CHILDREN IN STATE CARE APOLOGY

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. M.D. Rann:

That this parliament recognises the abuses of some of those who grew up in state care and the impact that this has had on their lives.

Only those who have been subject to this kind of abuse or neglect will ever be able to fully understand what it means to have experienced these abhorrent acts.

For many of these people, governments of any persuasion were not to be trusted. Yet many have overcome this mistrust.

You have been listened to and believed and this parliament now commits itself to righting the wrongs of the past.

We recognise that the majority of carers have been, and still are, decent honourable people who continue to open their hearts to care for vulnerable children.

We thank those South Australians for their compassion and care.

We also acknowledge that some have abused the trust placed in them as carers. They have preyed upon our children.

We acknowledge those courageous people who opened up their own wounds to ensure that we as a state could know the extent of these abuses.

We accept that some children who were placed in the care of government and church institutions suffered abuse.

We accept these children were hurt.

We accept they were hurt through no fault of their own.

We acknowledge this truth.

We acknowledge that in the past the state has not protected some of its most vulnerable.

By this apology we express regret for the pain that has been suffered by so many.

To all those who experienced abuse in state care, we are sorry.

To those who witnessed these abuses, we are sorry.

To those who were not believed when trying to report these abuses we are sorry.

For the pain shared by loved ones, husbands and wives, partners, brothers and sisters, parents and, importantly, their children, we are sorry.

We commit this parliament to be ever vigilant in its pursuit of those who abuse children.

And we commit this parliament to help people overcome this, until now, untold chapter in our state's history.

(Continued from 17 June 2008. Page 3517.)

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Minister for Families and Communities, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Housing, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability, Minister Assisting the Premier in Cabinet Business and Public Sector Management) (16:00): I rise to speak in support of the Premier's motion to apologise to those children in state care who were sexually abused while in that care. I believe that what we witnessed with the Premier's apology was an incredible act of community and one which stands not only this parliament but also the broader South Australian community in good stead. Indeed, there are few examples of complete acts of contrition and forgiveness in our society for injustices, and I believe if we can follow through on all the promises which are implicit in the Mullighan report and deliver the outcomes to which we have all committed ourselves, then that truly remains within our reach.

One of the observations I would like to make about what has brought us to this point is the inquiry itself, and I think it is probably no exaggeration to suggest that, if the inquiry were headed by a lesser man, we may not have achieved what I believe has been quite a wonderful outcome. This was a forum for abused children, now adults, who for many years had felt silenced because of fear of further abuse and, in some cases, certain further abuse. In some cases some of these young children found the courage to tell their stories and were disbelieved or punished for telling those stories. So many of those survivors in so many ways have been disrespected for so long, and it really was the inquiry itself that provided a forum in which they could be heard. But they were not just heard, they were heard with respect, their stories honoured and recorded, and they are now contained within the report that has been published for everyone to see.

I think some of the most poignant stories from the report come from those who explain the power and strength that they now have upon telling their stories and having those stories honoured. There is probably no more poignant a story than that of the woman who explained that her children used to say they felt sorry for her and now they feel proud of her. The victory is in the movement from being a victim to being a survivor, from the story of someone's life being a failure to actually being a success when nothing has really changed, it is just how they see the story of their life.

The fact that they are still around to tell these stories is a testament to their strength, yet, for so many of them, because of the disrespect that was implicit in the original abuse and the further disrespect that was implicit in not being believed, they could not gather an alternative story about their lives. The Mullighan inquiry assisted them to tell a different story about their lives—a story of courage, hope and strength, not a story of weakness and despair. That is a massive thing because, armed with that different story about their lives, they are now able to take the steps towards healing and rebuilding their lives.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Fundamentally, as the member for Torrens said, they have been empowered. That is what Commissioner Mullighan has given these people. That is a gift greater than any therapeutic service and it is a gift greater than any perpetrator being brought to justice, as important as those things are. It is actually a gift even greater than money, and one of the great strengths of this inquiry is that it did not focus on money. It focused on the telling of truths and, in that respect, it has been a tremendous success.

I want to acknowledge a range of people. In particular, I acknowledge the member for Frome for his role in assisting with the passage of the legislation. I also acknowledge Commissioner Ted Mullighan and his team of people who worked on the inquiry. It has taken an enormous toll but it has been an incredibly rewarding experience for them and, of course, for those who came before them. Many people now are taking a range of very important steps in their lives and, from this point onwards, we need to build on the strength that they have gathered through this inquiry. The apology, that very public performance of acknowledgement by this chamber—a solemn occasion when we acknowledged the truth of their experience—has added an enormous amount to the story of their lives, and I congratulate all of them for coming forward and assisting us to understand this particular chapter in our state's history.

I conclude by saying that another thing that has been revealed by this inquiry, and something that is irreversible, is that we are now fixed with the knowledge that some of our most vulnerable people in our community are particularly preyed upon by sexual predators. They are deliberately chosen because of the fact that they are the most vulnerable and because of the fact that, in some senses, they may be the least likely to be believed.

Even though this is the most abhorrent thing to imagine, we now cannot say, 'This is too hard to believe. How could you imagine that this could happen to someone', and excuse ourselves from protecting those people. We are now fixed with this knowledge. All public officials are now fixed with this knowledge. Law makers are now fixed with this knowledge and things now going forward have to now be shaped with this knowledge. That is a very powerful fact that I think Commissioner Mullighan has assisted us to understand in horrible detail. As decision makers, sadly, in many ways, we now need to adjust the way in which we look at protecting the most vulnerable people in our community. I commend the apology to the house.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:08): I rise to support the motion moved by the Premier on Tuesday of this week and which was supported by the Leader of the Opposition. In anticipation of other speakers on this motion, I look forward to listening to their contribution and, in advance, wish to thank them personally for their contribution to the debate in supporting the apology. The arduous task befell Ted Mullighan QC (retired Supreme Court justice) when he commenced this inquiry in November 2004. He had accepted the commission, clothed with its instructions in legislation from this chamber, to undertake a rather disturbing task, particularly when we hear from Commissioner Mullighan. In the opening of his report to this parliament he said:

Nothing prepared me for the foul undercurrent of society revealed in the evidence to the Inquiry; not in my life in the community or my work in the law as a practitioner and a judge.

