HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-08-07 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

No-confidence Motion

Minister for Education and Child Development

Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:09): Pursuant to order, I move:

That this house has no confidence in the Minister for Education and Child Development in light of her handling of the recent allegations of significant and shocking crimes against children in the care of the state government.

On Tuesday 22 July, the South Australian police held a press conference to reveal that an employee of Families SA had been arrested on multiple charges of child sexual abuse. A month after this initial arrest of a Families SA department employee, the South Australian police and the Minister for Education and Child Development publicly announced that a government employee had been charged with heinous crimes of sexual abuse against seven preschool-aged children, and all were identified as being under the guardianship of the minister.

The department and the government stood side by side and declared that this offender had cleared all of the mandatory tests required to work with children, and yet was still able to get through what the government described as a 'rigorous system'. Questions raised by the media about his suitability for employment were dismissed. Mr David Waterford stated publicly that there was nothing extraordinary about this individual, which was backed up by the minister in a later interview where she stated there was no criminal history and there were no child protection notifications relating to this employee.

On Thursday night 24 July, The Advertiser published an online article revealing that the Families SA employee had previous care concerns raised regarding his conduct. This directly contradicted the briefing that the minister had provided to me. Why the delay? Why the delay in discovering the truth about this man's suitability for employment? Why did Mr Waterford and the minister wait for the media and opposition to pursue this atrocity before he reread his notes and realised his mistake? Why was the minister not insisting on a written briefing to ensure that only the correct information was being relayed to the public and to the opposition?

On 28 July, a full two days after Mr Waterford discovered his mistake, he publicly resigned from the department, but the saga was not over. On Saturday 2 August, The Advertiser broke yet another scandal within the department: this time, that a Families SA contract driver had been arrested a week earlier for the alleged assault of a 13-year-old girl in state care.

This arrest took place on Sunday night—a full 24 hours before the second confidential briefing given to me by the minister. Again, the minister failed to reveal this second case during our meeting. Even worse, the minister waited a full six days before advising the parents of the 13-year-old girl of the alleged abuse.

On Tuesday 5 August, SAPOL Commissioner Gary Burns publicly contradicted the minister on radio by confirming that the 32-year-old Families SA employee had been the subject of a separate complaint that was later dismissed. The commissioner acknowledged the veracity of media reports that there had been a previous key notification made against this alleged offender.

Despite this, the minister still refused to confirm that the department had prior information regarding concerns about the man's conduct with children. The fact that the police commissioner could refer to this openly demonstrates that there was no legal implication stopping the minister from full disclosure and talking about the department's role publicly.

This mismanagement comes despite the work of retired Supreme Court Justice Bruce Debelle. It was 402 days ago that Mr Debelle brought down his recommendations relating to the processes and procedures that should be in place when allegations of sexual abuse are made in these circumstances.

There should be no need to remind the house that the Debelle inquiry was scathing of the fundamental failings in ministerial officers of the then education minister, the current Premier of South Australia. Recommendation 7 of the Debelle inquiry is most pertinent to this no-confidence motion. It states:

That the Minister be informed of allegations of sexual misconduct at a school as soon as reasonably practicable after the Department becomes aware of the allegations—

and that this information—

…may be given orally or in writing and, if orally, confirmed immediately in writing.

It also goes on to say:

…the initial briefing be followed by a more detailed briefing in writing when the Department has more information to give to the Minister.

It is categorical. Briefings to the minister must always, ultimately, be in writing. Mr Debelle recommended this because written briefings demand greater rigour and narrow the possibility of errors. Yet, in this case—a case so heinous and appalling, and as disturbing as the matter of this no-confidence motion—the minister failed to receive written briefings before making her public statements.

We know this because former education department and child development deputy chief executive, David Waterford, told us he did not provide a written briefing. Mr Waterford said, 'No consolidated written briefing was in existence on Tuesday the 22nd of July.' No consolidated written briefing was in existence on 22 July.

My briefing of the chief executive and the minister was from memory of reading certain sourced documents. In hindsight this was a fundamental shortcoming in the process for which I was responsible. This minister was content—she was content to receive a verbal briefing before informing the public of these shocking allegations. This is despite minister Rankine previously assuring this house, and assuring the people of South Australia, that each and every one of the Debelle inquiry recommendations would be implemented—they would be implemented in full, and they would be implemented by the end of last year . She promised the people this, and she failed to deliver on it.

