Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Oakden Inquiry

Mr DULUK (Davenport) (14:46): My question is to the Minister for Mental Health. Will the government be providing funding for legal representation for the victims of abuse at the Oakden facility, and their families, to support them in relation to the ICAC's Oakden maladministration investigation?

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (14:47): The question about legal representation in Oakden is an interesting one, especially in respect of those people who would be unequivocally attending those proceedings in order to actually, in effect, provide information to the commission about unsatisfactory conduct on the part of, potentially, employees or other people associated with Oakden.

I think it is important for us to remember that this is not a trial, that this is not an investigation designed to be preparatory to criminal proceedings: this is an investigation which is designed to elicit information which the commissioner can weigh in the balance and ultimately form views about what has transpired, whether people have made mistakes, whether people have failed in their duty and whatever other findings the commissioner might ultimately come to.

On the face of it, given that, as I understand it, the relatives and family and friends of those people who may have been residing in Oakden and be concerned about their conduct, are in no way even potentially likely to be the object of any adverse finding, or even remark for that matter, by the commissioner. I don't, on the face of it, understand any of those people to be facing any risk whatsoever. I certainly would be surprised, to put it mildly, if any of them were at risk of even being the subject of any adverse comment.

Unless there is something more to it than that, my view would be that those people should be encouraged to come forward; they should be encouraged to speak freely to the commission; they should be encouraged to say everything they have to say, safe in the knowledge that their reports to the commissioner will be received in private; that they can speak frankly to the commissioner and they do not have to be careful about what they say. They can say things even to the commissioner which might, coming from their mouths, be hearsay because what they are saying will be ultimately moderated by the commissioner's inquiry. I don't see that any of those individuals are in any way at risk of having their legal rights in any way compromised.

If that judgement is incorrect in the case of any particular individual and they have some reasonable appreciation that they may be at risk or their position might be compromised in some way, then that individual, whoever they might be, should immediately come forward to the Crown Solicitor and advise the Crown Solicitor of what their concern is, whether they believe that they are in any conceivable way placed at a potential disadvantage personally by actually just sharing what they know with the commission and that would be sympathetically considered.