Having read the report, as many members have, my initial surprise at that comment evaporates because, quite clearly, even though one might expect that a person of such experience as Commissioner Mullighan might have heard and seen everything in his legal and judicial life, he was so moved by the stories told by the victims—that is, those who have come forward to tell their story—during the course of undertaking the interviews and preparing the report.

The stories of the victims put a new light on how serious and how utterly destructive the conduct of others has been towards these people when young. They had a reasonable expectation that they would be protected, but, fundamentally, they were denied that protection and left in a gross state of neglect and, as the minister has said, in a state of vulnerability and sexually abused. I join with other speakers in saying sorry to these people who were young people at the time and victims of child sexual abuse whilst in the care of the state.

For some it was when they were in an institution. For some it was when they were living with a family under the foster care program. For some of these children it occurred in other households. For some it was at a camp, a meeting, or an occasion provided as an activity whilst under the guardianship of the state. It has come subsequent to an acknowledgment by other paternal parties in the community—that is, those who have been either vested with or enjoy the privilege and respect of a level of responsibility for children—in particular, the churches. In particular, the Anglican church and the Catholic church have been the subject of public scrutiny as a result of claims which have been made against them and they have had to acknowledge a dereliction of their duty to children whilst under their responsibility and to whom they owed a clear duty. Some are still working through compensation claims and how they might best manage the harm and damage caused to those children.

As a member of the state parliament, which is the body to which any government is responsible, ultimately we have the responsibility to scrutinise the activity of government and to ensure as best as possible and at all times—and now that this has been revealed certainly into the future—how we might protect children. Significant comment was made at the time of the debate of the legislation to facilitate this inquiry and report. That included whether we should restrict the terms of reference to children who were victims of sexual abuse and death and not include those who were the subject of physical or psychological abuse, or neglect. Clearly, these children are also victims of child abuse and they also deserve a moment of reflection, an acknowledgment and an apology.

The terms of reference of this inquiry did not include them, and some felt rather unhappy about that. However, I wish to place on the record that I think that, although they have not had the privilege, I suppose, or the opportunity to tell their story through this process, they have been quite vocal in public forums about what they have suffered and they should also be acknowledged. I wish to place my apology to them on the record.

When the report was tabled in parliament the Premier indicated that he would do a number of things, including providing a report on consideration, which is required under the legislation, with respect to the response by the government to the recommendations. He also indicated that he would move this apology and consult the survivors of child sexual abuse while in state care about the appropriate form of the apology. I can only assume that that has been done. I think that the words of the apology are important. They are certainly comprehensive, so I assume that was done after that consultation process.

I am pleased that the government moved promptly to indicate that this apology would be made. Of course, it has been a number of weeks since he had the opportunity to carry that out, but he did so, and I acknowledge the Premier's prompt indication that that would be forthcoming. He was also prompt in announcing some funding to assist in the prosecution of a number of cases and also that a fund would be established for the provision of compensation. As I have said, the government indicated at that stage that it would consider the recommendations in detail and then come back to the parliament.

Since this motion was moved, the Minister for Families and Communities has provided a report to the parliament on all the recommendations, only one of which has been declined, but there is what I believe is a satisfactory explanation as to the priority the government intends to continue to provide for access to a sexual behaviour clinic for prisoners. The opposition is certainly considering the government's response.

I will say a number of things in relation to that shortly, but can I just say this. In the broader picture of the legislation coming to fruition and this inquiry being undertaken, it was an extremely expensive inquiry but I think it was justified in our being able, as best we could, to ensure that there was finally this opportunity for people who had been abused, silenced or threatened in their childhood—some of whom, as members can see from the statistics in this report, did not live long enough to tell their story. I think it was very important that they had that opportunity.

Much has been said about the public exposure during the 1990s of children who are victims of child sexual abuse or death whilst under the care of the state. I think it was very confronting to many in the community as these claims were flashed across the newspapers and became the basis of a number of inquiries and reports. It was particularly confronting because, as one would imagine when one reads these stories (and this is confirmed), a number of these children had already lost the protection of their immediate family and even their extended family, if they ever had it.

There is a reasonable expectation that, when a state takes on the responsibility for these children, it is in a respected and responsible position and is assumed to be reliably resourced and committed to protecting the children, let alone providing an environment in which they may be educated and flourish and develop into adulthood. A very basic fundamental expectation is that in that relationship, from whatever fractured or unhappy circumstance they may have come, having parents who, for whatever reason, are unable or unwilling to provide for them, they would be protected in this new relationship. It should be a relationship of trust and expectation, and some children were fundamentally let down. So, it is not surprising that the outcome is confronting for the public to accept and I suppose, to some degree, for there to be an acceptance that something needed to be done about it.

The member for Frome (Hon. Rob Kerin, a former premier) has been acknowledged for his work. I know of a number of cases where people went to see the member. I had represented a number of those people over the years in another life. Sometimes it was because they had broken the law and were in the court system, and sometimes their story had been told and they were not listened to. However, certainly, they were carrying very deep scars and wounds from it. I was aware of some of these stories before they were revealed to Commissioner Mullighan. I know that the Hon. Rob Kerin heard some of those stories, and they were very disturbing. When anyone hears them for the first time they are certainly confronting.

In the previous decade, I had been involved in a number of cases and have represented the accused, victims, family members and children in cases of child sexual abuse that were intrafamilial. It is bad enough when you see the police reports and photographs, medical statements and the interviews of the children in that situation; that is horrific enough. However, perhaps what is utterly soul-destroying is when you see that some of the children who are the subject of this report have come from family environments where they have ultimately learnt behaviour that has perpetuated into the next generation. That is very disturbing.

