❓ A parliamentary question regarding state wards removed from Northbridge under curfew, seeking details on their care arrangements, ages, offences, and departmental actions. The Minister acknowledges the issue, provides data on care types and ages, but cannot provide offence information. The Minister defends the curfew as a positive initiative.
AnsweredQoN 301Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
CHILDREN IN CARE - NORTHBRIDGE CURFEW
I refer to the 26 children who are state wards who were removed from Northbridge via the curfew during 2006 and up to April 2007. (1) Is the minister aware that from 2004 some 70 children in the state’s care have been removed via the curfew? (2) For the 26 children removed in 2006-07, will the minister provide what type of care they were in at the time? (3) Will the minister provide the ages of the children? (4) Have any of the children committed offences? (5) What is the department doing to address this situation? Hon SUE ELLERY
I refer to the 26 children who are state wards who were removed from Northbridge via the curfew during 2006 and up to April 2007. (1) Is the minister aware that from 2004 some 70 children in the state’s care have been removed via the curfew? (2) For the 26 children removed in 2006-07, will the minister provide what type of care they were in at the time? (3) Will the minister provide the ages of the children? (4) Have any of the children committed offences? (5) What is the department doing to address this situation? Hon SUE ELLERY
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Yes. The answer I gave to question on notice 2161 contained a typographical error. The number of children in the care of the chief executive officer who were picked up was 28, not 26. The children were in the following types of care at the time they were picked up for breaching the Northbridge curfew: six children were in departmental residential care; one child was in non-government residential care; seven children were in departmental foster care, which includes relative care; two children were in non-government foster care; eight children were living with family or friends; two children were living independently; and two children had absconded from their placement and through the application of the Northbridge curfew were returned to care in alternative placement. (3) Three children were 12 years old; eight children were 13; seven children were 14; four children were 15; five children were 16; and one child was 17. (4) It is not possible to provide information about whether any of the children had committed offences within the time available. This information is not recorded on the department’s client system and is held by the police. (5) The Northbridge curfew is an initiative of the government and one of which we can proud. Children, whether they live with their parents or are in the care of the CEO, who are drawn to this district can be apprehended at night and returned to safety. I can assure the honourable member that this initiative will continue.
(1) Is the minister aware that from 2004 some 70 children in the state’s care have been removed via the curfew? (2) For the 26 children removed in 2006-07, will the minister provide what type of care they were in at the time? (3) Will the minister provide the ages of the children? (4) Have any of the children committed offences? (5) What is the department doing to address this situation? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Yes. The answer I gave to question on notice 2161 contained a typographical error. The number of children in the care of the chief executive officer who were picked up was 28, not 26. The children were in the following types of care at the time they were picked up for breaching the Northbridge curfew: six children were in departmental residential care; one child was in non-government residential care; seven children were in departmental foster care, which includes relative care; two children were in non-government foster care; eight children were living with family or friends; two children were living independently; and two children had absconded from their placement and through the application of the Northbridge curfew were returned to care in alternative placement. (3) Three children were 12 years old; eight children were 13; seven children were 14; four children were 15; five children were 16; and one child was 17. (4) It is not possible to provide information about whether any of the children had committed offences within the time available. This information is not recorded on the department’s client system and is held by the police. (5) The Northbridge curfew is an initiative of the government and one of which we can proud. Children, whether they live with their parents or are in the care of the CEO, who are drawn to this district can be apprehended at night and returned to safety. I can assure the honourable member that this initiative will continue.
