❓ A parliamentary question on unallocated cases within the Department for Child Protection, focusing on discrepancies in reported figures and the handling of cases awaiting investigation. The Minister clarifies the figures and processes.
AnsweredQoN 44Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
DEPARTMENT FOR CHILD PROTECTION — UNALLOCATED CASES 44. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY to the Minister for Child Protection: I refer to unallocated cases within the Department for Child Protection. (1) On 12 November 2007 there were 386 cases awaiting full investigations by the department. Why then some three months later are there 1 505 cases that have not been allocated to caseworkers? (2) Why is there a discrepancy in these figures and why have they increased by some 1 100 cases? (3) What reporting mechanism does the department use for working out unallocated cases? (4) How many of the 1 505 unallocated cases are awaiting full investigations? (5) Why did the director general say in The West Australian that many of the cases on this list are close to being closed when, clearly, if that is the case, a caseworker would have had responsibility for a case all along and would have input into whether or not that case would be closed? (6) How many unallocated cases are near to being closed and what is the reason they do not have a caseworker? (7) Why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? (8) Does the department have 1 800 unallocated cases on the books? (9) If yes, why? The PRESIDENT : Before I call the Minister for Child Protection, I wish to remind members what standing orders say about the length of questions. Hon SUE ELLERY
AnswerView source ↗
Thank you, Mr President. I am pleased to be able to answer this question because although I was not in the chamber last night, I did listen to the honourable member’s comments during the adjournment debate. I was concerned that she was reaching conclusions about two sets of figures that are not comparable because one is not a subset of the other. I was concerned with the conclusion she was jumping to. I think she used expressions like “rubbery figures” and “disgraceful”, which are very strong words to use about a matter when, clearly, the honourable member did not have all the facts. That is why I am happy she has asked the question today, because I can set her straight. (1) The cases awaiting full investigation are not a subset of the unallocated cases. There will be some overlap due to timing of case allocation following a preliminary assessment. The 386 cases referred to were cases awaiting full investigations following a preliminary assessment that an investigation was necessary. The 1 505 cases as reported in The West Australian dated 21 February 2008 have had preliminary assessments completed—this is the important bit—and none of these children has been assessed as being at immediate risk. (2) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. (3) Manual and automated reporting systems are used. (4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
DEPARTMENT FOR CHILD PROTECTION — UNALLOCATED CASES
I refer to unallocated cases within the Department for Child Protection. (1) On 12 November 2007 there were 386 cases awaiting full investigations by the department. Why then some three months later are there 1 505 cases that have not been allocated to caseworkers? (2) Why is there a discrepancy in these figures and why have they increased by some 1 100 cases? (3) What reporting mechanism does the department use for working out unallocated cases? (4) How many of the 1 505 unallocated cases are awaiting full investigations? (5) Why did the director general say in The West Australian that many of the cases on this list are close to being closed when, clearly, if that is the case, a caseworker would have had responsibility for a case all along and would have input into whether or not that case would be closed? (6) How many unallocated cases are near to being closed and what is the reason they do not have a caseworker? (7) Why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? (8) Does the department have 1 800 unallocated cases on the books? (9) If yes, why? The PRESIDENT : Before I call the Minister for Child Protection, I wish to remind members what standing orders say about the length of questions. Hon SUE ELLERY replied: Thank you, Mr President. I am pleased to be able to answer this question because although I was not in the chamber last night, I did listen to the honourable member’s comments during the adjournment debate. I was concerned that she was reaching conclusions about two sets of figures that are not comparable because one is not a subset of the other. I was concerned with the conclusion she was jumping to. I think she used expressions like “rubbery figures” and “disgraceful”, which are very strong words to use about a matter when, clearly, the honourable member did not have all the facts. That is why I am happy she has asked the question today, because I can set her straight. (1) The cases awaiting full investigation are not a subset of the unallocated cases. There will be some overlap due to timing of case allocation following a preliminary assessment. The 386 cases referred to were cases awaiting full investigations following a preliminary assessment that an investigation was necessary. The 1 505 cases as reported in The West Australian dated 21 February 2008 have had preliminary assessments completed—this is the important bit—and none of these children has been assessed as being at immediate risk. (2) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. (3) Manual and automated reporting systems are used. (4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(1) On 12 November 2007 there were 386 cases awaiting full investigations by the department. Why then some three months later are there 1 505 cases that have not been allocated to caseworkers? (2) Why is there a discrepancy in these figures and why have they increased by some 1 100 cases? (3) What reporting mechanism does the department use for working out unallocated cases? (4) How many of the 1 505 unallocated cases are awaiting full investigations? (5) Why did the director general say in The West Australian that many of the cases on this list are close to being closed when, clearly, if that is the case, a caseworker would have had responsibility for a case all along and would have input into whether or not that case would be closed? (6) How many unallocated cases are near to being closed and what is the reason they do not have a caseworker? (7) Why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? (8) Does the department have 1 800 unallocated cases on the books? (9) If yes, why? The PRESIDENT : Before I call the Minister for Child Protection, I wish to remind members what standing orders say about the length of questions. Hon SUE ELLERY replied: Thank you, Mr President. I am pleased to be able to answer this question because although I was not in the chamber last night, I did listen to the honourable member’s comments during the adjournment debate. I was concerned that she was reaching conclusions about two sets of figures that are not comparable because one is not a subset of the other. I was concerned with the