HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-11-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Grievance Debate

CHILD PROTECTION

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen—Leader of the Opposition) (15:06): I rise today to try to clarify in some way the government's position in relation to these matters that we have been questioning them about for some time, particularly in relation to the rape of an eight year old at a western suburbs school. Madam Speaker, you would note that my first question today set out a series of statements made by this Premier. It is like trying to nail jelly to the wall with this guy, as far as getting a direct answer to a direct question. On 1 November, as I said in my question, the Premier said:

All critical incidents are always notified to the minister.

I think we would be reasonable in assuming that the rape of an eight year old by the director of the out of school hours care is a critical incident. I do not think there is any question about that, so you would think that, yes, that would be notified to the minister.

Indeed, the shadow treasurer yesterday did an excellent grievance about how unbelievable it was that the Premier could say that he was not actually informed about this. But, as I pointed out in my question, he then later that day said:

There is no indication that this matter was referred to me or my office. Neither I nor my office has any recollection of this matter being raised.

You will see there the first 'any recollection' type of reference in the Premier's responses. Then, of course, the next day, his statement is:

It beggars belief that I wasn't told about this.

Yes, it does, until, later that day, we have an email that we have obtained under FOI. Certain names have been crossed out, but it is clear that people within the minister's office—the then minister, now Premier's office—were aware of this event having occurred. So then, later that day, having had to admit that, of course, there was an email that had told them, his new response was:

I was not told about this email until today.

Then, of course, yesterday, the Premier said in his ministerial statement that:

My recollection is that I was not advised of this incident personally...

Very clever use of the words 'my recollection' at the beginning—not 'I was not told' but 'my recollection that I was not told' and 'I was not told personally.' Of course, when we have come back in today and sought an unambiguous response from the Premier as to exactly what he knew, we get anything but a clear response. Yesterday, he gave the response that, and I will quote from what he said yesterday when we tried to ask him:

I made a ministerial statement to the house at the beginning of the session today which addresses that very issue.

No, it did not address the very issue that we asked about, and then, later on again, he said that what he wanted to talk about was having a meeting with parents and the governing council. Never does the Premier want to give a direct answer to the direct question as to what he knew; that is because he is trying to be tricky and clever and use words to hide the truth from the people of this state just—

Mr Marshall: Just like Mike Rann.

Mrs REDMOND: —just because he is exactly the same as his predecessor. The Premier wants us to believe that he was never told about the rape of an eight year old by the director of the out of school hours care. We all know and the public all know that that simply beggars belief.

So, what are the choices? That he was not told? As we say, that is unbelievable. That he was not told but he was told? If he was told, did he forget? That is another choice. Or did he not forget? Did he actually know it had occurred but decided that he had better hide the facts from the public so that the department would not look bad or the school would not look bad? Or, probably the evidence suggests he probably was told, and if he was not told, then it is evidence of such gross incompetence on the part of the departmental people, the media liaison and professional people within his office, who are his advisers, that they should all be sacked immediately. Or, if he was not told, there is evidence of incompetence there. It beggars belief that the minister could come out and say these things in public.

There is an abject failure on the part of this government, both through the Premier as then minister and the current minister, to actually put the interests of the children first. We have seen this in the disclosures that have been made by the Premier and his minister. We know and the public knows that no action was taken to allow the governing council at that western suburbs school to inform parents when they knew that there was a very real risk that other children had been abused. Not only was there a failure to allow it to happen, there was, in fact, apparently, positive action by the department to prevent the school council from telling the parents, even though the school council members knew that that was what they wanted to do. They were threatened by the department. They were threatened with the loss of their indemnity should they go on to tell about it.

Today we have evidence of yet another rape that occurred in a regional centre, and that rape, the minister here tells us today, she did not know about until this week. It occurred almost two years ago and, again, there has been an abject failure by the department to recognise the need to protect the interests of the student as the first and foremost obligation, not to protect the interests of the department, the minister and her employees.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

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