(2) For the 26 children removed in 2006-07, will the minister provide what type of care they were in at the time? (3) Will the minister provide the ages of the children? (4) Have any of the children committed offences? (5) What is the department doing to address this situation? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Yes. The answer I gave to question on notice 2161 contained a typographical error. The number of children in the care of the chief executive officer who were picked up was 28, not 26. The children were in the following types of care at the time they were picked up for breaching the Northbridge curfew: six children were in departmental residential care; one child was in non-government residential care; seven children were in departmental foster care, which includes relative care; two children were in non-government foster care; eight children were living with family or friends; two children were living independently; and two children had absconded from their placement and through the application of the Northbridge curfew were returned to care in alternative placement. (3) Three children were 12 years old; eight children were 13; seven children were 14; four children were 15; five children were 16; and one child was 17. (4) It is not possible to provide information about whether any of the children had committed offences within the time available. This information is not recorded on the department’s client system and is held by the police. (5) The Northbridge curfew is an initiative of the government and one of which we can proud. Children, whether they live with their parents or are in the care of the CEO, who are drawn to this district can be apprehended at night and returned to safety. I can assure the honourable member that this initiative will continue.
(3) Will the minister provide the ages of the children? (4) Have any of the children committed offences? (5) What is the department doing to address this situation? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Yes. The answer I gave to question on notice 2161 contained a typographical error. The number of children in the care of the chief executive officer who were picked up was 28, not 26. The children were in the following types of care at the time they were picked up for breaching the Northbridge curfew: six children were in departmental residential care; one child was in non-government residential care; seven children were in departmental foster care, which includes relative care; two children were in non-government foster care; eight children were living with family or friends; two children were living independently; and two children had absconded from their placement and through the application of the Northbridge curfew were returned to care in alternative placement. (3) Three children were 12 years old; eight children were 13; seven children were 14; four children were 15; five children were 16; and one child was 17. (4) It is not possible to provide information about whether any of the children had committed offences within the time available. This information is not recorded on the department’s client system and is held by the police. (5) The Northbridge curfew is an initiative of the government and one of which we can proud. Children, whether they live with their parents or are in the care of the CEO, who are drawn to this district can be apprehended at night and returned to safety. I can assure the honourable member that this initiative will continue.
(4) Have any of the children committed offences? (5) What is the department doing to address this situation? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Yes. The answer I gave to question on notice 2161 contained a typographical error. The number of children in the care of the chief executive officer who were picked up was 28, not 26. The children were in the following types of care at the time they were picked up for breaching the Northbridge curfew: six children were in departmental residential care; one child was in non-government residential care; seven children were in departmental foster care, which includes relative care; two children were in non-government foster care; eight children were living with family or friends; two children were living independently; and two children had absconded from their placement and through the application of the Northbridge curfew were returned to care in alternative placement. (3) Three children were 12 years old; eight children were 13; seven children were 14; four children were 15; five children were 16; and one child was 17. (4) It is not possible to provide information about whether any of the children had committed offences within the time available. This information is not recorded on the department’s client system and is held by the police. (5) The Northbridge curfew is an initiative of the government and one of which we can proud. Children, whether they live with their parents or are in the care of the CEO, who are drawn to this district can be apprehended at night and returned to safety. I can assure the honourable member that this initiative will continue.
(5) What is the department doing to address this situation? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Yes. The answer I gave to question on notice 2161 contained a typographical error. The number of children in the care of the chief executive officer who were picked up was 28, not 26. The children were in the following types of care at the time they were picked up for breaching the Northbridge curfew: six children were in departmental residential care; one child was in non-government residential care; seven children were in departmental foster care, which includes relative care; two children were in non-government foster care; eight children were living with family or friends; two children were living independently; and two children had absconded from their placement and through the application of the Northbridge curfew were returned to care in alternative placement. (3) Three children were 12 years old; eight children were 13; seven children were 14; four children were 15; five children were 16; and one child was 17. (4) It is not possible to provide information about whether any of the children had committed offences within the time available. This information is not recorded on the department’s client system and is held by the police. (5) The Northbridge curfew is an initiative of the government and one of which we can proud. Children, whether they live with their parents or are in the care of the CEO, who are drawn to this district can be apprehended at night and returned to safety. I can assure the honourable member that this initiative will continue.
Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Yes. The answer I gave to question on notice 2161 contained a typographical error. The number of children in the care of the chief executive officer who were picked up was 28, not 26. The children were in the following types of care at the time they were picked up for breaching the Northbridge curfew: six children were in departmental residential care; one child was in non-government residential care; seven children were in departmental foster care, which includes relative care; two children were in non-government foster care; eight children were living with family or friends; two children were living independently; and two children had absconded from their placement and through the application of the Northbridge curfew were returned to care in alternative placement. (3) Three children were 12 years old; eight children were 13; seven children were 14; four children were 15; five children were 16; and one child was 17. (4) It is not possible to provide information about whether any of the children had committed offences within the time available. This information is not recorded on the department’s client system and is held by the police. (5) The Northbridge curfew is an initiative of the government and one of which we can proud. Children, whether they live with their parents or are in the care of the CEO, who are drawn to this district can be apprehended at night and returned to safety. I can assure the honourable member that this initiative will continue.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Yes. The answer I gave to question on notice 2161 contained a typographical error. The number of children in the care of the chief executive officer who were picked up was 28, not 26. The children were in the following types of care at the time they were picked up for breaching the Northbridge curfew: six children were in departmental residential care; one child was in non-government residential care; seven children were in departmental foster care, which includes relative care; two children were in non-government foster care; eight children were living with family or friends; two children were living independently; and two children had absconded from their placement and through the application of the Northbridge curfew were returned to care in alternative placement. (3) Three children were 12 years old; eight children were 13; seven children were 14; four children were 15; five children were 16; and one child was 17. (4) It is not possible to provide information about whether any of the children had committed offences within the time available. This information is not recorded on the department’s client system and is held by the police. (5) The Northbridge curfew is an initiative of the government and one of which we can proud. Children, whether they live with their parents or are in the care of the CEO, who are drawn to this district can be apprehended at night and returned to safety. I can assure the honourable member that this initiative will continue.
(1) Yes. (2) Yes. The answer I gave to question on notice 2161 contained a typographical error. The number of children in the care of the chief executive officer who were picked up was 28, not 26. The children were in the following types of care at the time they were picked up for breaching the Northbridge curfew: six children were in departmental residential care; one child was in non-government residential care; seven children were in departmental foster care, which includes relative care; two children were in non-government foster care; eight children were living with family or friends; two children were living independently; and two children had absconded from their placement and through the application of the Northbridge curfew were returned to care in alternative placement. (3) Three children were 12 years old; eight children were 13; seven children were 14; four children were 15; five children were 16; and one child was 17. (4) It is not possible to provide information about whether any of the children had committed offences within the time available. This information is not recorded on the department’s client system and is held by the police. (5) The Northbridge curfew is an initiative of the government and one of which we can proud. Children, whether they live with their parents or are in the care of the CEO, who are drawn to this district can be apprehended at night and returned to safety. I can assure the honourable member that this initiative will continue.
(2) Yes. The answer I gave to question on notice 2161 contained a typographical error. The number of children in the care of the chief executive officer who were picked up was 28, not 26. The children were in the following types of care at the time they were picked up for breaching the Northbridge curfew: six children were in departmental residential care; one child was in non-government residential care; seven children were in departmental foster care, which includes relative care; two children were in non-government foster care; eight children were living with family or friends; two children were living independently; and two children had absconded from their placement and through the application of the Northbridge curfew were returned to care in alternative placement. (3) Three children were 12 years old; eight children were 13; seven children were 14; four children were 15; five children were 16; and one child was 17. (4) It is not possible to provide information about whether any of the children had committed offences within the time available. This information is not recorded on the department’s client system and is held by the police. (5) The Northbridge curfew is an initiative of the government and one of which we can proud. Children, whether they live with their parents or are in the care of the CEO, who are drawn to this district can be apprehended at night and returned to safety. I can assure the honourable member that this initiative will continue.
