CHILDREN IN STATE CARE

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (15:30): I wish to speak about victims of child sexual abuse while under state care—some hundreds of them—who are still awaiting the government's redress scheme by way of compensation. On 1 April 2008 Commissioner Mullighan published a number of recommendations, one of which was that a task force be established to consider redress for survivors.

On 17 June 2008 the Premier announced that he accepted that a number of the recommendations would be implemented, including that a task force would be set up for this purpose. There were other recommendations for legislation and procedural reforms, particularly those operating in departments and the like, a number of which are pending in their implementation; and some bills are pending before the house.

This was very important because it related to the actual money that victims could receive in order to move on. Some of these victims had waited decades just to be able to tell their story, and now—18 months after Commissioner Mullighan's recommendation—we have not heard one piece of information from the government as to whether or not the task force even exists to the extent of its operation and, in particular, there was no mention in this year's budget of any provision for a redress scheme.

The extraordinary delay is heightened by the fact that on 1 June 2004 the Premier was scathing in this house of the Anglican Church, in particular St Peters College, arising out of claims of sexual abuse and misconduct that had occurred. Members will recall that Justice Trevor Olsson had been called in to conduct an inquiry in relation to that behaviour. On that day the Premier said:

I believe that the Anglican Church must involve itself in adequate and fair compensation for those who were abused.

I do not disagree with that. The fact is that the Anglican Church, however, has received claims and largely paid them out in that time frame. Its cases have been settled, some tens of thousands and some hundreds of thousands of dollars of compensation have been paid, depending on the case and the nature in which it occurred. The Anglican Church has accepted responsibility, resolved the matters and paid the victims—as it should.

Here we are waiting for some response from the government. The Attorney-General's answer has been to dismiss the critics of delay, saying 'Well, they can go off to the Victims of Crime Fund.' This compensation fund is available for victims of crime. It is a fund of first resort where, if you establish you have been the victim of a crime, you are able to get some compensation up to a certain level and, if you recover by common law or some other form money arising out of that conduct, there is a payback to the government. Basically, the people of South Australia pay the victims in those circumstances.

Why should this fund be the reservoir to pay for the negligence of governments that have failed to protect children in their care? If they do so, will the moneys—I think about $15,000 a year is allocated to this fund—be soaked up for that purpose and not be used for what it is clearly intended to provide for?

In any event, why is it that victims of crimes have not applied? Let me say that the threshold is oppressive. You have to establish beyond reasonable doubt, not on the balance of probability (as would apply to a fund interstate). More pertinent, in respect of periods prior to 1974, the maximum claim was $1,000, from 1974 to 1978 $2,000, and from 1978 to 1987 $10,000. We were at our zenith in 1993 when it was $50,000, but the current position with that fund is that you get an award of which (under a structure) you get a certain percentage. What you used to get under a rape case was, say, $36,000 and it is now $12,000. It is quite inadequate.

Time expired.