TERNEZIS, MS K.

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. A. Bressington:

That the Legislative Council condemns the failure of the Attorney-General to answer the questions asked in the Legislative Council concerning the case of Ms Katrina Ternezis and to substantially respond to correspondence sent by Mr John Ternezis concerning the same.

(Continued from 28 September 2011.)

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (20:26): I rise on behalf of the opposition to indicate our support for the motion of the Hon. Ann Bressington. The case of Mr Ternezis and his daughter has been raised in the parliament over many years and by multiple members. The Hon. Ms Bressington's motion concerns the current Attorney-General's failure to respond to her questions concerning Mr Ternezis or to correspondence from Mr Ternezis. As the Hon. Ms Bressington correctly established in her speech, ministers have a responsibility to members of parliament and the public to address concerns about matters under their portfolio.

The Hon. Ms Bressington has detailed the dates she asked questions in parliament about Mr Ternezis' situation and the dates Mr Ternezis corresponded with the former attorney-general, the current Attorney-General and former premier Rann. It is unacceptable that the Attorney has failed to respond to Ms Bressington and/or Mr Ternezis. Consequently, the opposition will be supporting the motion.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (20:27): Members would not be surprised that the government opposes this motion, but it does not do so from a position of political interest or party solidarity. The government opposes the motion because of the substance of the motion itself. I urge other members within the council to look beyond the opportunity to vote for political points and instead consider the motions and the facts related to it because it is extraordinary that the honourable member would move this motion.

It is at this stage that I seek to remind members—and I make it very clear to them—that this motion does not directly pertain to the circumstances of Mr Ternezis' daughter. We are not debating what may or may not have happened. I seek to make no comment on the matter and mean no offence to Mr Ternezis or his daughter.

I will briefly summarise the chronology of the matter that is the subject of the motion. The honourable member asked a question without notice on 4 March 2009, with an associated question following on 24 March, and a response to the question was tabled on 22 September 2009. The honourable member was unhappy with this response and so asked six questions in December 2009 and June 2010. It is worth noting that, in the preamble to the six questions, the Hon. Ms Bressington said:

I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the minister representing the Attorney-General a question about Families SA.

I stress that the wording was 'about Families SA'. So, it can be taken as clear that the honourable member was asking a minister about a different minister's department. I pause to note the strange concept of asking one minister about a department that is the responsibility of another minister.

Regarding the failure to substantially respond to correspondence from Mr Ternezis, I detail the following. I am advised that the previous attorney-general received correspondence from the Hon. Nick Xenophon MLC in 2006 (when the senator was a member of this place) on behalf of Mr Ternezis. The previous attorney-general provided a detailed and comprehensive response to a letter in 2006 outlining the enforcement process and how noncompliance was investigated, and noted that the particulars of the case of Mr Ternezis' daughter were the subject of much correspondence between the department and Mr Ternezis, as well as the then minister for families and communities and Mr Ternezis.

I understand that the subsequent correspondence from Mr Ternezis refers to details of this letter and that it hence can be gathered that Mr Ternezis has a copy of this letter. For the benefit of members, I will read a small passage of this letter that is particularly relevant to all future correspondence from Mr Ternezis. The letter states:

The court does not have a role in monitoring the compliance with an order. When the order includes supervision by the Department for Families and Communities (the department), it is the department's responsibility to monitor compliance with the conditions of the order.

Prior to that time, I understand that the previous attorney-general only received copies of correspondence that Mr Ternezis had sent to the then minister for families and communities.

I am advised that, in 2007, the previous attorney-general received correspondence from Mr Ternezis regarding his daughter and this was rightly directed once again to the then minister for families and communities. A follow-up letter was received asking about the orders of the Youth Court. It was reiterated that the matters in question were matters for the Minister for Families and Communities, and Mr Ternezis was informed once again that the correspondence was directed to that office for consideration.

I understand that, in 2008, a further letter was received detailing concerns of the actions of Families SA and the Mullighan inquiry. This again was rightly referred to the Minister for Families and Communities. I understand that the correspondence was once again sent to Mr Ternezis in late 2009 from Families and Communities. By this time Hansard will show that the Hon. Ms Bressington had asked her first couple of questions and received answers to them. Since this time, Mr Ternezis has sent a further four letters that have been received by the Attorney-General, and the Hon. Ms Bressington has asked two additional questions without notice. I understand that the current Attorney-General, like the former attorney-general, does not accept allegations of procedural corruption, improper collusion and a cover-up.

This motion relates to an incident from the 1990s, an Ombudsman's investigation report from 2002 and extensive correspondence to the Attorney-General over the ensuing nine years that was responded to detail where relevant; but, far more commonly, the inquiry was forwarded to the appropriate minister—and I stress 'forwarded to the appropriate minister'.

It has been clearly demonstrated that the current Attorney-General has had very little to do with this matter largely because of the extensive work that has been done over the previous decade. If the honourable member is unhappy with the responses as received over the past decade, it surely cannot be seen as the fault of the current Attorney-General.

This is a remarkable motion for all the wrong reasons, and I call on members to acknowledge that responses have been provided and action has been taken. The decade's worth of responses may not have been what the honourable member sought but, from the Attorney-General's office, it has been the appropriate action. In 2006, there was a detailed letter addressing the issues and directing them to the responsible agency. Since this time, with the exception of the accusation of corruption, improper collusion and cover-up, I understand there had been no further information clearly linking the matter to the Attorney-General's portfolio of responsibility. I call on all members to oppose this motion.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (20:35): I rise briefly on behalf of the Greens to support this motion before the council. This issue clearly goes well before my time in this council, and that is just one reason why it has been an unacceptable treatment of this particular case, although I think it also runs more broadly that this government should stand ashamed when we read in the paper just this week that the Special Investigations Unit set up to catch those who abuse children in state care has not brought a single conviction in seven years of operation. Records between 2003 and 2008 for that Special Investigations Unit are unavailable and apparently there were no prosecutions undertaken in this time.

We have a sad history in South Australia of having children abused while in state care or while under the care of various ministers and so on. It is something that this state has quite rightly apologised for but, when you apologise, that means you do something about it. I hear a lot from this government about being tough on law and order; it is time to be tough on child abuse. With those few words, I look forward to the contribution from the Hon. Ann Bressington in terms of the government's contribution tonight and, as I say, the Greens will be supporting this motion.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (20:37): I thank the Hons Terry Stephens, Gerry Kandelaars and Tammy Franks for their contribution on this motion. Before we start, I would like to clarify why this matter has gone between the attorney-general and the minister for Families SA and why this motion was directed to the attorney-general.

When the Hon. Jay Weatherill was minister for families and communities, he was written to about this matter, specifically about the issue of the enforcement of Youth Court orders. Mr Ternezis received a letter from the minister then saying that the matter of Youth Court orders and anything to do with the Youth Court is under the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General. The attorney-general then, after receiving a letter from Mr Ternezis because that is where he was directed, wrote to the attorney-general and was told by the then attorney-general that this was a matter for Families SA. So, we have a ministerial shuffle going on here. Obviously nobody wants to take responsibility for this particular case or cases that continue to repeat themselves.

It has been 11 years for Mr Ternezis seeking some kind of justice to his case and, between the attorney-general (regardless of who is in the position) and the minister for families and communities (regardless of who is in the position), nobody wants to answer the case here. But it was interesting to note one of the responses I got that the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars did not quote. The response of the attorney-general in September 2009 states:

The minister, the Ombudsman and the Crown Solicitor's Office do not agree with Mr Ternezis and the honourable member about the facts, or that the law does not make them guilty of these allegations.

My question was: what facts don't all these people agree with? The fact that Katrina Ternezis at the age of 14 was under Youth Court orders and supervision of the department. She was living with three adult men, was involved in prostitution and using drugs. All of this was disclosed to her psychologist who was requested by the Department for Families and Communities at the time. She disclosed all of these truths to that psychologist in that interview who then passed it on to Families and Communities (Families SA).

Nothing was done. The men were not charged. The girl was not removed from living with these three men and she eventually became pregnant to one of them at the age of 15 because the department saw no imminent risk. That is all in writing, it is all there. Who takes responsibility for this? Mr Ternezis is not pursuing this issue for any personal gain or any kind of retribution. I hear so many times from parents that they pursue these matters, just like the harbouring stuff, so that no other families have to go through this and that someone will take some responsibility for fixing a very broken system. All these parents want is for someone to acknowledge that mistakes have been made and that their children's lives have been ruined because we do a ministerial shuffle of responsibility.

The Hon. Mr Kandelaars has been here for two minutes, and I understand that he has had that particular speech written for him in response to this, but, my God, what does it take to do a bit of research on the actual history of this and the content of the letters Mr Ternezis has received from the Attorney-General and the minister for families and communities for him to continue to pursue this for 11 years? People have better things to do with their lives than worry about this for 10 years.

He is looking for a resolution and a commitment from someone—either the Attorney-General or the minister responsible for Families SA—that this sort of thing is going to be fixed, that when the department screws up they are going to own it and they are going to act in the best interests of these children so that they are not 15, drug addicted, pregnant and not living with their family because nobody can be bothered removing them from an at-risk situation where, if the court orders had been followed up in the first place, enforced and monitored, it is quite likely that Katrina Ternezis would have had very different teenage years, but nobody did.

You say that there was no cover-up. It was all brushed under the carpet and anybody involved in this did not believe that Mr Ternezis would have the tenacity to still be pursuing this to this day. He is not the only parent who has had to face this. The Hon. Tammy Franks mentioned the report about prosecutions for offences against children. There is also the case of young Gina, who was in the paper the other day. I have met this young girl too. Another one in state care, pregnant at the age of 15 by her supervisor, and nothing was done. When she pursued this, she was silenced with the threat that the department would remove her children, rather than disclose this disgusting situation.

So, don't stand up and say, 'This is a remarkable motion for all the wrong reasons,' because this is a remarkable motion for all the right reasons. There are too many of these cases where people are threatened, people are basically downtrodden and the hope is that they will just shrivel up and go away. There are many people out there now who will not do that anymore. They will fight for the rights of their children and fight for their right to justice. The sooner this government takes responsibility for the fact that they rarely get these cases right the better.

It may be a resources issue. I have said in here many times that child protection workers have the hardest job possible. They have to make life and death decisions about children spinning on a dime. I would not want that job, but for God's sake, when these things are so glaringly obvious that misdeeds have been done, when there have been broken policies and poor practice, just own it and give these parents and their children an opportunity to recover. That is all they seek.

With that, I thank members. I am glad this motion will actually go through. With this new government, this open-door policy that will exist with the new Premier, I actually have renewed hope that some steps will be taken to fix this system and to do justice for our children in this state and for the broken families who have to pick up the pieces after Families SA has stepped in and done the most destructive things to families without even turning a head and without ever even so much as an 'I'm sorry.'

Motion carried.