildlife,

facilities

Ms

complex

and

available

*Estimates

to

building

Suzanne

Service

or

or

Heritage

in

also

ACT building

have

as

Chair),

ACT

from Y Transport

ACT

caring

Improving

website

such

given

to

at

wildlife

office

made

Wildlife

in

Jerrabomberra

give

Orr

on

Wildlife. been

with

Wildlife

within

as

the

at

for

the

-

call

MLA

the

the

QON

a

directs

the

issues

completed.

2017-18

Canberra

injured,

$10,000

service

our

ranger

current

RSPCA

public

received

parks

No.

such

.

E18-629 3. No. EPSDD has worked closely with ACT Wildlife since its inception, recognising that they have formed to offer a volunteer based service around caring for injured wildlife.

Approved for circulation to the Select Committee on Estimates 2018-2019

Signature: Date: 1/ {7/(--fr .. By the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Mick Gentleman The Government has not tendered out wildlife caring services.

Page 2 of 2 *Estimates - QON No. E18-630

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FOR THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES 2018-2019 Mr Andrew Wall MLA (Chair), Ms Tara Cheyne MLA (Deputy Chair), Ms Caroline Le Couteur MLA, Ms Elizabeth Lee MLA, Ms Suzanne Orr MLA

QUESTION ON NOTICE

CAROLINE LE COUTEUR MLA: To ask the Minister for the Environment and Heritage

[Ref: Heritage {Output Class 2.3)]

In relation to: The National Trust

The National Trust is an important community stakeholder and the Government relies on them as a representative body for the heritage sector. For example, they were on the Community Panel for the Yarralumla Brickworks. However, the National Trust doesn't get any operational funding for this work.

1. Why doesn't the Government provide operational funding for the National Trust the way you do in the arts, sport and environment sectors?

2. Have you investigated this in the past?

MINISTER GENTLEMAN: The answer to the Member's question is as follows:-

1. While the Trust has an advocacy role for heritage, demonstrated through its involvement in ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal appeals, annual heritage awards and monthly newsletters, it currently provides limited conservation projects and a small number of education and promotion programs such as an annual open day at a heritage place and tours. To date, the National Trust ACT Branch (the Trust) has not demonstrated that it provides programs or services that support, promote and/or conserve heritage in the ACT in a similar way to other groups in the areas noted such as artsACT.

For comparison, artsACT Key Arts Organisation (KAO) funding supports ACT arts organisations that provide substantial programs, services, expertise and infrastructure to support and develop the arts in the ACT. In the 2015-16 financial year, funding of $5.35 million supported 17 KAOs (roughly $315,000 per organisation per year), including organisations that manage ACT Government arts facilities providing significant infrastructure.

Further, in the ACT, the ACT Government and Commonwealth Government conducts much of the business that National Trust branches elsewhere in Australia deliver such as an annual Heritage Festival and management of heritage properties.

The ACT Heritage Grants Program {the program) provides approximately $350,000 annually for projects that promote and conserve our local heritage and from 2001-16 the Trust has received at least one grant each year totallin"g approximately 45 grants. 2. The Government has taken numerous opportunities to provide support to the Trust in consideration of requests and the overall budget.

A number of the projects and ideas put forward by the Trust seeking funding from the ACT Government outside the formal heritage grants and budget round, have not included clear business cases, project scope, demonstrated outcomes, accurate costings or budget breakdowns.

In 2011, $60,000 was provided to enable the Trust to continue operating and to develop a strategic business plan to assist in a clearer organisation function. To date, a strategic business plan has not been provided by the Trust. Since then the Government has continually encouraged the Trust to develop a sound strategic and sustainable business model to secure the Trust's long-term viability. This would support a pre-budget submission the Trust may wish to make.

The Government has also offered historic/heritage properties to the Trust for office accommodation and as venues to provide revenue opportunities through tours, ehibitions etc. The Trust however has rejected several opportunities for support including $86,000 to purchase its quarter share of the Lanyon collection and rent free office accommodation in Cargill's Cottage, Kingston.

The Trust has also been advised to explore the range of other funding sources available to the community in addition to ACT Government funding through private sector partnerships, grants and sponsorship.

· Approved for circulation to the Select Committee on Estimates 2018-2019

By the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Mick Gentleman

Page 2 of 2