Minister Rankine claims that she misled the people of South Australia in that initial media conference based on the inaccurate verbal advice provided by David Waterford. David Waterford, recognising his failings, tendered his resignation as a result of the provision of this misinformation—as a result of the fact that he did not follow the recommendations of the Debelle inquiry. Mr Waterford has acted with the utmost integrity in his resignation. Minister Rankine has no option but to follow the example of Mr Waterford.

The minister failed to follow the recommendations of the Debelle inquiry. The minister's failure against procedure was far more serious than David Waterford's. The minister is guilty of a fundamental shortcoming in the process for which she is personally responsible. The minister brazenly ignored a vital recommendation of the Debelle inquiry and in the process misled the people of South Australia, yet still wants to keep her job. She can't. She has failed. She has failed in her duty to protect the children in her care.

The minister's deceptions on this matter began at the first press conference she attended after these shocking allegations were revealed to the people of South Australia. The Premier, the minister and David Waterford stood before the media and before the people of South Australia, hand on heart, and claimed there was nothing in this individual's background that would have raised concerns about him being left alone with children. This simply was not true.

David Waterford said, and I quote, 'There was nothing extraordinary about this individual in every regard. He was, for all intents and purposes, a very average person.' Except, he was not very average: he had been the subject of an earlier investigation for alleged inappropriate behaviour involving a female toddler in his care. Mr Waterford knew this, the Premier knew this, the minister knew this. The minister was complicit in misleading South Australians on this critical fact. It is easy to understand why. This is yet another shocking failure of process and procedure in the department in which she leads.

The minister knew full well that the revelation of this information would be politically catastrophic. When The Advertiser revealed the truth, the minister then claimed she was unable to discuss this matter because of advice from Crown Law and from SAPOL but consistently refused to present that advice for public scrutiny. I sought my own advice on this matter. Eminent lawyers saw no valid reason why that information could not be divulged.

Think about it: the minister can detail the nature of the horrendous crimes without prejudicing the case but cannot reveal her own failure to act on earlier reports of inappropriate behaviour. It is totally implausible. The minister made a cold-blooded decision to conceal that information because of the political damage that it can do.

When The Advertiser revealed the deception she tried to use legal advice as a shield. When the police commissioner, Gary Burns, went on the radio later that week and confirmed that a care notification had been received he snatched that shield away. If the police commissioner could discuss the earlier investigation, then the minister could also. Ludicrously, the minister and the Premier are still clinging to the fiction they cannot discuss this critical failure of the system because of legal advice.

I will let you in on a secret: the public does not believe you—it never has. The public knows why the minister was desperate to conceal her department's failings. The public understands that this failure in process put children at risk for every day this individual continued to work within Families  SA.

The public expects ministers to take responsibility for the failings of the departments that they run. In particular, the public has absolutely zero tolerance when those failings involve innocent children. Minister Rankine has desperately tried to conceal a profound failure of process and procedure in Families SA to hang on to her job. The fact is she cannot retain her job because of the initial failure, and she cannot retain her job after trying to conceal that failure. It is time the minister did the honourable thing and resigned.

Both the current minister and the previous two ministers for education and childhood development have consistently hidden behind public servants when questions about their own culpability have been raised. We have now seen the resignation or dismissal of the following public servants from the Department for Education and Child Development: Mr Chris Robinson, Mr Gino DeGennaro, Ms Jan Andrews, Mr Keith Bartley and now David Waterford.

It should be noted that, despite the history of mismanagement and neglect that has embroiled this department under these three separate ministers, we are yet to see a minister accept culpability and resign. It should also be noted that, despite questions raised in both the Debelle Report and the upper house inquiry on the actions of ministerial staffers, we are yet to see a Labor staffer resign. This minister has used public servants as a human shield. The minister has allowed public servants to fall upon their swords rather than accept that as minister she has the ultimate responsibility for failings within her own department.

I have now outlined to the house a sad catalogue of incompetence, evasiveness and lack of responsibility by the Minister for Education and Child Development when it comes to her handling of recent shocking allegations of child abuse by employees within the government's Families SA agency. Unfortunately, this is part of a broader pattern of behaviour when it comes to the performance of this minister on child protection matters. When the minister was first appointed to her current role in January 2013 she stated that there would be 'no more excuses' when it came to the government's handling on child protection. They were her words and they will be there for everybody to read and reflect upon.