(3) Three children were 12 years old; eight children were 13; seven children were 14; four children were 15; five children were 16; and one child was 17. (4) It is not possible to provide information about whether any of the children had committed offences within the time available. This information is not recorded on the department’s client system and is held by the police. (5) The Northbridge curfew is an initiative of the government and one of which we can proud. Children, whether they live with their parents or are in the care of the CEO, who are drawn to this district can be apprehended at night and returned to safety. I can assure the honourable member that this initiative will continue.
(4) It is not possible to provide information about whether any of the children had committed offences within the time available. This information is not recorded on the department’s client system and is held by the police. (5) The Northbridge curfew is an initiative of the government and one of which we can proud. Children, whether they live with their parents or are in the care of the CEO, who are drawn to this district can be apprehended at night and returned to safety. I can assure the honourable member that this initiative will continue.
(5) The Northbridge curfew is an initiative of the government and one of which we can proud. Children, whether they live with their parents or are in the care of the CEO, who are drawn to this district can be apprehended at night and returned to safety. I can assure the honourable member that this initiative will continue.
(1) Is the minister aware that from 2004 some 70 children in the state’s care have been removed via the curfew? (2) For the 26 children removed in 2006-07, will the minister provide what type of care they were in at the time? (3) Will the minister provide the ages of the children? (4) Have any of the children committed offences? (5) What is the department doing to address this situation? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Yes. The answer I gave to question on notice 2161 contained a typographical error. The number of children in the care of the chief executive officer who were picked up was 28, not 26. The children were in the following types of care at the time they were picked up for breaching the Northbridge curfew: six children were in departmental residential care; one child was in non-government residential care; seven children were in departmental foster care, which includes relative care; two children were in non-government foster care; eight children were living with family or friends; two children were living independently; and two children had absconded from their placement and through the application of the Northbridge curfew were returned to care in alternative placement. (3) Three children were 12 years old; eight children were 13; seven children were 14; four children were 15; five children were 16; and one child was 17. (4) It is not possible to provide information about whether any of the children had committed offences within the time available. This information is not recorded on the department’s client system and is held by the police. (5) The Northbridge curfew is an initiative of the government and one of which we can proud. Children, whether they live with their parents or are in the care of the CEO, who are drawn to this district can be apprehended at night and returned to safety. I can assure the honourable member that this initiative will continue.
(2) For the 26 children removed in 2006-07, will the minister provide what type of care they were in at the time? (3) Will the minister provide the ages of the children? (4) Have any of the children committed offences? (5) What is the department doing to address this situation? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Yes. The answer I gave to question on notice 2161 contained a typographical error. The number of children in the care of the chief executive officer who were picked up was 28, not 26. The children were in the following types of care at the time they were picked up for breaching the Northbridge curfew: six children were in departmental residential care; one child was in non-government residential care; seven children were in departmental foster care, which includes relative care; two children were in non-government foster care; eight children were living with family or friends; two children were living independently; and two children had absconded from their placement and through the application of the Northbridge curfew were returned to care in alternative placement. (3) Three children were 12 years old; eight children were 13; seven children were 14; four children were 15; five children were 16; and one child was 17. (4) It is not possible to provide information about whether any of the children had committed offences within the time available. This information is not recorded on the department’s client system and is held by the police. (5) The Northbridge curfew is an initiative of the government and one of which we can proud. Children, whether they live with their parents or are in the care of the CEO, who are drawn to this district can be apprehended at night and returned to safety. I can assure the honourable member that this initiative will continue.
