VICTIMS OF ABUSE IN STATE CARE (COMPENSATION) BILL

Introduction and First Reading

Hidden_Subproceeding:Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:24): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to establish a scheme for the payment of statutory compensation to persons who have suffered abuse or neglect while in state care. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:25): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am very proud to introduce this bill, which continues the very good work done by the Hon. Andrew Evans, whom I was privileged to replace. I am most grateful to him for being able to take his seat in this place and for giving me the opportunity to represent families and the cause of justice in South Australia.

For the record, it is worth reflecting that it was, of course, the Hon. Andrew Evans who opened up the opportunity to see justice for victims of sex crimes committed prior to December 1982. Despite the government's constant spin that it made that revocation occur, it was actually the Hon. Andrew Evans—although I do acknowledge the bipartisanship of all parties after it was raised, and I think it is important that it continues to be bipartisan. I think that the clarification has been secured and admitted by all parties concerned in this place.

We need not retrace the whole history of this matter, but I will state a few dot points to highlight the reasons I am introducing this bill, as follows:

the Mullighan inquiry that followed;

the arrests and prosecutions of paedophiles that have since occurred; and

the blanket apology to wards of the state that occurred in the middle of last year just prior to my being sworn in.

Dissatisfaction amongst those abused in state care remains—and rightly so. While it was important that the government give a blanket apology—and Family First participated in that apology in this parliament—up to now there has been no redress for the victims. Yet recommendation 40 of the Mullighan inquiry states:

That a task force be established in South Australia to closely examine the redress schemes established in Tasmania, Queensland and Western Australia for victims of child sexual abuse; to receive submissions from individuals and relevant organisations on the issue of redress for adults who where sexually abused as children in state care; and to investigate the possibilities of a national approach to the provision of services.

Whilst I acknowledge and support the fact that there is some work being done across state borders via a national approach, what progress have we seen with respect to genuine redress and payment to those abused in South Australia? Up to this point we have not seen anything; the answer is none.

The government can say that victims can go to a lawyer to try to sue the state through the Victims of Crime Act or at civil law, but one can hardly say that that is responsible behaviour by a legal entity—namely, the state government—which is the same legal entity today (although of a different political persuasion) as it was when it allowed children to be abused in state care decades ago. It has an obligation to do what it can for those children, who suffered abuse under that duty of care.

The state government is on record in The Australian of 2 April 2008 saying that it believes its victims of crime compensation fund does the job for victims of abuse in state care. We disagree. There are a number of problems with the government's argument in that regard, principal of which is to ask why, if that were so, have three other states set up redress schemes? In fact, I understand that some of those have concluded their redress, made their payments, and allowed those abused victims to begin to put their lives together again.

I will not expand on that argument or run through other arguments now as I will seek leave to conclude shortly in the interests of allowing other business to proceed today. Let me contrast the government's position with that of some of the major churches that have not only admitted that abuse occurred and apologised but, via their leaders' public statements, invited victims to come forward and seek compensation which those churches have set aside for that specific purpose.

I am very pleased to see the churches leading the way in justice and reconciliation in this way, and the government ought to learn from their example. Nobody approves of the sexual abuse of children that happened in public and private institutions. It is repugnant behaviour and should be eliminated.

However, when I see what the churches are doing compared to what the state government is doing, I have to say that I am disappointed in the government's comparative inaction. The government is also out of step with its interstate counterparts on providing compensation to victims. Tasmania, Queensland and Western Australia have established time-limited redress schemes and, by 30 April 2009, which is just over a month from now, all of those states will have concluded their compensation payouts.

To be more precise, Tasmania has put forward approximately $10 million for redress compensation payments. That is an ex gratia payment capped at $60,000. This scheme ran from April to June 2008—a very short time period for claimants to come forward—and follows a previous 2005 compensation scheme. Claimants received a personal apology and personal counselling.

Queensland's scheme cost approximately $100 million, with a maximum ex gratia payment of $40,000. That scheme ran from October 2007 for one year—initially meant to be six months. I note that the amounts payable under that scheme in a two-tier arrangement are the same as I have put forward in this bill, namely, $7,000 for all victims and an additional $33,000 for victims of serious abuse or neglect.

Western Australia's scheme was costed at approximately $114 million and had a maximum $80,000 payout. It started on 1 May 2008 and concludes, as I mentioned, on 30 April 2009. Their tier system is $10,000 for all and a further $70,000 for serious abuse or neglect. Claimants also receive an apology and support services.

Family First has endeavoured to find a happy medium in relation to these schemes, and I think it is an embarrassment to this government that it has not introduced such a scheme to date with three other state governments having done so. I seek leave to conclude my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.