I spent 10 years in courtrooms, sometimes with Commissioner Mullighan—sometimes he was counsel and I was instructing and sometimes we were against each other—and there were a number of these types of cases. As confronting as they were, it was equally disturbing to find later that when people came forward, such as many of the people in this litany of horror stories, they had actually been exposed to other types of abuse in a family situation. As I said, sometimes they were arrested for being involved in criminal behaviour and sometimes they were in distressed domestic circumstances and they would end up in a legal office.

As confronting as it was to do deal with this next generation of exposure, I suppose, and the explosion of cases that came through the 1980s and 1990s, it was very important that we dealt with it. Of course, families were torn apart. Disclosure of abuse can be highly destructive. It also comes with a responsibility to ensure that, when we investigate these matters and whenever a child alleges sexual abuse, whether or not there are medical indicia to corroborate such claims, it is important that they are listened to. It is important that there be a thorough investigation. It is important that the techniques used to interview children do not result in a child's allegations being ignored to the extent that there has been child sexual abuse and justice never comes to pass.

A classic example of that is where a child speaks up, the interview process is such that it contaminates the reliability of the evidence and we end up with child abuse having occurred, justice never being obtained and protection never being achieved for that child. That is an utterly unacceptable outcome. Therefore, it is very important that the process of investigation ensures that the evidence is kept uncontaminated.

Equally, I say, it is important that this process is not corrupted or contaminated so that people are not falsely accused or families are not destroyed as a result of allegations that are made. It is important that a very delicate and tightly-balanced forensic approach is taken with these examinations, investigations and interviews. I certainly do not wish to see again the trauma caused in the department, in families and in children's lives that we witnessed throughout the 1980s as many well-intentioned people came together to try to make sure that we were going to set out processes that would protect children. Equally, we should ensure that, where allegations are made and have been listened to that, where possible, action can be taken (whether it be a criminal prosecution or not) to protect against future occurrences for either that child or someone else.

It is extremely important that we learn lessons from this and that we understand the importance of saying sorry to the victims who have come forward to be included in this report and to others who have not actually been documented—but they know who they are out there. They need to have some acknowledgment that the community, and the parliament, in particular, understand that they have suffered and that we will do what we can to protect them.

In conclusion, I welcome the government's announcement that it will look into a secure care facility for the very small minority of children out there now who are vulnerable, unprotected and in state care. There has been difficulty in the past in ensuring that they are adequately protected and physically taken away from predatory people who would cause them harm. We will look to see how quickly the government can institute an investigation into this. We hope that the government will consider immediately how it might be able to secure one of its accommodation facilities to ensure that we protect children who are vulnerable. Commissioner Mullighan has sent us a very clear message that they cannot be safely left on the streets and that some accommodation needs to be provided immediately for their protection. I urge the government to make haste when it does an investigation into making provision for that facility.

I also look forward to the bills to accommodate the recommendation of making it a criminal offence to harbour children. I think that is a very important initiative. I thank Commissioner Mullighan for making this recommendation and I thank the government for accepting that it is something that needs to be done. I look forward to the legislation.

Time expired.

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (16:28): I wish to speak to this motion because I have a personal interest as well as having had responsibility as minister for social justice for children in state care. Therefore I want to speak on those two levels. I come from a migrant family who believed that it was important to take responsibility for other people in the community, particularly children. During my childhood it was quite common for either my grandparents or my own family to have foster children. We were also sponsors each summer holidays of Aboriginal children, particularly from Ernabella, who came down to stay with us as part of a church exchange program.

I mainly grew up in the Largs North/Taperoo area down at Port Adelaide. Because it was really an area of migrants, there would be different nationalities who would look after each other. Being one of the older children, I ended up being the supervisor of a number of young children from a very early age myself, so I felt some responsibility. Basically, in our community that was just something that you did.

In hindsight—and having had the opportunity, many years later, of being the minister for social justice—I guess I realised for the first time what this meant and what were some of the problems associated with that philosophy. Although I still support that, I now have a more serious view about how matters should be developed. In particular, I realise why the Aboriginal children who came to stay with us in the summer holidays, although they had a good time, were always very sad. Even in those days they explained to me that they were sad because they did not know who they were or where their families were. Of course, in the past few years we have all been educated about what happened, particularly with regard to our First Australians.

When I took over as minister for social justice, despite the honour of having that title I was also overwhelmed by the state of affairs I had inherited. While I understand and compliment the member for Frome (being the premier before this Labor government) as well as then minister Dean Brown (who had been responsible, I believe, in the health and social welfare area for some 10 years), we had a really big problem. Eventually we managed to get some strategies in place to try to address the many problems we had inherited but, looking at the statistics from those days (we are talking about 2001 and 2002), the child abuse report line in Family and Youth Services, as it was then called, had received 18,681 reports of abuse and neglect.

Obviously, those needed to be investigated and priorities had to be put in place in terms of the reports received—and I am sure members in this house will recall quite a lot of discussion about what was considered to be urgent (there continues to be debate about this area) and what was considered the least risk of immediate harm, as well as the sorts responses needed. I also discovered the types of abuse we were talking about—although I suppose I already knew this but had just not really thought about it before. Emotional abuse seemed fairly obvious, but the number of reports of children being neglected was quite horrifying. In fact, in the non-indigenous community something like 43 per cent were identified as neglected in those years, with 27 per cent identified as involving physical abuse, 8 per cent sexual abuse, and 23 per cent emotional abuse.

I also had the privilege of meeting with different groups that had campaigned on child protection, and I want to pay tribute to now Professor Freda Briggs, who was very helpful in talking about the big picture in this area, along with a number of other organisations, including CREATE. This organisation was originally set up as The Little Echoes by then minister David Wotton, and it has now become a very important organisation where young people who have been under the care of the minister have their own organisation under which they can advocate for themselves.

I was also very proud that we managed to set up the Dame Roma Mitchell Trust Fund to try to ensure that people who had been under the care of the minister had an opportunity, once they reached the magic age of 16, to get further support. I understand that has gone on to become a very successful direct support for those young people, and it goes towards a myriad of things from training and education right through to getting basic furniture when someone moves into their first rental accommodation.