conclusion she was jumping to. I think she used expressions like “rubbery figures” and “disgraceful”, which are very strong words to use about a matter when, clearly, the honourable member did not have all the facts. That is why I am happy she has asked the question today, because I can set her straight. (1) The cases awaiting full investigation are not a subset of the unallocated cases. There will be some overlap due to timing of case allocation following a preliminary assessment. The 386 cases referred to were cases awaiting full investigations following a preliminary assessment that an investigation was necessary. The 1 505 cases as reported in The West Australian dated 21 February 2008 have had preliminary assessments completed—this is the important bit—and none of these children has been assessed as being at immediate risk. (2) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. (3) Manual and automated reporting systems are used. (4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(2) Why is there a discrepancy in these figures and why have they increased by some 1 100 cases? (3) What reporting mechanism does the department use for working out unallocated cases? (4) How many of the 1 505 unallocated cases are awaiting full investigations? (5) Why did the director general say in The West Australian that many of the cases on this list are close to being closed when, clearly, if that is the case, a caseworker would have had responsibility for a case all along and would have input into whether or not that case would be closed? (6) How many unallocated cases are near to being closed and what is the reason they do not have a caseworker? (7) Why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? (8) Does the department have 1 800 unallocated cases on the books? (9) If yes, why? The PRESIDENT : Before I call the Minister for Child Protection, I wish to remind members what standing orders say about the length of questions. Hon SUE ELLERY replied: Thank you, Mr President. I am pleased to be able to answer this question because although I was not in the chamber last night, I did listen to the honourable member’s comments during the adjournment debate. I was concerned that she was reaching conclusions about two sets of figures that are not comparable because one is not a subset of the other. I was concerned with the conclusion she was jumping to. I think she used expressions like “rubbery figures” and “disgraceful”, which are very strong words to use about a matter when, clearly, the honourable member did not have all the facts. That is why I am happy she has asked the question today, because I can set her straight. (1) The cases awaiting full investigation are not a subset of the unallocated cases. There will be some overlap due to timing of case allocation following a preliminary assessment. The 386 cases referred to were cases awaiting full investigations following a preliminary assessment that an investigation was necessary. The 1 505 cases as reported in The West Australian dated 21 February 2008 have had preliminary assessments completed—this is the important bit—and none of these children has been assessed as being at immediate risk. (2) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. (3) Manual and automated reporting systems are used. (4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(3) What reporting mechanism does the department use for working out unallocated cases? (4) How many of the 1 505 unallocated cases are awaiting full investigations? (5) Why did the director general say in The West Australian that many of the cases on this list are close to being closed when, clearly, if that is the case, a caseworker would have had responsibility for a case all along and would have input into whether or not that case would be closed? (6) How many unallocated cases are near to being closed and what is the reason they do not have a caseworker? (7) Why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? (8) Does the department have 1 800 unallocated cases on the books? (9) If yes, why? The PRESIDENT : Before I call the Minister for Child Protection, I wish to remind members what standing orders say about the length of questions. Hon SUE ELLERY replied: Thank you, Mr President. I am pleased to be able to answer this question because although I was not in the chamber last night, I did listen to the honourable member’s comments during the adjournment debate. I was concerned that she was reaching conclusions about two sets of figures that are not comparable because one is not a subset of the other. I was concerned with the conclusion she was jumping to. I think she used expressions like “rubbery figures” and “disgraceful”, which are very strong words to use about a matter when, clearly, the honourable member did not have all the facts. That is why I am happy she has asked the question today, because I can set her straight. (1) The cases awaiting full investigation are not a subset of the unallocated cases. There will be some overlap due to timing of case allocation following a preliminary assessment. The 386 cases referred to were cases awaiting full investigations following a preliminary assessment that an investigation was necessary. The 1 505 cases as reported in The West Australian dated 21 February 2008 have had preliminary assessments completed—this is the important bit—and none of these children has been assessed as being at immediate risk. (2) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. (3) Manual and automated reporting systems are used. (4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(4) How many of the 1 505 unallocated cases are awaiting full investigations? (5) Why did the director general say in The West Australian that many of the cases on this list are close to being closed when, clearly, if that is the case, a caseworker would have had responsibility for a case all along and would have input into whether or not that case would be closed? (6) How many unallocated cases are near to being closed and what is the reason they do not have a caseworker? (7) Why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? (8) Does the department have 1 800 unallocated cases on the books? (9) If yes, why? The PRESIDENT : Before I call the Minister for Child Protection, I wish to remind members what standing orders say about the length of questions. Hon SUE ELLERY replied: Thank you, Mr President. I am pleased to be able to answer this question because although I was not in the chamber last night, I did listen to the honourable member’s comments during the adjournment debate. I was concerned that she was reaching conclusions about two sets of figures that are not comparable because one is not a subset of the other. I was concerned with the conclusion she was jumping to. I think she used expressions like “rubbery figures” and “disgraceful”, which are very strong words to use about a matter when, clearly, the honourable member did not have all the facts. That is why I am happy she has asked the question today, because I can set her straight. (1) The cases awaiting full investigation are not a subset of the unallocated cases. There will be some overlap due to timing of case allocation following a preliminary assessment. The 386 cases referred to were