(3) Will the minister provide the ages of the children? (4) Have any of the children committed offences? (5) What is the department doing to address this situation? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Yes. The answer I gave to question on notice 2161 contained a typographical error. The number of children in the care of the chief executive officer who were picked up was 28, not 26. The children were in the following types of care at the time they were picked up for breaching the Northbridge curfew: six children were in departmental residential care; one child was in non-government residential care; seven children were in departmental foster care, which includes relative care; two children were in non-government foster care; eight children were living with family or friends; two children were living independently; and two children had absconded from their placement and through the application of the Northbridge curfew were returned to care in alternative placement. (3) Three children were 12 years old; eight children were 13; seven children were 14; four children were 15; five children were 16; and one child was 17. (4) It is not possible to provide information about whether any of the children had committed offences within the time available. This information is not recorded on the department’s client system and is held by the police. (5) The Northbridge curfew is an initiative of the government and one of which we can proud. Children, whether they live with their parents or are in the care of the CEO, who are drawn to this district can be apprehended at night and returned to safety. I can assure the honourable member that this initiative will continue.
(4) Have any of the children committed offences? (5) What is the department doing to address this situation? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Yes. The answer I gave to question on notice 2161 contained a typographical error. The number of children in the care of the chief executive officer who were picked up was 28, not 26. The children were in the following types of care at the time they were picked up for breaching the Northbridge curfew: six children were in departmental residential care; one child was in non-government residential care; seven children were in departmental foster care, which includes relative care; two children were in non-government foster care; eight children were living with family or friends; two children were living independently; and two children had absconded from their placement and through the application of the Northbridge curfew were returned to care in alternative placement. (3) Three children were 12 years old; eight children were 13; seven children were 14; four children were 15; five children were 16; and one child was 17. (4) It is not possible to provide information about whether any of the children had committed offences within the time available. This information is not recorded on the department’s client system and is held by the police. (5) The Northbridge curfew is an initiative of the government and one of which we can proud. Children, whether they live with their parents or are in the care of the CEO, who are drawn to this district can be apprehended at night and returned to safety. I can assure the honourable member that this initiative will continue.
(5) What is the department doing to address this situation? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Yes. The answer I gave to question on notice 2161 contained a typographical error. The number of children in the care of the chief executive officer who were picked up was 28, not 26. The children were in the following types of care at the time they were picked up for breaching the Northbridge curfew: six children were in departmental residential care; one child was in non-government residential care; seven children were in departmental foster care, which includes relative care; two children were in non-government foster care; eight children were living with family or friends; two children were living independently; and two children had absconded from their placement and through the application of the Northbridge curfew were returned to care in alternative placement. (3) Three children were 12 years old; eight children were 13; seven children were 14; four children were 15; five children were 16; and one child was 17. (4) It is not possible to provide information about whether any of the children had committed offences within the time available. This information is not recorded on the department’s client system and is held by the police. (5) The Northbridge curfew is an initiative of the government and one of which we can proud. Children, whether they live with their parents or are in the care of the CEO, who are drawn to this district can be apprehended at night and returned to safety. I can assure the honourable member that this initiative will continue.
Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Yes. The answer I gave to question on notice 2161 contained a typographical error. The number of children in the care of the chief executive officer who were picked up was 28, not 26. The children were in the following types of care at the time they were picked up for breaching the Northbridge curfew: six children were in departmental residential care; one child was in non-government residential care; seven children were in departmental foster care, which includes relative care; two children were in non-government foster care; eight children were living with family or friends; two children were living independently; and two children had absconded from their placement and through the application of the Northbridge curfew were returned to care in alternative placement. (3) Three children were 12 years old; eight children were 13; seven children were 14; four children were 15; five children were 16; and one child was 17. (4) It is not possible to provide information about whether any of the children had committed offences within the time available. This information is not recorded on the department’s client system and is held by the police. (5) The Northbridge curfew is an initiative of the government and one of which we can proud. Children, whether they live with their parents or are in the care of the CEO, who are drawn to this district can be apprehended at night and returned to safety. I can assure the honourable member that this initiative will continue.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Yes. The answer I gave to question on notice 2161 contained a typographical error. The number of children in the care of the chief executive officer who were picked up was 28, not 26. The children were in the following types of care at the time they were picked up for breaching the Northbridge curfew: six children were in departmental residential care; one child was in non-government residential care; seven children were in departmental foster care, which includes relative care; two children were in non-government foster care; eight children were living with family or friends; two children were living independently; and two children had absconded from their placement and through the application of the Northbridge curfew were returned to care in alternative placement. (3) Three children were 12 years old; eight children were 13; seven children were 14; four children were 15; five children were 16; and one child was 17. (4) It is not possible to provide information about whether any of the children had committed offences within the time available. This information is not recorded on the department’s client system and is held by the police. (5) The Northbridge curfew is an initiative of the government and one of which we can proud. Children, whether they live with their parents or are in the care of the CEO, who are drawn to this district can be apprehended at night and returned to safety. I can assure the honourable member that this initiative will continue.