So, I would like to pay tribute to the staff who got that up and those who continue to administer it. I also want to mention the staff because we had some fairly difficult times with regard to workforce planning and the fact that there were just not enough staff to take up the issues that had been identified—not only by the notifications but also by the various advocacy groups that identified some really big problems that needed to be addressed in all those categories, from neglect right through to sexual abuse (which is the main thing we are talking about today).

I am very proud that our government commissioned 'Our best investment: a state plan to protect and advance the interests of children', colloquially known as the Layton review. I believe that set the framework for the very good works that followed, and I particularly refer to 'Keeping them safe', that looked at past achievements and future initiatives. This was published in about 2006 and looked at what had happened between about 2004 and 2005. Of course, then there was, in my view, this very important initiative—and I wish to congratulate the Minister for Families and Communities because, like me and certainly like Dean Brown, it was obvious to him that there was hurt out there that needed to be addressed. There was a statute of limitations, so it was very difficult to know what could be done about cases that had allegedly occurred about 20 years ago. Being sympathetic is one thing but actually giving people the opportunity to tell their stories is another; to not only be able to tell their stories but also be taken seriously by the state is, I think, again another step along the process.

So, as I said, I want to compliment the minister on having the foresight to introduce what we now call the Mullighan inquiry and to say that, like the many people who work in this area—particularly, our social workers and child protection officers as well as the associated professional people who deal with child protection—the work that Mullighan and his team have done is exceptional. I think that we can only be very proud of the fact that they have turned out a wonderful report that I hope, in some way, helps the 792 people who I understand appeared before them.

One of the things that always worries me (and, again, this goes back to the way I was brought up) is the need to make sure that we train everybody—and we have an opportunity to do that right now with our children—right through our community to have respect for each other. It seems to me that there is a philosophy of making sure that—and I think we would all agree—we need to protect the most vulnerable in our community, but I guess the other thing is that we really do need to think about what our culture supports: how we are portraying children and people in the community and how we treat vulnerable people. This seems to be a philosophical need to try to address these issues.

I was absolutely horrified to hear as the minister in 2002 that 11,974 reports were made and, whether or not they be serious, that is a very high number; and then I think about all of the reports of neglect and abuse of different sorts that were not made that would have happened that absolutely nobody knows about. Certainly, they would not have had the courage or information to know how to report those cases.

It seems to me as though there has been quite a shift in the past six years, and I think that is important, but the challenge will be to make sure that we do something about preventing the abuse that has happened and also to try to change the way we view our community and each other. So, there need to be quite significant cultural changes in my view and also we need to have the resources available to do this work properly.

I have a couple of friends who have worked in the child protection area all of their working life—30 years in one case and 35 years in the other—and they are wonderful people, but they are burnt out. They are burnt out because they deal with too many cases and, quite often, they feel very depressed about what the outcomes will be for the clients they see and their families. I think that is the other challenge which will always be difficult for any government but it is one that does need to be taken very seriously.

I join with others in apologising and I say that I am sorry about what has happened. I think it is a terrible truth that we have discovered. In my childhood, as I said, I would like to say sorry to the foster kids, although I think they probably had a reasonable time with our family. I would like to say sorry to them and I would also like to say sorry to those Aboriginal young people who would come down and join us at Christmas time. I wish that I had understood more of their hurt.

Since the Mullighan inquiry, I am very honoured to have a couple of constituents who made submissions to the Mullighan inquiry who have talked to me about their own cases. I have said it to them personally but I want to put on record my admiration for their coming forward and telling their story and having the graciousness and humanity to accept the apology that has been offered. I think that, as much as making an apology, I want to acknowledge that many of these people who have come forward with their stories have also accepted the apology. There will be some who have not and there will be some who are not with us any more, as we have said in this chamber, so unfortunately they do not come under the apology that has been made by the state.

I also add my apology and say that, having had responsibility as the minister for social justice for two years in this area, I apologise for anything that may have happened that I have not been able to deal with or that I did not know about. Even so, I say that the overwhelming view I have from reading the Mullighan report is that we really do need to change our attitude and philosophy about how we treat each other. That is the only way we are going to have any change and it is the only way we are going to be able to prevent there being another Mullighan inquiry in 50 years' time.

[Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. K.A. Maywald]

The Hon. R.G. KERIN (Frome) (16:43): I rise to support the apology and add my apology to those of previous speakers. Right at the outset I congratulate and thank Ted Mullighan for the amazing job that he has done. Ted was not far off taking retirement from the bench and, for him to take on this job—and he had a fair idea of what it entailed, although I think it might have surprised him once he got into it—as a person who had made an enormous contribution to the state already, I think shows that he is a very special man. I think he was warned by several people that it might extend his retirement date by some time.

He is a guy with enormous compassion and he was able to get people to talk to him in such an easy manner, and that really made an enormous difference to so many of the victims. I think Ted Mullighan has done an enormous service to the state and the victims through the fact that it has allowed us to understand the culture of what has happened much better. With his recommendations, Ted has not only made an enormous contribution to South Australia and the victims, but also I have no doubt that Ted Mullighan's legacy will be that fewer children will be sexually abused in the future. Unfortunately, it will still be there, but I think Ted Mullighan can walk away from this knowing that he has made an enormous contribution, and part of that is increased protection for those ahead of him.

For his staff, to be seconded into the positions that they occupied was a very difficult task for all of them. This is not an easy field to enter into. It takes special people to be able to hear, day after day, such horrible stories of what actually happened, to try to understand the culture of what happened to these people, to try to understand why they did not come forward years ago, to understand the fear that they had of a whole range of institutions, and to be able to give them the comfort and trust for them to be able to tell their story.

The staff of the Mullighan inquiry have done an amazing job. As I said about Ted Mullighan, their legacy will be not only that justice has been served to some in the past and that we better understand but also that they have given us the task of making sure the recommendations are upheld and that we protect our young people far better in the future.