cases awaiting full investigations following a preliminary assessment that an investigation was necessary. The 1 505 cases as reported in The West Australian dated 21 February 2008 have had preliminary assessments completed—this is the important bit—and none of these children has been assessed as being at immediate risk. (2) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. (3) Manual and automated reporting systems are used. (4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(5) Why did the director general say in The West Australian that many of the cases on this list are close to being closed when, clearly, if that is the case, a caseworker would have had responsibility for a case all along and would have input into whether or not that case would be closed? (6) How many unallocated cases are near to being closed and what is the reason they do not have a caseworker? (7) Why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? (8) Does the department have 1 800 unallocated cases on the books? (9) If yes, why? The PRESIDENT : Before I call the Minister for Child Protection, I wish to remind members what standing orders say about the length of questions. Hon SUE ELLERY replied: Thank you, Mr President. I am pleased to be able to answer this question because although I was not in the chamber last night, I did listen to the honourable member’s comments during the adjournment debate. I was concerned that she was reaching conclusions about two sets of figures that are not comparable because one is not a subset of the other. I was concerned with the conclusion she was jumping to. I think she used expressions like “rubbery figures” and “disgraceful”, which are very strong words to use about a matter when, clearly, the honourable member did not have all the facts. That is why I am happy she has asked the question today, because I can set her straight. (1) The cases awaiting full investigation are not a subset of the unallocated cases. There will be some overlap due to timing of case allocation following a preliminary assessment. The 386 cases referred to were cases awaiting full investigations following a preliminary assessment that an investigation was necessary. The 1 505 cases as reported in The West Australian dated 21 February 2008 have had preliminary assessments completed—this is the important bit—and none of these children has been assessed as being at immediate risk. (2) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. (3) Manual and automated reporting systems are used. (4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(6) How many unallocated cases are near to being closed and what is the reason they do not have a caseworker? (7) Why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? (8) Does the department have 1 800 unallocated cases on the books? (9) If yes, why? The PRESIDENT : Before I call the Minister for Child Protection, I wish to remind members what standing orders say about the length of questions. Hon SUE ELLERY replied: Thank you, Mr President. I am pleased to be able to answer this question because although I was not in the chamber last night, I did listen to the honourable member’s comments during the adjournment debate. I was concerned that she was reaching conclusions about two sets of figures that are not comparable because one is not a subset of the other. I was concerned with the conclusion she was jumping to. I think she used expressions like “rubbery figures” and “disgraceful”, which are very strong words to use about a matter when, clearly, the honourable member did not have all the facts. That is why I am happy she has asked the question today, because I can set her straight. (1) The cases awaiting full investigation are not a subset of the unallocated cases. There will be some overlap due to timing of case allocation following a preliminary assessment. The 386 cases referred to were cases awaiting full investigations following a preliminary assessment that an investigation was necessary. The 1 505 cases as reported in The West Australian dated 21 February 2008 have had preliminary assessments completed—this is the important bit—and none of these children has been assessed as being at immediate risk. (2) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. (3) Manual and automated reporting systems are used. (4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(7) Why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? (8) Does the department have 1 800 unallocated cases on the books? (9) If yes, why? The PRESIDENT : Before I call the Minister for Child Protection, I wish to remind members what standing orders say about the length of questions. Hon SUE ELLERY replied: Thank you, Mr President. I am pleased to be able to answer this question because although I was not in the chamber last night, I did listen to the honourable member’s comments during the adjournment debate. I was concerned that she was reaching conclusions about two sets of figures that are not comparable because one is not a subset of the other. I was concerned with the conclusion she was jumping to. I think she used expressions like “rubbery figures” and “disgraceful”, which are very strong words to use about a matter when, clearly, the honourable member did not have all the facts. That is why I am happy she has asked the question today, because I can set her straight. (1) The cases awaiting full investigation are not a subset of the unallocated cases. There will be some overlap due to timing of case allocation following a preliminary assessment. The 386 cases referred to were cases awaiting full investigations following a preliminary assessment that an investigation was necessary. The 1 505 cases as reported in The West Australian dated 21 February 2008 have had preliminary assessments completed—this is the important bit—and none of these children has been assessed as being at immediate risk. (2) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. (3) Manual and automated reporting systems are used. (4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(8) Does the department have 1 800 unallocated cases on the books? (9) If yes, why? The PRESIDENT : Before I call the Minister for Child Protection, I wish to remind members what standing orders say about the length of questions. Hon SUE ELLERY replied: Thank you, Mr President. I am pleased to be able to answer this question because although I was not in the chamber last night, I did listen to the honourable member’s comments during the adjournment debate. I was concerned that she was reaching conclusions about two sets of figures that are not comparable because one is not a subset of the other. I was concerned with the conclusion she was jumping to. I think she used expressions like “rubbery figures” and “disgraceful”, which are very strong words to use about a matter when, clearly, the honourable member did not have all the facts. That is why I am happy she has asked the question today, because I can set her straight. (1) The cases awaiting full investigation are not a subset of the unallocated cases. There will be some overlap due to timing of case allocation following a preliminary assessment. The 386 cases referred to were cases awaiting full investigations following a preliminary assessment that an