(1) Yes. (2) Yes. The answer I gave to question on notice 2161 contained a typographical error. The number of children in the care of the chief executive officer who were picked up was 28, not 26. The children were in the following types of care at the time they were picked up for breaching the Northbridge curfew: six children were in departmental residential care; one child was in non-government residential care; seven children were in departmental foster care, which includes relative care; two children were in non-government foster care; eight children were living with family or friends; two children were living independently; and two children had absconded from their placement and through the application of the Northbridge curfew were returned to care in alternative placement. (3) Three children were 12 years old; eight children were 13; seven children were 14; four children were 15; five children were 16; and one child was 17. (4) It is not possible to provide information about whether any of the children had committed offences within the time available. This information is not recorded on the department’s client system and is held by the police. (5) The Northbridge curfew is an initiative of the government and one of which we can proud. Children, whether they live with their parents or are in the care of the CEO, who are drawn to this district can be apprehended at night and returned to safety. I can assure the honourable member that this initiative will continue.
(2) Yes. The answer I gave to question on notice 2161 contained a typographical error. The number of children in the care of the chief executive officer who were picked up was 28, not 26. The children were in the following types of care at the time they were picked up for breaching the Northbridge curfew: six children were in departmental residential care; one child was in non-government residential care; seven children were in departmental foster care, which includes relative care; two children were in non-government foster care; eight children were living with family or friends; two children were living independently; and two children had absconded from their placement and through the application of the Northbridge curfew were returned to care in alternative placement. (3) Three children were 12 years old; eight children were 13; seven children were 14; four children were 15; five children were 16; and one child was 17. (4) It is not possible to provide information about whether any of the children had committed offences within the time available. This information is not recorded on the department’s client system and is held by the police. (5) The Northbridge curfew is an initiative of the government and one of which we can proud. Children, whether they live with their parents or are in the care of the CEO, who are drawn to this district can be apprehended at night and returned to safety. I can assure the honourable member that this initiative will continue.
(3) Three children were 12 years old; eight children were 13; seven children were 14; four children were 15; five children were 16; and one child was 17. (4) It is not possible to provide information about whether any of the children had committed offences within the time available. This information is not recorded on the department’s client system and is held by the police. (5) The Northbridge curfew is an initiative of the government and one of which we can proud. Children, whether they live with their parents or are in the care of the CEO, who are drawn to this district can be apprehended at night and returned to safety. I can assure the honourable member that this initiative will continue.
(4) It is not possible to provide information about whether any of the children had committed offences within the time available. This information is not recorded on the department’s client system and is held by the police. (5) The Northbridge curfew is an initiative of the government and one of which we can proud. Children, whether they live with their parents or are in the care of the CEO, who are drawn to this district can be apprehended at night and returned to safety. I can assure the honourable member that this initiative will continue.
(5) The Northbridge curfew is an initiative of the government and one of which we can proud. Children, whether they live with their parents or are in the care of the CEO, who are drawn to this district can be apprehended at night and returned to safety. I can assure the honourable member that this initiative will continue.
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.