HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-09-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

EASLING, MR T.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (15:06): Will the Minister for Families and Communities advise the house whether it is acceptable to the government for government investigators in the Special Investigations Unit to tape record only parts of interviews in relation to alleged sexual abuse and discuss key elements of investigations off tape, and, if this is acceptable, why? In the investigation into Tom Easling, investigators of the Special Investigations Unit took a deliberate decision to record only parts of interviews on the alleged sexual abuse. The transcript states:

Q. They were there for some hours, weren't they, before they turned on a tape recorder and tape recorded you?

A. It wouldn't be that long, maybe—

Q. If I suggested to you that the tape was turned on at 4.30—

A. Yes.

Q. —does that sound about right?

A. Yes.

Q. So they would have been there for at least an hour and a half, if not more—

A. Yes.

Q. —before the tape was turned on, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. All the time during that hour and a half you are talking about issues involving sexual abuse, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. You're talking about Tom Easling?

A. Yes.

Q. You're talking about massages?

A. Yes.

Q. You're talking about alcohol, him giving you alcohol?

A. Yes.

Q. Him allowing you to smoke cigarettes?

A Yes.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for Families and Communities, Minister for Northern Suburbs, Minister for Housing, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability) (15:08): I appreciate the member for Davenport asking this question, because it gives me an opportunity to respond also to another issue he raised in this house a few weeks ago which related to a diary notation about a media alert. I think that, in seeking information from the Special Investigations Unit, the copy of the diary to which the honourable member referred was in fact the investigation diary, as I understand it, not a personal notation in an individual's diary. The note in the investigation diary, under the heading 'Discussion with the Paedophile Task Force, SAPOL' dated 23 July, related to a strategy meeting that was held between the members of SAPOL's Child Exploitation Investigation Section and officers of Families and Communities.

It is also indicated in the diary that SAPOL and DFC discussed informing the head of Families re the imminent arrest of Easling because of concerns of the impact on at least one of the young boys who was associated with the matter so that workers could respond promptly to anything to do with this young person. After a number of other entries, the diary states:

Media strategy has to be worked out.

And this is the bit that was missed out in the honourable member's quote, as I understand it—

This will occur between SAPOL and SIU.

The diary note further states:

SAPOL agreed to contact SIU when they are going to lock Tom up.

Page 32 of the investigation diary dated 30 July 2004 states:

Discussion with Steve Edgington. He stated he had received a phone call from Grant Stevens who informed him the arrest would occur tomorrow morning and that a media release had been prepared.

This was the investigation diary indicating discussions between SIU and the police and about what the police process would be. I do not think they were likely to diarise a leak.

Mr Hanna interjecting:

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Sorry?

Mr Hanna interjecting:

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I am saying that this is a clear diary entry in the investigations diary about what SAPOL intended to do, not leak information.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: They are hardly likely to diarise a leak. Let us be clear about this. I think if you listen to the radio every morning you will hear of arrests that the police have made.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The minister has the call.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I do not know whether the member for Davenport is suggesting that the department should not have looked into the allegations of sexual abuse that were raised in relation to Tom Easling. When this matter was put before the courts, the court decided that there was a case to answer. It was not thrown out; it actually went to trial. It went to trial based on police investigations and following consideration by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Special Investigations Unit has a mandate giving it responsibility for undertaking investigations into allegations of harm or abuse inflicted by a carer, staff member or volunteer towards a child or young person under the guardianship of the minister.

We know of all the issues that came out from the Mullighan inquiry into children in state care. This government has invested a great deal of money into the care and protection of children in South Australia. The summary of the Children in State Care Commission of Inquiry includes—

Mr Hamilton-Smith: Can you answer the question?

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: —on pages 16 and 17 a section on 'Someone to tell', which states:

In light of the evidence to the inquiry that many adults did not disclose sexual abuse when they were children in state care, it is important that strategies are in place to promote such disclosure.

Ms CHAPMAN: I rise on a point of order.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is a point of order. The minister will take her seat.

Ms CHAPMAN: Whilst child protection is important, this has nothing to do with the question, which was why the whole interview was not recorded and how long it takes to put a tape recorder on. Nothing to do with—

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms CHAPMAN: —Commissioner Mullighan's report and what the government claimed to be doing about it.

The SPEAKER: Order! No, I do not agree with the deputy leader. The question was can the minister advise if it is acceptable—that is my annotation of the question—and the minister is explaining the provisions of the Mullighan inquiry, which I think is relevant. The minister.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Thank you, sir. It goes to the very heart of it. You will see the point if you just sit quietly for a minute and listen. I know it is something unusual for you to do, you are not used to sitting there and listening, but perhaps if you just take a deep breath and listen and you might learn something.

The SPEAKER: Order! If the minister proceeds with her answer, it might help too.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: In the section 'Responding to disclosures', it states:

The inquiry heard consistent evidence from alleged victims of child sexual abuse that when they did disclose they were generally not believed.

Ms CHAPMAN: I rise on a point of order. Clearly the minister is talking about the disclosure of alleged victims; nothing to do with the transcript of an interview of an accused defendant.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will take her seat.

Ms CHAPMAN: Nothing to do with the interview and requirements in relation to that with respect to the accused. Nothing to do with it.

The SPEAKER: Order! No, the question was whether something was acceptable to the government. That is my recollection of the question, and the minister is providing an answer to that question. The Minister for Families and Communities.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Thank you, sir. Ultimately this government is responsible for the care and protection of children. It might not be the member for Bragg's priority, but it is the priority of this government and I am explaining what happened under your regime and regimes prior to that. You might not like it—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: —but that is just bad luck. The inquiry heard consistent evidence from alleged victims of child sexual abuse that, when they did disclose, they were generally not believed. Many of the witnesses who told the inquiry that they did disclose sexual abuse when they were children in state care said that the responses were not only dismissive, but also punitive. All the evidence was in favour of an appropriate therapeutic response when a child in state care alleges sexual abuse. On pages 409 and 410 the inquiry states:

When a child or young person discloses that he or she has been sexually abused, it is vital that the response is appropriate.

Children who gave evidence described a culture where they were either not believed or were expected to 'cop it'. Some said they were told that action would be taken, but they were never told what that would be, and it was never discussed again. Others were told that they were lying, confused or mistaken—they were not believed.

In her submission to the commission of inquiry, the Guardian for Children and Young People said:

Arguably, the most fundamental and significant change we can make is to listen to and act on what children and young people have to say about their lives in care.

At the time, the department learned that a child had made serious allegations of sexual misconduct in relation to a person who had been entrusted with the care of some of our most vulnerable children. We have learned through the Mullighan inquiry of some of the most harrowing and heart-wrenching stories of abuse and neglect from the former guardianship of the minister children, those who were brave enough to share their pain.

There were processes in place when the Easling inquiry was undertaken. My understanding is that, apart from the establishment of the Special Investigations Unit, the processes that were undertaken were endorsed by the Liberal government. They were the very same processes that were in place when one of the foster carers was accused of child sexual abuse. After two subsequent inquiries, carried out under the opposition's regime, this person was finally found not to have committed that abuse and was reinstated. So, that is what was happening under the Liberal regime.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT