CHILDREN IN

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:09): My question is to the Attorney-General. Does the Attorney-General stand by his statements in 2004 that a formal, independent inquiry into the abuse of children in state care would be a waste of time and money?

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms CHAPMAN: On 1 June 2004, in the aftermath of the Anglican Church's inquiry into abuse of children, the Attorney-General was asked by the opposition, as follows:

Should those who are sexually abused in institutions whilst wards of the state be given the same opportunity for a measure of justice as those who have spoken up during the Anglican inquiry?

The Attorney-General replied:

Those who allege they have been assaulted while a ward of the state or under the care of Family and Youth Services can take their complaints to the paedophile task force which is investigating criminal allegations. Where there are allegations of crime, they should be dealt with by the police and then, if necessary, by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and taken to the courts. That is what should happen.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (16:10): What the Liberal opposition in tandem with Today Tonight wanted was a royal commission. That is what they were proposing. The opposition wanted all these allegations made in public under privilege. That is what they wanted.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: That was the proposition—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: —out there in the public debate. That was the proposition which I was resisting.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I suggest that the Liberal Party put that quote in its proper context. What was being advocated at the time on Today Tonight was a royal commission.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: If the parliamentary Liberal Party wants to reach back and look at the origins of the Mullighan inquiry—an inquiry that I fully support—if the opposition had got their way it would not have been the Mullighan inquiry because you may recall you opposed Ted Mullighan being appointed, and if you want to go on with it, I will tell the house why you opposed Ted Mullighan's being appointed.