investigation was necessary. The 1 505 cases as reported in The West Australian dated 21 February 2008 have had preliminary assessments completed—this is the important bit—and none of these children has been assessed as being at immediate risk. (2) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. (3) Manual and automated reporting systems are used. (4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(9) If yes, why? The PRESIDENT : Before I call the Minister for Child Protection, I wish to remind members what standing orders say about the length of questions. Hon SUE ELLERY replied: Thank you, Mr President. I am pleased to be able to answer this question because although I was not in the chamber last night, I did listen to the honourable member’s comments during the adjournment debate. I was concerned that she was reaching conclusions about two sets of figures that are not comparable because one is not a subset of the other. I was concerned with the conclusion she was jumping to. I think she used expressions like “rubbery figures” and “disgraceful”, which are very strong words to use about a matter when, clearly, the honourable member did not have all the facts. That is why I am happy she has asked the question today, because I can set her straight. (1) The cases awaiting full investigation are not a subset of the unallocated cases. There will be some overlap due to timing of case allocation following a preliminary assessment. The 386 cases referred to were cases awaiting full investigations following a preliminary assessment that an investigation was necessary. The 1 505 cases as reported in The West Australian dated 21 February 2008 have had preliminary assessments completed—this is the important bit—and none of these children has been assessed as being at immediate risk. (2) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. (3) Manual and automated reporting systems are used. (4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
The PRESIDENT : Before I call the Minister for Child Protection, I wish to remind members what standing orders say about the length of questions. Hon SUE ELLERY replied: Thank you, Mr President. I am pleased to be able to answer this question because although I was not in the chamber last night, I did listen to the honourable member’s comments during the adjournment debate. I was concerned that she was reaching conclusions about two sets of figures that are not comparable because one is not a subset of the other. I was concerned with the conclusion she was jumping to. I think she used expressions like “rubbery figures” and “disgraceful”, which are very strong words to use about a matter when, clearly, the honourable member did not have all the facts. That is why I am happy she has asked the question today, because I can set her straight. (1) The cases awaiting full investigation are not a subset of the unallocated cases. There will be some overlap due to timing of case allocation following a preliminary assessment. The 386 cases referred to were cases awaiting full investigations following a preliminary assessment that an investigation was necessary. The 1 505 cases as reported in The West Australian dated 21 February 2008 have had preliminary assessments completed—this is the important bit—and none of these children has been assessed as being at immediate risk. (2) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. (3) Manual and automated reporting systems are used. (4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
Hon SUE ELLERY replied: Thank you, Mr President. I am pleased to be able to answer this question because although I was not in the chamber last night, I did listen to the honourable member’s comments during the adjournment debate. I was concerned that she was reaching conclusions about two sets of figures that are not comparable because one is not a subset of the other. I was concerned with the conclusion she was jumping to. I think she used expressions like “rubbery figures” and “disgraceful”, which are very strong words to use about a matter when, clearly, the honourable member did not have all the facts. That is why I am happy she has asked the question today, because I can set her straight. (1) The cases awaiting full investigation are not a subset of the unallocated cases. There will be some overlap due to timing of case allocation following a preliminary assessment. The 386 cases referred to were cases awaiting full investigations following a preliminary assessment that an investigation was necessary. The 1 505 cases as reported in The West Australian dated 21 February 2008 have had preliminary assessments completed—this is the important bit—and none of these children has been assessed as being at immediate risk. (2) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. (3) Manual and automated reporting systems are used. (4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
Thank you, Mr President. I am pleased to be able to answer this question because although I was not in the chamber last night, I did listen to the honourable member’s comments during the adjournment debate. I was concerned that she was reaching conclusions about two sets of figures that are not comparable because one is not a subset of the other. I was concerned with the conclusion she was jumping to. I think she used expressions like “rubbery figures” and “disgraceful”, which are very strong words to use about a matter when, clearly, the honourable member did not have all the facts. That is why I am happy she has asked the question today, because I can set her straight. (1) The cases awaiting full investigation are not a subset of the unallocated cases. There will be some overlap due to timing of case allocation following a preliminary assessment. The 386 cases referred to were cases awaiting full investigations following a preliminary assessment that an investigation was necessary. The 1 505 cases as reported in The West Australian dated 21 February 2008 have had preliminary assessments completed—this is the important bit—and none of these children has been assessed as being at immediate risk. (2) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. (3) Manual and automated reporting systems are used. (4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(1) The cases awaiting full investigation are not a subset of the unallocated cases. There will be some overlap due to timing of case allocation following a preliminary assessment. The 386 cases referred to were cases awaiting full investigations following a preliminary assessment that an investigation was necessary. The 1 505 cases as reported in The West Australian dated 21 February 2008 have had preliminary assessments completed—this is the important bit—and none of these children has been assessed as being at immediate risk. (2) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. (3) Manual and automated reporting systems are used. (4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(2) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. (3) Manual and automated reporting systems are used. (4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(3) Manual and automated reporting systems are used. (4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(9) Not applicable.
