Legislative Council Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1) 53 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Matters of Interest Child Protection Child Protection The Hon. T.A. FRANKS Legislative Council The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (15:53): I rise today to speak on child protection and the current status of child protection in this state. Like many other members here, I was invited to a briefing from the Premier himself when the Debelle report was handed down. Possibly unlike most of the other members here, I had the unlucky knack of sticking my foot in it and naming the elephant in the room. I only had a scant 10 minutes to have a look at the report before I walked into the Premier and my first words were, 'Well, isn't it fantastic that we are going to see ministers pass on information to each other when they swap portfolios.' Little did I know that that was, indeed, a reflection upon the Premier, but I think I am here again today to point out one of the elephants in the room with regard to child protection in this state. We have seen the headlines and we have seen the Department for Education and Child Development deputy chief executive, David Waterford, take the fall in the past week for an error in not providing a written briefing. All members in this place who have ever dealt with child protection matters know that getting a written briefing on a child protection matter from this government is like pulling teeth. It is almost impossible to get something in black and white. However, I do have some correspondence on a particular case that I have been following now since the end of 2010 with this government, and I know many members in the opposition and many members of the crossbench have also been following this particular case. The case refers to three particular children, all of whom have allegations of sexual abuse about them. I will not go into personal details on this case, but what I will say is that, in correspondence to Freda Briggs that I was made privy to, it was indicated by the department that these children had received clinical psychological assessments. This was news to me. My understanding is that only one child has ever received any sort of assessment in this case. I am happy to stand corrected by the government and the minister if I am wrong about the fact that the three children have not each received assessment but indeed only one has. However, I wrote to minister Rankine on 14 May and I alerted her to the email that I had seen, which Professor Freda Briggs had advised me of, that had been sent to the mother of these children, stating that all three children had received clinical psychological assessments. I sought clarification from the minister on what date these assessments took place and what was the outcome. I then received in response two letters, one dated 19 May and one dated 22 May. They were exactly the same letter except for the fact that they had different dates. They were indeed the same letter; I am not sure why that was, but certainly that goes to some concern with the minister's office. The response attempted to correct me that it had not been Ms Marsden who had said that the children had been clinically assessed, but it had been her quoting from an email correspondence with the manager of the Families SA Adelaide office. I went on to point out to the minister's office that I was familiar with that email and yes, Families SA had been quoted by a staffer from the minister's office, but surely that was an indication that the minister was saying that all three children had been clinically assessed. I asked the minister at that time, minister Rankine, for a written briefing from David Waterford. That continued to be refused. In the letter, which I received on 23 July and which was signed by the minister on 19 July, the minister goes on to say: You seek information regarding assessments of the children. If you are referring to past assessments, such assessments were undertaken several years ago by child protection services and the Family Court. These matters are now historical in nature and have been previously considered in reviews of this case. I reiterate, my understanding is that only one child has ever been assessed. I also understand that this particular case has been the subject of an internal review conducted by an interstate specialist, and nowhere has it ever been recorded that all three children were assessed. I am also quite concerned that the minister considers these matters to be historical. The minister goes on: With regard to a meeting between you and the deputy chief executive for child safety, Mr David Waterford, I note advice that several unsuccessful attempts have been made to set up a meeting or phone call with you. I understand that Mr Waterford was advised that your office would make contact. If you still wish to speak with Mr Waterford on this matter— and 'speak', not a written briefing— I would encourage your office to arrange another time to do so. Of course, Mr Waterford did not have his job much longer, and I have never received a written briefing, despite repeated requests.