What I found most incredible in this whole thing is the courage of the victims. I heard many of the initial stories and, quite frankly, these people had not been believed for years. Most of us have had a decent upbringing, and you initially find it hard to believe some of the stories coming from these people. Many of them are people who have been troubled for a long time. They were talking about things that happened many years ago, so their recollection is not always totally consistent. There was an enormous feeling for those who make that enormous step to come forward. All of a sudden, they wanted to tell their story and they wanted to be believed. For so long their greatest disappointment was they were not going to be believed.

There was an absolute culture amongst the perpetrators. They got away with it for so many years because it was an absolute culture that you picked up from nearly everyone you spoke to, that when they were left, after being abused, they were made to feel as if they had done something very wrong. They were made to feel as if they were very guilty, and they were made to feel that, if they did come forward and report it, they would be in deep trouble, and that happened in some cases. They were also made to understand that, if they did come forward, they would not be believed. That thought stayed with some of them for 30 or 40 years. It was only when others came forward that they started talking amongst each other. They would pick up the paper or whatever, and all of a sudden, they thought, 'There is some chance that someone is now going to believe us,' and they were willing to come forward. Full credit goes to Ted Mullighan for being able to give them the confidence they needed to come forward.

The lack of trust in us, as parliamentarians, the lack of trust in the police, and the lack of trust in the bureaucracy—in any authority—was amazing. So many of them had tried at some stage, or had friends who had gone forward and tried to tell their story and were just not believed. It really was a cultural thing. The perpetrators were all part of that culture and, by hell, they got away with it for a long time. Hopefully, what we have been able to do here will pull that back and we will see a huge decrease. Unfortunately, as I said, we will never get rid of it.

In speaking to Justice Mullighan not long after he took the job, I made several points. I was debriefing him on some of the people that I had been speaking to, although it was not so much about individual cases. In a later conversation he said, 'Well, I heard what you were saying but I wasn't too sure that it would be absolutely correct,' and that confirmed that what I had encountered he had also encountered. As I said, in isolation you would not believe a lot of the stories because of their outright horror but also because of some inconsistencies in the way they were told. I have trouble remembering what I did a week ago, and when these people are trying to talk about what happened to them over a period of time when they were seven, 10, 13 years old—30 years ago—of course you are going to have some inconsistencies. Because of those inconsistencies, a lot of those stories will probably never totally stand up on their own as being totally understood and believable.

One of the things that I said to Justice Mullighan was, 'You're going to come across certain descriptions of people, certain names, certain places, certain patterns of behaviour and certain institutions, and it will be from people who don't know each other. They have been there for five, 10 years apart.' Although I will not go into them, I did share a couple of specifics with Justice Mullighan, because there was a pattern of behaviour in some of those institutions over a period of time which made each of these unbelievable stories very credible. Certainly, the Mullighan inquiry picked up over time that certain things were did happen. I can understand to some extent how for years people were not believed, but once more of them were willing to come forward—and I think that Ki Meekins and Graham Archer probably sparked a lot of that, although that might not have been seen too well by some at the time—that gave people more encouragement to come forward. Once that happened it started to paint a picture, and a lot of these individual stories verified the stories of other people.

Many of the perpetrators have now been reported to the police. That gives a certain amount of closure and justice to some victims. The fact that they have been believed gives them a new self-respect that lot of them have not held for a long time during their lives. As I said, a few people probably sparked this to start with and, as I said, Ki Meekins showed enormous courage in those early days. I will not go into some of the detail of why it was courageous for Ki to come forward. Certainly, the fact that Graham Archer believed him, and they ran television programs, really gave the issue a focus that it probably had not had before, which increased pressure on all of us to listen and decide that we really needed to do something about what had happened to these people in the past. If that is not addressed, then those people miss out on justice, and we are not going to get any better at doing it into the future. I think those guys did a terrific job, as did the other people who were helping them.

I make special mention of a lady called Leonie Sheedy. Leonie, who was here in the chamber during the apology, heads up a group called CLAN (Care Leavers of Australia Network). She has done an enormous amount of work across all the states over a period of time, and I initially started talking to her at the outset of this matter. Leonie got together about six former care leavers from South Australia, with whom I met with at her house in Sydney, where we spent most of a Saturday discussing this matter. They decided that they wanted to tell their stories in front of each other, which I think helped each of them. I have had some pretty hard Saturdays out fielding in the heat and playing footy and doing all sorts of things, but I reckon that was the toughest Saturday I have ever had. There were a lot of tears shed, but you could see that there was basically a therapeutic effect coming through for those people who, all of a sudden, were telling stories they had never told before. I think that for them it was the start of getting some closure.

Once we got to the stage of setting up the inquiry, the minister ensured that it was resourced and pushed along, and I thank the minister for that. That was very important for these people, as also was the acceptance of virtually all the recommendations. If the parliament had not accepted the recommendations of the commission, I think that would have been devastating for many of the victims and totally unfair.

I thank the member for Heysen for her assistance in ensuring that this inquiry was headed along the right track, and I also thank the Hon. Andrew Evans in the Legislative Council for his work on the statute of limitations. I think that, at the end of the day, there should not be any politics involved in this matter at all, and that once we got it on the right track it was kept there. Indeed, I am very happy that we have got to this stage.

There are still some major unanswered questions which bother me. I do not know whether we will ever get the answers to those questions or, indeed, whether getting those answers would be relevant. How all this could have happened has always worried me. Where was the ultimate duty of care in those days to ensure that this did not happen? How were the decisions made to let the kids leave institutions with these people? I cannot understand that. My mother and father never let me out of their sight when I was younger. We, as a government or parliament, take on a responsibility for a lot of these kids who are in institutions.

I am troubled by the fact that it could happen at all, but for it to happen in the way that it did concerns me. It was almost a cultural thing, with kids being allowed out with these people on weekends; there were no checks and balances, and the kids would come back and report things and not be believed. It really is a very sad tale. This is not a matter involving one political party: it basically involves all of us. It was the parliamentarians and the bureaucrats over the years who allowed this to happen, and that leaves a great feeling of unease. It is hard to understand not just how we let these people down but how we actually allowed them to be delivered to the perpetrators.