DEPARTMENT FOR CHILD PROTECTION — UNALLOCATED CASES
I refer to unallocated cases within the Department for Child Protection. (1) On 12 November 2007 there were 386 cases awaiting full investigations by the department. Why then some three months later are there 1 505 cases that have not been allocated to caseworkers? (2) Why is there a discrepancy in these figures and why have they increased by some 1 100 cases? (3) What reporting mechanism does the department use for working out unallocated cases? (4) How many of the 1 505 unallocated cases are awaiting full investigations? (5) Why did the director general say in The West Australian that many of the cases on this list are close to being closed when, clearly, if that is the case, a caseworker would have had responsibility for a case all along and would have input into whether or not that case would be closed? (6) How many unallocated cases are near to being closed and what is the reason they do not have a caseworker? (7) Why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? (8) Does the department have 1 800 unallocated cases on the books? (9) If yes, why? The PRESIDENT : Before I call the Minister for Child Protection, I wish to remind members what standing orders say about the length of questions. Hon SUE ELLERY replied: Thank you, Mr President. I am pleased to be able to answer this question because although I was not in the chamber last night, I did listen to the honourable member’s comments during the adjournment debate. I was concerned that she was reaching conclusions about two sets of figures that are not comparable because one is not a subset of the other. I was concerned with the conclusion she was jumping to. I think she used expressions like “rubbery figures” and “disgraceful”, which are very strong words to use about a matter when, clearly, the honourable member did not have all the facts. That is why I am happy she has asked the question today, because I can set her straight. (1) The cases awaiting full investigation are not a subset of the unallocated cases. There will be some overlap due to timing of case allocation following a preliminary assessment. The 386 cases referred to were cases awaiting full investigations following a preliminary assessment that an investigation was necessary. The 1 505 cases as reported in The West Australian dated 21 February 2008 have had preliminary assessments completed—this is the important bit—and none of these children has been assessed as being at immediate risk. (2) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. (3) Manual and automated reporting systems are used. (4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(1) On 12 November 2007 there were 386 cases awaiting full investigations by the department. Why then some three months later are there 1 505 cases that have not been allocated to caseworkers? (2) Why is there a discrepancy in these figures and why have they increased by some 1 100 cases? (3) What reporting mechanism does the department use for working out unallocated cases? (4) How many of the 1 505 unallocated cases are awaiting full investigations? (5) Why did the director general say in The West Australian that many of the cases on this list are close to being closed when, clearly, if that is the case, a caseworker would have had responsibility for a case all along and would have input into whether or not that case would be closed? (6) How many unallocated cases are near to being closed and what is the reason they do not have a caseworker? (7) Why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? (8) Does the department have 1 800 unallocated cases on the books? (9) If yes, why? The PRESIDENT : Before I call the Minister for Child Protection, I wish to remind members what standing orders say about the length of questions. Hon SUE ELLERY replied: Thank you, Mr President. I am pleased to be able to answer this question because although I was not in the chamber last night, I did listen to the honourable member’s comments during the adjournment debate. I was concerned that she was reaching conclusions about two sets of figures that are not comparable because one is not a subset of the other. I was concerned with the conclusion she was jumping to. I think she used expressions like “rubbery figures” and “disgraceful”, which are very strong words to use about a matter when, clearly, the honourable member did not have all the facts. That is why I am happy she has asked the question today, because I can set her straight. (1) The cases awaiting full investigation are not a subset of the unallocated cases. There will be some overlap due to timing of case allocation following a preliminary assessment. The 386 cases referred to were cases awaiting full investigations following a preliminary assessment that an investigation was necessary. The 1 505 cases as reported in The West Australian dated 21 February 2008 have had preliminary assessments completed—this is the important bit—and none of these children has been assessed as being at immediate risk. (2) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. (3) Manual and automated reporting systems are used. (4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(2) Why is there a discrepancy in these figures and why have they increased by some 1 100 cases? (3) What reporting mechanism does the department use for working out unallocated cases? (4) How many of the 1 505 unallocated cases are awaiting full investigations? (5) Why did the director general say in The West Australian that many of the cases on this list are close to being closed when, clearly, if that is the case, a caseworker would have had responsibility for a case all along and would have input into whether or not that case would be closed? (6) How many unallocated cases are near to being closed and what is the reason they do not have a caseworker? (7) Why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? (8) Does the department have 1 800 unallocated cases on the books? (9) If yes, why? The PRESIDENT : Before I call the Minister for Child Protection, I wish to remind members what standing orders say about the length of questions. Hon SUE ELLERY replied: Thank you, Mr President. I am pleased to be able to answer this question because although I was not in the chamber last night, I did listen to the honourable member’s comments during the adjournment debate. I was concerned that she was reaching conclusions about two sets of figures that are not comparable because one is not a subset of the other. I was concerned with the conclusion she was jumping to. I think she used expressions like “rubbery figures” and “disgraceful”, which are very strong words to use about a matter when, clearly, the honourable member did not have all the facts. That is why I am happy she has asked