Government Apologies

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (14:38): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Attorney-General a question about government apologies.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: The Attorney-General has formally responded to a series of questions I asked him late last year about the unacceptable delay in a letter of apology from the state government to child abuse victim, Ki Meekins, as part of the National Redress Scheme.

As many of us in this place are aware, Ki was the catalyst for an inquiry into the abuse of children in state care led by former South Australian judge the Hon. Ted Mullighan in 2004, after revealing three decades ago how he was sexually abused as a child in state care by an evil children's television presenter, Ric Marshall, who now resides in hell. Ki's harrowing life story led to some of the most substantial child protection reforms in the state's history, and also led to the Premier personally apologising to Ki in state parliament.

The redress scheme provides for three direct personal responses to the victim, including in person, in writing and in public. Ki opted for all three. Sadly, what started off so positively almost 12 months ago to the day—16 February 2023—when the in-person apology by a senior executive of the Department for Child Protection occurred, followed mid-year by the in-public apology by the Premier in parliament, continues to drag on to a completely unacceptable situation with the government refusing to sign off on the in-writing apology.

In the Attorney's response he indicated that a department senior executive had signed the letter, and that Ki's lawyer, the highly respected Jennifer Corkhill, had been made aware of such since September last year. Ms Corkhill informs me that the letter was in draft form, and a further draft was provided last week, but it still does not contain the passages they want included and believe are essential from Ki's perspective.

They are now seeking a personal meeting with the Minister for Child Protection in a desperate bid to get all parties to sign off on the letter—critically, to give Ki the closure he so desperately deserves. My questions to the Attorney-General, and most likely to the Minister for Child Protection, are:

1. Why is the government continuing to refuse to accept the wording Ki and his lawyer want included in the letter, particularly given that some of the words they want included were removed from the original letter drafted by the department executive and are exactly, in essence, what the department executive said to Ki last year as part of his in-person apology?

2. Has the DCP lawyer who contacted Ki without Ms Corkhill's consent—which is a serious breach of rule 33 of the Solicitors Conduct Rules—been reprimanded about her behaviour?

3. Do the minister and Attorney-General agree that 12 months is far too long to wait for such a letter?

4. Is the government prepared to meet with Ki and Ms Corkhill in person in a sign of good faith to finalise the letter and finally bring some closure and peace of mind to Ki?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:42): I thank the member for his question and his advocacy in this area. As the honourable member correctly states, I tabled a response on behalf of the Minister for Child Protection in relation to questions the honourable member has previously asked.

As the honourable member outlined, I think it was some time last year that the Premier delivered an apology in this parliament and there has also been, I think, that in-person apology from the department. I do not have firsthand knowledge of this because, as the honourable member states, this is between the Department for Child Protection and Ki, that written apology.

I accept the honourable member's assertions that it still remains outstanding. I will certainly pass on to my colleague the Minister for Child Protection, who has responsibility for this matter—and I am sure she is aware of it—the desire for this to be concluded as quickly as possible.

As I said, it is not my portfolio. There may be some legitimate reasons that specific wording is being discussed back and forth, but I will certainly pass on to my colleague the Minister for Child Protection the questions that were raised here today and let her know that the parties are very keen for this to be concluded—understandably, as soon as possible.