There are some issues which hopefully will be picked up. What I did find, from talking to many of the victims, was that there were some real issues concerning files. People had been requesting their files for years. Many files were destroyed at one stage for confidentiality reasons, but why would you wipe out part of a person's life and remove any trace of what had happened to them during that time? That should never have happened. Another worrying part of it concerns a person who came to me—and this person knew several others in the same situation—and who had been told for years that their files did not exist. This person put in another request, unrelated to the others, and suddenly they have received copies of part of the files. This shows that the handling of files has not been good, and I would make three points about that in terms of keeping track of someone's life: first, that it is vitally important that files be kept accurately; secondly, that they be preserved; and, thirdly, that they be available to ex-wards of the state.

I have great respect for the victims, and I feel enormous sympathy for them. What we have seen is childhood denied, innocence taken, huge trust broken and many lives destroyed. The ones who have appeared before Commissioner Mullighan are, to some extent, the lucky ones. They are the survivors; they are the ones who have shown amazing courage to get through this. There are many others who have not made it. Because of what happened to them, some resorted to drugs and alcoholism, and no doubt there have been some suicides. Indeed, many of the people concerned, through lifestyle choices, are not here to tell their story.

There are others who chose not to tell their story. One person came to me in the last couple of weeks never told anyone what happened to him as a child. This person, whom I have known for a long time, did not want to go to Commissioner Mullighan, but he decided that he needed to tell someone. I think it was a big move for this person to talk to someone, particularly someone he knew.

This inquiry really has opened up many possibilities for all the people concerned, and it has made a big difference for them. It is important that we say sorry. The most important thing, though—and I think most of the victims would agree—is that we never allow it to happen again. Tragically there will still be child abuse, but we have to cut off every possible avenue where it could occur. It was an absolute pleasure to meet these people and a humbling experience to hear their stories. We can only wish every one of them all the success and happiness they can muster in the future. We acknowledge their courage in doing what they have done.

The member for Bragg raised the issue of some who were disappointed that the terms of reference did not cover them, and we have always been apologetic for that. It is important that we say sorry to them. I think if we had included everything, Ted Mullighan would have had to live until he was 150 to deal with the whole range of issues, but I think the Mullighan inquiry has opened up and made us believe the way these people were treated, and I think there is a flow-on to those who were physically or verbally abused. Their stories become an awful lot more believable because of what Justice Mullighan has been able to find out.

In conclusion, I am pleased that we have been able to finalise this in a bipartisan way, and I think that is important, particularly if you look at the long history of this. The important people are the victims. Personally, I am not focused on revenge, but I hope justice is served for those who do want closure. The compensation can never repurchase their innocence or their childhood but, again, justice can be some satisfaction. This apology is not the state's greatest achievement but it is very important, not just to these victims but also for the making of us as a better state, and, largely, that will be judged by a collective ability to implement Justice Mullighan's recommendations.

We have to become better at protecting our children, and that must be a huge spin-off of this report. Justice Mullighan has not let us down, and we have to make sure that we do not let him down, or the children in the past and those in the future. In closing, I would say that we do need to deliver on better outcomes, because otherwise our whole apology will be judged by what we can deliver in the future.

Ms SIMMONS (Morialta) (17:01): I rise to add my support to this apology. I think I am the only member, currently serving, who has had firsthand experience in fostering children in care. Children come into care for a variety of reasons, none of which are their own fault. They arrive scared, angry, lost, feeling unloved and often with low self-esteem, thinking that they must be in this predicament through some fault of their own. They arrive very vulnerable. These children must be made to feel safe, secure, included and listened to. Carers need to be patient and kind, but able to set boundaries.

Yet, many of the abusers of our children in care used all of these tactics to win over our children and then abused their trust. They lacked the key to every relationship: honesty. It is a sad indictment of our so-called civilised country of Australia that kids in third world countries may have lived in poverty but have not suffered the level of mental and physical abuse that many of our children in state care have been subjected to.

It is appropriate that the Premier and the Minister for Families and Communities signed a shared government and church apology to those harmed in state care. It was thought that church-based care would be the most appropriate place to support our children, that they would be havens of charity and goodness, not harbourers of perverse evil. It is good that all sides have acknowledged that some carers have abused the trust placed in them and that we say sorry to those who have experienced abuse in state care and acknowledge the long-term effects that this has had on their lives.

I believe it is to the credit of these survivors that many of them have overcome their mistrust. It is hard to imagine what it must be like to have no-one to turn to when you are growing up—no parent and no caring figure—and that the significant adult in your life who has been awarded care of your very being is the one causing you the most harm. It must be very confusing when the person performing acts that you know are wrong then dons the garments that command respect in the community. It must be devastating, when you pluck up the courage to speak out about these horrors, that you are not believed or, even worse still, that you are punished for your boldness.

The effects of such a childhood must affect all future relationships, and that is why I think it is also important that we have also said sorry for the pain shared by other family members such as husbands, wives and children. To not be believed when you know you are telling the truth is one of the most difficult psychological issues to deal with. It plays on your mind and it never leaves you. We can only hope that this apology, given in the spirit of reconciliation, is the start of the healing process.

The report of the Children in State Care Commission of Inquiry, conducted by Commissioner Ted Mullighan, was one of the most shocking documents that I have read in my life. Story after heartfelt story relating patterns of behaviour (as the member for Frome also pointed out) were so similar across the homes and institutions in this state that it indicated that neither government nor church cared enough about our children to check the personnel caring for the children, and our homes became targets for paedophiles.

We have heard from many of the survivors that the sensitive and sensible approach of Commissioner Mullighan and his staff in collecting these stories gave many the courage to open their hearts and unlock thoughts and emotions that had been locked away for many years. As a community and a state we will be forever grateful to Commissioner Mullighan and his staff for the dignity they afforded these survivors and the healing process they began, not just for these people but also for the whole of the South Australian community. Tuesday's apology was a promise; it was the next part of the healing journey. It validates not just the survivors' lives but also their courage to speak out again and, this time, to be heard.