the question today, because I can set her straight. (1) The cases awaiting full investigation are not a subset of the unallocated cases. There will be some overlap due to timing of case allocation following a preliminary assessment. The 386 cases referred to were cases awaiting full investigations following a preliminary assessment that an investigation was necessary. The 1 505 cases as reported in The West Australian dated 21 February 2008 have had preliminary assessments completed—this is the important bit—and none of these children has been assessed as being at immediate risk. (2) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. (3) Manual and automated reporting systems are used. (4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(3) What reporting mechanism does the department use for working out unallocated cases? (4) How many of the 1 505 unallocated cases are awaiting full investigations? (5) Why did the director general say in The West Australian that many of the cases on this list are close to being closed when, clearly, if that is the case, a caseworker would have had responsibility for a case all along and would have input into whether or not that case would be closed? (6) How many unallocated cases are near to being closed and what is the reason they do not have a caseworker? (7) Why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? (8) Does the department have 1 800 unallocated cases on the books? (9) If yes, why? The PRESIDENT : Before I call the Minister for Child Protection, I wish to remind members what standing orders say about the length of questions. Hon SUE ELLERY replied: Thank you, Mr President. I am pleased to be able to answer this question because although I was not in the chamber last night, I did listen to the honourable member’s comments during the adjournment debate. I was concerned that she was reaching conclusions about two sets of figures that are not comparable because one is not a subset of the other. I was concerned with the conclusion she was jumping to. I think she used expressions like “rubbery figures” and “disgraceful”, which are very strong words to use about a matter when, clearly, the honourable member did not have all the facts. That is why I am happy she has asked the question today, because I can set her straight. (1) The cases awaiting full investigation are not a subset of the unallocated cases. There will be some overlap due to timing of case allocation following a preliminary assessment. The 386 cases referred to were cases awaiting full investigations following a preliminary assessment that an investigation was necessary. The 1 505 cases as reported in The West Australian dated 21 February 2008 have had preliminary assessments completed—this is the important bit—and none of these children has been assessed as being at immediate risk. (2) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. (3) Manual and automated reporting systems are used. (4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(4) How many of the 1 505 unallocated cases are awaiting full investigations? (5) Why did the director general say in The West Australian that many of the cases on this list are close to being closed when, clearly, if that is the case, a caseworker would have had responsibility for a case all along and would have input into whether or not that case would be closed? (6) How many unallocated cases are near to being closed and what is the reason they do not have a caseworker? (7) Why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? (8) Does the department have 1 800 unallocated cases on the books? (9) If yes, why? The PRESIDENT : Before I call the Minister for Child Protection, I wish to remind members what standing orders say about the length of questions. Hon SUE ELLERY replied: Thank you, Mr President. I am pleased to be able to answer this question because although I was not in the chamber last night, I did listen to the honourable member’s comments during the adjournment debate. I was concerned that she was reaching conclusions about two sets of figures that are not comparable because one is not a subset of the other. I was concerned with the conclusion she was jumping to. I think she used expressions like “rubbery figures” and “disgraceful”, which are very strong words to use about a matter when, clearly, the honourable member did not have all the facts. That is why I am happy she has asked the question today, because I can set her straight. (1) The cases awaiting full investigation are not a subset of the unallocated cases. There will be some overlap due to timing of case allocation following a preliminary assessment. The 386 cases referred to were cases awaiting full investigations following a preliminary assessment that an investigation was necessary. The 1 505 cases as reported in The West Australian dated 21 February 2008 have had preliminary assessments completed—this is the important bit—and none of these children has been assessed as being at immediate risk. (2) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. (3) Manual and automated reporting systems are used. (4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(5) Why did the director general say in The West Australian that many of the cases on this list are close to being closed when, clearly, if that is the case, a caseworker would have had responsibility for a case all along and would have input into whether or not that case would be closed? (6) How many unallocated cases are near to being closed and what is the reason they do not have a caseworker? (7) Why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? (8) Does the department have 1 800 unallocated cases on the books? (9) If yes, why? The PRESIDENT : Before I call the Minister for Child Protection, I wish to remind members what standing orders say about the length of questions. Hon SUE ELLERY replied: Thank you, Mr President. I am pleased to be able to answer this question because although I was not in the chamber last night, I did listen to the honourable member’s comments during the adjournment debate. I was concerned that she was reaching conclusions about two sets of figures that are not comparable because one is not a subset of the other. I was concerned with the conclusion she was jumping to. I think she used expressions like “rubbery figures” and “disgraceful”, which are very strong words to use about a matter when, clearly, the honourable member did not have all the facts. That is why I am happy she has asked the question today, because I can set her straight. (1) The cases awaiting full investigation are not a subset of the unallocated cases. There will be some overlap due to timing of case allocation following a preliminary assessment. The 386 cases referred to were cases awaiting full investigations