Institutional Child Sexual Abuse

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (14:25): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Treasurer about financial responses to institutional child sexual abuse.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: In the last few weeks there have been a number of concerning reports in the media about various religious organisations restructuring their finances and divesting themselves of assets to potentially avoid having to pay compensation to victims of institutional child sexual abuse. The Advertiser most recently reported that the Jehovah's Witnesses are using this tactic, but it is suspected that they are not alone.

A number of religious institutions are yet to sign up to the National Redress Scheme by the deadline of 30 June. In response, the federal Minister for Families and Social Services, Anne Ruston, has said that such organisations would be named and shamed—which I don't suspect would bother them much. More importantly, she said the government would consider financial sanctions such as revoking these organisations' charitable status.

In South Australia, religious organisations are exempt from a number of state taxes, including land tax and also local council rates. My question is: will the state government act to remove the state tax exemptions from eligible religious organisations that refuse to sign up to the National Redress Scheme to compensate victims of institutional child sexual abuse?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (14:26): The issue has certainly not been raised with me. I will seek advice on it, but I have no current contemplation of moving down the particular path the honourable member has invited me to contemplate. If the federal government is going to act to remove charitable status from various organisations or institutions, we will consult with the federal government as to what the implications of that action might be. It may well be that, in and of itself, if that were to occur it may impact on an organisation's eligibility for certain concessions in the state arena.

The prime mover with the responsibility in this arena would appear to be the federal government, and I have no doubt that the honourable member has accurately reported the media comments of the federal minister. If that is accurate, and the federal government is contemplating moving down that path, there may well be flow-on implications anyway without the state government needing to take action.

We will monitor what the federal government does or does not do in this particular space. If it moves along the lines suggested in this particular area, we will monitor what the potential implications of that may be in terms of eligibility for concessions in the state arena. In relation to whether we are contemplating, or I am contemplating, taking action, the answer at this stage is no.