Our job as a government is now to accept the recommendations from the children in state care inquiry and implement them to ensure that we will change practice and always provide the best care to children who are in need of it. As I said at the beginning, children who come into state care are already often (but not always) victims of abuse and trauma. They need extraordinary care, support and attention. Like all our children, they have a right to be safe and to trust relationships that are often thrust onto them.

Carers of our children need also to be provided with appropriate support and skills to be able to give and receive counselling, to gain knowledge and insight into the life that many of these children have lived before care, and the skills to help these children cope with and change difficult and challenging behaviours that they may have developed. I believe that the majority of our children are now cared for by amazing people who open their homes and their hearts to children in need, and I pay tribute to them.

However, this motion is about those children who suffered. They suffered physical abuse and mental abuse, and some suffered sexual abuse at the hands of those who were meant to care. We cannot let this happen again. This government recognises that keeping our children safe is a duty. We will spend $190.6 million over the next four years to protect our most vulnerable children.

Right across Australia, there has been an alarming increase in the number of children needing the government's protection. In South Australia, we have seen an increase of nearly 40 per cent in the number of children in care since we rebuilt the child protection system in 2004. These figures are atrocious. Currently, there are more than 1,750 children in care. Part of this money ($28.2 million) will provide early intervention support for families where the children are at risk of abuse or neglect. Another $13.2 million will be spent on families where there are severe problems to help them to stay together or to be reunified.

However, I do believe that there is also a community responsibility to help and support families who we know are struggling with their children: that we extend our own often insular lives to our extended family, friends and neighbourhood, so that families do not continue to fail, to be dysfunctional; and that this figure of 1,750 children currently in care can be reduced. On Tuesday we rightly said sorry for past abuse. I add my apology to those of others. These survivors as children suffered in our care. I acknowledge their bravery. Now we must ensure that this abuse does not happen again. I commend the apology to the house.

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (17:10): I, too, rise to support this apology. In fact, while I was sitting here this morning, one of my colleagues pointed out that the tapestry directly opposite has a couple of newspaper clippings, one of them from The Advertiser in 1940 headlined, 'Infant Guardianship Bill Debate' and the other from the register in 1923 headlined, 'Give us our children'. I think it is possibly significant that those headlines appear on that tapestry celebrating the Centenary of Women's Suffrage.

I record my personal and heartfelt apology to the victims and my profound thanks to Commissioner Mullighan and all his team. He, in particular, named Angel Williams and Liesel Chapman, who, of course, had quite significant roles to play, but the whole of the 57 staff who worked for the commission during its life are to be congratulated, because I have no doubt that it was quite difficult work. I was involved at the outset when the commission was set up and Commissioner Mullighan was appointed. Indeed, I was involved in drafting the agreed terms of reference as a very new shadow minister for families and communities.

The commission was always going to be a difficult task. By the time we passed the legislation setting up the commission, many victims were understandably jaded and mistrustful. Therefore, I particularly want to thank and congratulate those individuals who were the early ones courageous enough to speak to Commissioner Mullighan and to tell him their stories. They had already tried to tell their stories countless times before, only to find that they were not believed or, if they were, they were encouraged to just forget about it and get over it.

Such is the compassion of Commissioner Mullighan and his integrity and ability that, in a relatively short time, word seemed to spread. Here was a man who could be trusted, who would genuinely listen and who, at last, would believe, but, at the same time, who had a profound knowledge of the law which enabled him to achieve a range of other important things: assessing whether prosecution of offenders was likely to be available; ensuring that the commission's processes did not taint the evidence; and explaining in a sympathetic way the likely problems in any prosecution process. Most importantly, by listening to their stories in an interested, unhurried way and by understanding the difficulty of just telling their stories, the commissioner enabled the long overdue healing process to begin.

I note that in his preface, Commissioner Mullighan mentions a couple of things about that. At the very end of the preface he says:

As the inquiry progressed I soon felt a deep sense of privilege and responsibility at having been entrusted with the disclosures of people's most painful memories. I observed their selflessness and courage in sharing their stories as part of their process of healing, but also their desire to assist in some way to prevent future sexual abuse of children in state care.

Certainly, the original time line for the commission was based on the hope that the foul undercurrent of abuse would be less pervasive than it turned out to be.

I am glad that, rather than rushing the process and therefore giving the individuals less time, the decision was made to extend the commission. Certainly, one of the criticisms I have heard of the federal Senate inquiry is that people who appeared before it felt that they were rushed in and were required to more or less summarise what they wanted to say into a matter of just a few minutes. Sometimes it is really important just to give that most important gift of your time and attention.

We come to the apology first expressed by the Premier on Tuesday and then followed very eloquently by the Leader of the Opposition. We all now have our opportunity to add our voices to the apology, so long overdue and so seemingly inadequate when one reads the distressing stories of the abuses perpetrated against these children when in our care. We had a responsibility and we failed most terribly in the most basic requirement of that responsibility to ensure the safety of those children. How cruel it must have seemed to them to be taken from one unsatisfactory situation only to be confronted by even worse. How frightening, how bewildering, terrifying even, to be in situations described in the report, with no-one to help you, protect you or even believe you. Indeed, the healing that started with that is reflected also in a quote in the preface of Commissioner Mullighan's report where he says:

One man told me: 'I've had days where I just wanted to give it all away and I just hope that this [coming to the Inquiry] will end it...Undoubtedly, in disclosing what happened to them, people were affected in various ways. Some felt relief, gratitude, a sense of closure, respected, believed or being included.

So, in the hope that my acknowledgment and every acknowledgment of your suffering and every recognition of your courage and resilience will help you now, I want to add my voice to say to the victims of abuse: I am sorry. I am sorry for what was done to you; I am sorry for our failure to protect you; and I am sorry for our failure to even listen to you and believe you and provide you with at least that comfort. To end on a more positive note, I also want to congratulate those people on their resilience, courage and determination. They deserve our admiration, and I commend the motion to the house.