following a preliminary assessment that an investigation was necessary. The 1 505 cases as reported in The West Australian dated 21 February 2008 have had preliminary assessments completed—this is the important bit—and none of these children has been assessed as being at immediate risk. (2) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. (3) Manual and automated reporting systems are used. (4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(6) How many unallocated cases are near to being closed and what is the reason they do not have a caseworker? (7) Why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? (8) Does the department have 1 800 unallocated cases on the books? (9) If yes, why? The PRESIDENT : Before I call the Minister for Child Protection, I wish to remind members what standing orders say about the length of questions. Hon SUE ELLERY replied: Thank you, Mr President. I am pleased to be able to answer this question because although I was not in the chamber last night, I did listen to the honourable member’s comments during the adjournment debate. I was concerned that she was reaching conclusions about two sets of figures that are not comparable because one is not a subset of the other. I was concerned with the conclusion she was jumping to. I think she used expressions like “rubbery figures” and “disgraceful”, which are very strong words to use about a matter when, clearly, the honourable member did not have all the facts. That is why I am happy she has asked the question today, because I can set her straight. (1) The cases awaiting full investigation are not a subset of the unallocated cases. There will be some overlap due to timing of case allocation following a preliminary assessment. The 386 cases referred to were cases awaiting full investigations following a preliminary assessment that an investigation was necessary. The 1 505 cases as reported in The West Australian dated 21 February 2008 have had preliminary assessments completed—this is the important bit—and none of these children has been assessed as being at immediate risk. (2) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. (3) Manual and automated reporting systems are used. (4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(7) Why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? (8) Does the department have 1 800 unallocated cases on the books? (9) If yes, why? The PRESIDENT : Before I call the Minister for Child Protection, I wish to remind members what standing orders say about the length of questions. Hon SUE ELLERY replied: Thank you, Mr President. I am pleased to be able to answer this question because although I was not in the chamber last night, I did listen to the honourable member’s comments during the adjournment debate. I was concerned that she was reaching conclusions about two sets of figures that are not comparable because one is not a subset of the other. I was concerned with the conclusion she was jumping to. I think she used expressions like “rubbery figures” and “disgraceful”, which are very strong words to use about a matter when, clearly, the honourable member did not have all the facts. That is why I am happy she has asked the question today, because I can set her straight. (1) The cases awaiting full investigation are not a subset of the unallocated cases. There will be some overlap due to timing of case allocation following a preliminary assessment. The 386 cases referred to were cases awaiting full investigations following a preliminary assessment that an investigation was necessary. The 1 505 cases as reported in The West Australian dated 21 February 2008 have had preliminary assessments completed—this is the important bit—and none of these children has been assessed as being at immediate risk. (2) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. (3) Manual and automated reporting systems are used. (4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(8) Does the department have 1 800 unallocated cases on the books? (9) If yes, why? The PRESIDENT : Before I call the Minister for Child Protection, I wish to remind members what standing orders say about the length of questions. Hon SUE ELLERY replied: Thank you, Mr President. I am pleased to be able to answer this question because although I was not in the chamber last night, I did listen to the honourable member’s comments during the adjournment debate. I was concerned that she was reaching conclusions about two sets of figures that are not comparable because one is not a subset of the other. I was concerned with the conclusion she was jumping to. I think she used expressions like “rubbery figures” and “disgraceful”, which are very strong words to use about a matter when, clearly, the honourable member did not have all the facts. That is why I am happy she has asked the question today, because I can set her straight. (1) The cases awaiting full investigation are not a subset of the unallocated cases. There will be some overlap due to timing of case allocation following a preliminary assessment. The 386 cases referred to were cases awaiting full investigations following a preliminary assessment that an investigation was necessary. The 1 505 cases as reported in The West Australian dated 21 February 2008 have had preliminary assessments completed—this is the important bit—and none of these children has been assessed as being at immediate risk. (2) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. (3) Manual and automated reporting systems are used. (4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(9) If yes, why? The PRESIDENT : Before I call the Minister for Child Protection, I wish to remind members what standing orders say about the length of questions. Hon SUE ELLERY replied: Thank you, Mr President. I am pleased to be able to answer this question because although I was not in the chamber last night, I did listen to the honourable member’s comments during the adjournment debate. I was concerned that she was reaching conclusions about two sets of figures that are not comparable because one is not a subset of the other. I was concerned with the conclusion she was jumping to. I think she used expressions like “rubbery figures” and “disgraceful”, which are very strong words to use about a matter when, clearly, the honourable member did not have all the facts. That is why I am happy she has asked the question today, because I can set her straight. (1) The cases awaiting full investigation are not a subset of the unallocated cases. There will be some overlap due to timing of case allocation following a preliminary assessment. The 386 cases referred to were cases awaiting full investigations following a preliminary assessment that an investigation was necessary. The 1 505 cases as reported in The West Australian dated 21 February 2008 have had preliminary assessments completed—this is the important bit—and none of these children has been assessed as being at immediate risk. (2) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. (3) Manual and automated reporting systems are used. (4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
