CHILD PROTECTION INQUIRY

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (17:41): I move:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be established to investigate and report on—

(a) Any matter arising from the 2012-13 Independent Education Inquiry also known as the Debelle inquiry;

(b) Any matter raised by the Debelle inquiry related to incident and records management, including compliance with legislation and policy;

(c) Any matter relating to the tenure of the Chief Executive of the Department for Education and Child Development in June and July 2013;

(d) Progress on the implementation of the recommendations of the Debelle inquiry; and

(e) Any other relevant matter.

2. That standing order 389 be so far suspended as to enable the chairperson of the committee to have a deliberative vote only.

3. That this council permits the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it sees fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to such evidence being presented to the council.

4. That standing order 396 be suspended to enable strangers to be admitted when the select committee is examining witnesses unless the committee otherwise resolves, but they shall be excluded when the committee is deliberating.

I ask colleagues to consider and ultimately support this motion. I have notified all colleagues of my intention to move the motion late last week and I accept the convention that we must wait a sitting week, in this case six actual weeks, before we vote on the motion. I foreshadow to colleagues that I will be putting this to a vote on the first Wednesday of sitting when we come back. I think that is 11 September.

I return members firstly to what I quoted from the New South Wales Premier, appearing before a select committee in 2011, to indicate that his government at least had no fears of a select committee reviewing matters, even though the government had concluded its own inquiry. The Debelle inquiry was tabled as a royal commission, even though it only got royal commission powers after two requests from Mr Debelle for those powers to be given to him. It was not tabled in the manner you would expect a royal commission report to be tabled. Nonetheless, it was an inquiry and I will refer to it as an inquiry in my contribution, as I have in the wording of the motion.

There is huge community concern about what happened in this incident in the department and whether it represents an endemic culture. I understand today it is reported that some 13 members of staff of the department have been asked to show cause why disciplinary proceedings and penalties should not be instigated against them. The report indicates one major concern that the allegations of sexual abuse in a western suburbs school were not communicated in some warning form to parents—against, I add, the wishes of the school council—due to an erroneous understanding of the legal implications in the matter, particularly on the question of suppression.

There have been allegations that SA Police gave the incorrect advice to the department—some finger-pointing, if you like. However, I think the inquiry found and my own belief is that SAPOL would not have given incorrect advice as to what parents could be told and when. We can clear the air on those issues by giving SAPOL the opportunity to respond. There is an interagency task force on these issues, and I note that the new chief executive is a former assistant commissioner of police of high standing and that he is tasked, over five years, with implementing many of the Debelle recommendations. There are 43 recommendations to be implemented.

We know from the Mullighan inquiries into sexual abuse in state care and on the APY lands that it has taken the government a very long time to implement recommendations. We also know that the Layton inquiry recommendations for a Children's Commissioner are happening now, 10 years later. They have been accused in this place, and other places, of being a bit cute (if I can put it that way) in claiming that progress is being made towards recommendations. Having learnt from those experiences, I believe we need to take a more hands-on approach as a Legislative Council to ensure recommendations are implemented.

I place on record my concern about the behaviour of the department, which now comprises Families SA and child protection roles in addition to education, and its transparency in regard to information. Honourable members would know that I do seek information from the department and others from time to time under the Freedom of Information Act. It has been reported publicly that for some time I have sought information on critical incidents in schools.

I have been obstructed in getting that information for some years now, even though as a policy I always do everything possible to avoid identifying the staff, parents and, of course, the children who are the subject of these critical incidents. The incidents that gave rise to the Debelle inquiry are clearly what would be called a 'critical incident', and I have drafted the motion to address records and incident management because I believe that there are huge issues with the reporting systems and levels of response to incidents within the department.

In the previous select committee into Families SA, and as my colleagues, including the Hon. Ann Bressington, can attest—I was on that committee in its closing stages, taking over from the Hon. Andrew Evans, who had a very strong record on child protection and justice—Families SA was, arguably, obstructive in the way it dealt with the committee's work. That is now part of the department I am talking about in this motion.

There is a view within the department that they know best and that ministers and members of parliament should keep their nose out of their business. I, for one, do not accept that one bit. We must, democratically, be able to review the workings of the department in how it handles critical incidents, particularly allegations of sexual abuse, and these terms of reference provide that opportunity.

I invite the government to consider supporting this motion. There can be no better way to clear the air about these issues—particularly allegations as to whether or not certain persons did the right thing—than to have a select committee of the Legislative Council look into the matter and determine whether the allegations are baseless. If the government engages with this inquiry, we can get outcomes that truly clear the air and also ensure that the whole parliament, in a multipartisan way, is on board with implementing the recommendations of Mr Debelle and other sensible reforms to protect children and uphold parental rights where there are allegations of sexual abuse.

Due to convention, this committee will only be formed in September at the earliest and take evidence late that month or in early October, when we should be some way down the path of implementing the Debelle recommendations. We have a Budget and Finance Committee to monitor the dollar issues and good governance; I suggest to the council that child protection is equally, if not more, important, and that we need this select committee to ensure best practice, good governance, transparency and accountability in ensuring that child abuse is dealt with in the most urgent, serious and well-resourced way.

I also believe that we need this inquiry because we have had representation to our office that parents, particularly in one school—and I will not say any more at this point, members will work that out for themselves—did not have an opportunity to appear before the Debelle inquiry. There are many people who would like to come forward and give submissions to a committee under privilege, transparently, so that we can fix this matter once and for all. There will be ample time over winter to consider this motion and developments on these issues, and I look forward to contributions and a vote on the first Wednesday of sitting in the spring session of parliament.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins.