CHILD PROTECTION

Mr MARSHALL (Norwood—Leader of the Opposition) (14:24): My question is to the Premier. As the Ombudsman's report confirms that there were initially concerns by police that the principal failed to notify the Child Abuse Report Line in the case at the centre of the Debelle inquiry and the principal of the southern suburbs school also failed to notify the Child Abuse Report Line, doesn't this indicate a government culture of a casual attitude toward child protection?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Treasurer, Minister for State Development, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for the Arts) (14:24): Thank you for that question. I am very glad to be able to respond to that question, apart from the fact that it proceeds from a misreading of the Debelle report, where actually one of the key findings that was made by Mr Debelle in the report is that principals in these circumstances should be relieved of their obligations to make a mandatory notification where the only reason that they actually get that information is from a police officer who is themselves a mandatory notifier.

So, if the honourable member was actually familiar with the Debelle report, he would actually realise that the criticism he is making of the principal is one that Mr Debelle himself says is not well-founded, because in that circumstance, the principal made the mandatory notification within a few days later. The only reason they had that information was because of the report of an officer who had already made a mandatory report. So, if you like, the substratum fact on which he makes his rather bold assertion about a casual attitude to child protection is just not founded at all.

I want to remind the honourable member—because he was not in the parliament until 2010, so he won't actually have the corporate history here—that within three weeks of coming into office, the member for Ashford commissioned the Layton review into child protection. She did that because we had a child protection system that was in crisis—not that that word was permitted to be used, because one of the advisers on a particular advisory panel to government told me that, when she tried to use that word, it was edited out of the reports to be given to the former government. She was not permitted to use the word 'crisis' in relation to child protection.

What she found was that a layer of authority, a coordinating committee, was actually put over the top of her so that she could not make sure that her reports got through to the relevant minister about the child protection system. As to our child protection, we have tripled the number of resources into that system. We have done more to shine a light on the evil of child sexual abuse in this state than any other government that has come before us or any other government around our nation.

Indeed, the model that we used to set up the Mullighan inquiry, something that I initiated myself, has been used as the model for the royal commission that is now looking into child sexual abuse around the nation. We extended the Mullighan inquiry into the Aboriginal lands, because we wanted to shine a light on child sexual abuse there. I must say, when those opposite had the chance to really shine a light on the evil of child sexual abuse, they balked at it. They refused to remove the pre-1982 exemption—

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order, sir: standing order 98—the Premier is debating the substance of the question, not answering the question.

The SPEAKER: Well, I'll listen—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Sir, the question accused the government of having a casual attitude to child sexual abuse.

Members interjecting:

Ms Chapman: He's the Speaker, not you.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: You used to be speaker.

The SPEAKER: And a very good speaker he was, too.

Mr Marshall: Actually, he wasn't. We've got the footage. He lost it a couple of times.

The SPEAKER: With good reason. The terms of the question were so pejorative that it opens the scope to give the Premier the leeway to make the remarks he is making. I have warned the member for Heysen twice. If I see her lips move, she'll be out.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and it is an important matter, because offences that occurred prior to 1982 were unable to be prosecuted in this parliament when we came into government. The previous government was given the opportunity to actually remove that exemption and they chose not to. This government passed laws that did that. This government expanded the scope of screening in relation to people who work with children so that we could shine a light on the evil of child sexual abuse to prevent this happening.

There is no more important issue to me personally or to this government than protecting our most vulnerable citizens, our little children. Nothing could be more important to me or to us, and every day, we do everything we possibly can to try to achieve that. Does that mean that horrible things don't still happen? Of course they do. Is that an awful thing and does it hurt all of us? Of course it does. But, every single day, we devote ourselves to that objective. Of course there have been mistakes made here, but it has been this government—

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order, sir: I believe the Premier has exceeded his time.

The SPEAKER: And, unlike the member for Unley, you are exactly correct.