The PRESIDENT : Before I call the Minister for Child Protection, I wish to remind members what standing orders say about the length of questions. Hon SUE ELLERY replied: Thank you, Mr President. I am pleased to be able to answer this question because although I was not in the chamber last night, I did listen to the honourable member’s comments during the adjournment debate. I was concerned that she was reaching conclusions about two sets of figures that are not comparable because one is not a subset of the other. I was concerned with the conclusion she was jumping to. I think she used expressions like “rubbery figures” and “disgraceful”, which are very strong words to use about a matter when, clearly, the honourable member did not have all the facts. That is why I am happy she has asked the question today, because I can set her straight. (1) The cases awaiting full investigation are not a subset of the unallocated cases. There will be some overlap due to timing of case allocation following a preliminary assessment. The 386 cases referred to were cases awaiting full investigations following a preliminary assessment that an investigation was necessary. The 1 505 cases as reported in The West Australian dated 21 February 2008 have had preliminary assessments completed—this is the important bit—and none of these children has been assessed as being at immediate risk. (2) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. (3) Manual and automated reporting systems are used. (4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
Hon SUE ELLERY replied: Thank you, Mr President. I am pleased to be able to answer this question because although I was not in the chamber last night, I did listen to the honourable member’s comments during the adjournment debate. I was concerned that she was reaching conclusions about two sets of figures that are not comparable because one is not a subset of the other. I was concerned with the conclusion she was jumping to. I think she used expressions like “rubbery figures” and “disgraceful”, which are very strong words to use about a matter when, clearly, the honourable member did not have all the facts. That is why I am happy she has asked the question today, because I can set her straight. (1) The cases awaiting full investigation are not a subset of the unallocated cases. There will be some overlap due to timing of case allocation following a preliminary assessment. The 386 cases referred to were cases awaiting full investigations following a preliminary assessment that an investigation was necessary. The 1 505 cases as reported in The West Australian dated 21 February 2008 have had preliminary assessments completed—this is the important bit—and none of these children has been assessed as being at immediate risk. (2) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. (3) Manual and automated reporting systems are used. (4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
Thank you, Mr President. I am pleased to be able to answer this question because although I was not in the chamber last night, I did listen to the honourable member’s comments during the adjournment debate. I was concerned that she was reaching conclusions about two sets of figures that are not comparable because one is not a subset of the other. I was concerned with the conclusion she was jumping to. I think she used expressions like “rubbery figures” and “disgraceful”, which are very strong words to use about a matter when, clearly, the honourable member did not have all the facts. That is why I am happy she has asked the question today, because I can set her straight. (1) The cases awaiting full investigation are not a subset of the unallocated cases. There will be some overlap due to timing of case allocation following a preliminary assessment. The 386 cases referred to were cases awaiting full investigations following a preliminary assessment that an investigation was necessary. The 1 505 cases as reported in The West Australian dated 21 February 2008 have had preliminary assessments completed—this is the important bit—and none of these children has been assessed as being at immediate risk. (2) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. (3) Manual and automated reporting systems are used. (4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(1) The cases awaiting full investigation are not a subset of the unallocated cases. There will be some overlap due to timing of case allocation following a preliminary assessment. The 386 cases referred to were cases awaiting full investigations following a preliminary assessment that an investigation was necessary. The 1 505 cases as reported in The West Australian dated 21 February 2008 have had preliminary assessments completed—this is the important bit—and none of these children has been assessed as being at immediate risk. (2) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. (3) Manual and automated reporting systems are used. (4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(2) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. (3) Manual and automated reporting systems are used. (4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(3) Manual and automated reporting systems are used. (4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(4) There is no discrepancy, as the figures relate to different circumstances. As at 11 February 2008 there were 399 cases awaiting full investigation, having already been the subject of a preliminary assessment as to risk. (5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(5) There are two circumstances where this occurs. Cases allocated to field workers’ caseloads can be transferred to the team leader and classified as unallocated when close to closure. All unallocated cases are held by team leaders and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. (6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(6) All unallocated cases are held by the team leader and are prioritised and responded to on an as needs basis and go through a formal closure process. The exact number can only be accessed manually. (7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(7) This question asks me: why is the union saying that there are 1 800 children and families at risk? My answer to that is: ask the union why it is saying that. (8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(8) No. (9) Not applicable.
(9) Not applicable.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.