The Hon. L. STEVENS (Little Para) (17:15): I, too, would like to add my voice to the apology given in this house by the Premier a couple of days ago to those harmed whilst in state care, and I acknowledge other members in this house who have done the same. I would like to congratulate Commissioner Mullighan and his staff for the work they did on this report. I would also like to put on the record my admiration for the people who came forward and acknowledge their resilience, determination and strength in being able to come forward and put on the record the horrifying incidents that happened to them.

When I read the report I found it sickening, horrifying and chilling. It is a huge betrayal of trust at all levels of our society. On page 13 of the summary in the report Commissioner Mullighan said:

Evidence given to the inquiry demonstrates that the alleged sexual abuse occurred in every type of care from the 1940s onwards.

For the next 10 or 15 lines he outlines every type of care. It just shows how pervasive it has been. The fact that it was those institutions—state and church, whose name and status in our community was of the highest integrity—that were perpetrating this betrayal made those actions even more abominable. So, as far as it goes, I add my apology. It seems almost trite just to say it like that, but I am sorry for what has happened.

I was the shadow minister for families and community services from the time I came into this place in 1994 until when the Rann government took office, and my colleague the member for Ashford became the minister for social justice. I note that she mentioned in her speech the shock she received when she was confronted with the state of affairs in relation to this matter. I was only too well aware of that, as shadow minister for all those years.

However, I am really pleased that, since the Rann Labor government has taken office, there has been a constant exposure through a range of reports, beginning with the Layton report, which was commissioned by the member for Ashford as minister for social justice. She also commissioned the Semple report into alternative care and undertook the Family and Youth Services Workload Analysis Project dealing with the same issues. There was a further report under the jurisdiction of the Hon. Jay Weatherill, the Keeping Them Safe report, which documented progress. Then, of course, we had the abuse of children in state care report, to which we are referring, and Commissioner Mullighan's report on abuse in the APY lands.

Never before has there been such a concentrated effort to bring to the surface some of the most despicable practices that have occurred in our state—and not only in our state: we know this is something that has occurred in all jurisdictions and also in other countries. I am pleased to see that the government has reacted positively to the recommendations of Commissioner Mullighan in relation to this report. I am pleased that a further significant amount of funding has been allocated to address the issues and implement the recommendations as outlined by the Minister for Families and Communities.

We can say sorry but, as the member for Ashford said, the most important thing we need to do is to make a difference for the future. If we put all those reports together, there are some very big questions that we need to ask in terms of our society. At the moment, I chair an early childhood development coordinating committee of agency heads of non-government agencies in the northern suburbs of Adelaide in relation to early childhood development.

Recently we were briefed by the regional director of families and communities about the extent of child protection issues in the northern suburbs. We were told some extremely concerning things in terms of the extent of issues in the Elizabeth and Salisbury offices. I have no doubt that it is not just in those areas that these things are occurring. The question is: what is going on in our community which makes this so pervasive?

A few weeks ago, in the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee, we were discussing Commissioner Mulligan's report into the APY lands. We had, as a witness, Kaisi Varttu from SHine SA. She has spent quite a significant amount of time working in the lands and has also been working on these issues in the broader South Australian community. She raised some very important issues about not just what is happening in the APY lands but in our community generally. She talked about some very important issues that we need to address in terms of our community generally.

From what she said, my understanding is that their data indicates that one in three females and one in five males in the community have been abused. This is not a small number; this is pointing to an endemic issue that we do not really want to talk about. The time has come when we need to ask the question: what is going on?

We talk about sexual predators and perpetrators of sexual abuse. If it is that common, it is everywhere. It is not just someone else's problem; it is not just a problem for children who have been in care—although they are particularly vulnerable—it is throughout our community. It says something about what we need to do and the level of concern that we need to show.

I think that some of the things that Kaisi talked about before the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee—she was being directed, in particular, to the APY lands report—go much wider than that and are applicable generally, and I want to put them on the record. SHine makes a very important point: silence protects perpetrators. Zero tolerance is critical. She stated:

SHine SA wants zero tolerance to go hand in hand with greater community awareness. Parents, neighbours, community organisations and community members need to know how to respond to rape and sexual abuse of children and young people.

She particularly made the point that we mostly talk about sexual abuse of children when, in fact, for most of these examples what actually happened was rape of these children. However, we do not say 'rape', we say 'sexual abuse'. Somehow perhaps that means it really was not as bad as it actually was. It is about us not really wanting to face up to what is going on. Kaisi said further:

The findings of the Mullighan inquiries demonstrate that a radical whole of community response is critical to break the silence around rape and sexual abuse. SHine SA believes that parents and children should be better supported by resourced education campaigns that help break the dreadful silence that surrounds this taboo subject.

I am very pleased that recommendation 12 has been accepted by the government. Recommendation 12 was that an extensive media campaign be implemented to educate the community about child sexual abuse, its prevalence, existing misconceptions, perpetrators' tactics, services for victims and treatment of offenders and highlight that child protection is a community responsibility. That recommendation has been accepted.

The government has said that it will make available research funds and request that the Council for the Care of Children working with the Australian Centre for Child Protection examine the most effective approach for educating the community about the issue of child sexual abuse and child protection as a community responsibility.

The government has, in its response, been quite clear that systemic change of attitude is a long-term goal that requires community education efforts by government, community organisations and agencies working in the child protection arena; that education which can be targeted to particular groups is also important; that any campaign has to be over a long period to have an impact; and that we need to have expert advice on the sort of campaign or education strategy that would be effective in the long term. It is not just a one-off showy pamphlet or TV campaign for a certain number of weeks; it is a long-term strategy.

I am pleased that that is there. I am pleased that the education department has a new child protection curriculum for all of its students. However, we need to shine a light and we need to continue to shine a light on the truth of what is going on so that we can do something about it. The government can continue to put millions and millions of dollars into fixing the problem afterwards, but we need to shine a light and make people aware that it is not acceptable in any form, and we need to start early with children and families to try to change the current attitude that, unfortunately, exists under cover in our society.

Motion carried.