Unfortunately, this commitment by the minister has been honoured only in the breach and never in the observance. To underscore the gravity of the situation, the government has announced that it will be holding a royal commission into this matter. There is a very clear precedent for this situation. When the state's economy was crippled by the State Bank default and subsequent bailout by the government, the Labor premier of the day, John Bannon, resigned his position, making the point in his resignation speech:

I accept that the buck stops with me. My decision to resign will allow the Royal Commission to report free from any consideration of determining my political fate.

John Bannon acted in the proper traditions of the Westminster system, showing due respect to the fundamental convention of ministerial responsibility. He equally set a clear precedent that in matters such as this—matters of such gravity that a royal commission is required—there is a clear need for the relevant member of the government to take responsibility. This minister and, for that matter, the Premier have demonstrated complete and utter disregard for this fundamental principle. Therefore, this house can have no other recourse other than to pass this motion expressing no confidence in the Minister for Education and Child Development.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier) (14:23): I say at the outset that the Minister for Education and Child Development has acted with the highest standards of integrity, professionalism and diligence in her handling of this most difficult matter. I must say that motions of this sort are not just an evaluation of the target of the relevant motion: they are an evaluation of the prosecutor. They are an evaluation of the prosecutor.

When one carefully analyses the attack that has been made on the minister, when one realises that it is simply based on a series of assertions which have no substance, and when one realises that the gravity of this issue is one about which there should be the highest standards of care and attention paid to ensuring that we conduct ourselves in any public debate about these matters with integrity and with respect to the subject matter of this motion before the house, he will be found sadly wanting.

There are three principal points on which the attack on the minister proceeds: one is this notion that she has in some way hidden behind some advice to not reveal full details about this matter to the public, and indeed to the member himself. At all times, in all respects, the minister has made available to the public, and indeed to the member himself, every piece of information she was permitted to reveal, on advice. Do not just rely upon her assertion of that or my assertion of that: rely upon the assertion of the Commissioner of Police of South Australia. To suggest otherwise, you are casting doubt on the integrity of the Commissioner of Police in this state. Let that be clear, because he has said in clear terms that very point.

The second point that was raised is that somehow there is a recommendation contained within the Debelle inquiry which says that every single thing should be in writing and the absence of doing that was some failure on behalf of the minister for which she should be censored. The first difficulty with that proposition is that the minister did receive written briefings about this matter prior to her making her public announcement. Indeed, both she and I said as much at our first press conference. They are the facts of the matter.

Taking Mr Waterford's resignation letter and extrapolating from his concerns about the fact that he did not prepare a consolidated briefing—one that had taken all of the written briefings and all of the oral briefings and put them into one single document, and his musing that, if he had done that, that may have avoided his error—somehow to conclude that that meant that there was no written briefing in contradiction to the Debelle recommendations is simply false and is not capable of being inferred from any of the material on the public record: the second fundamental misunderstanding—deliberate I would suggest—of the material that is on the public record.

Thirdly is this suggestion that somehow the minister has not accepted her responsibilities as a minister under the traditions of the Westminster system. If the opposition leader went to the Debelle inquiry, he would see a very clear and cogent explanation of the principles by which ministers should be governed for accountability under the Westminster system. On any reading of those principles, the minister could not be in any way criticised for her conduct. In fact, her conduct in relation to this matter has been exemplary.

Her first instinct in relation to this matter was to ensure that appropriate support and advice were in place for victims, as well as the families and carers. She specifically instructed that care plans be in place for every single child who was potentially affected by this conduct. Parents and caregivers of the alleged victims were notified. Families SA also assisted SAPOL regarding identifying other children the accused may have had contact with through their employment as a Families SA carer, and that process is guided by SAPOL and is ongoing.

A task force was immediately established by her to ensure agencies are collaboratively working together in response. That task force has been meeting every weekday. A hotline was established for parents and carers who have questions or concerns and, as of Tuesday, that hotline has received more than 100 calls. The minister also instructed that random checks of residential care facilities were increased. I can also inform the house that the minister joined these workers conducting random checks last night and met with some of our residential care workers.

The minister instructed an independent firm of psychologists to undertake audits of employment records of Families SA residential care workers, and this week the minister announced that former police commissioner Mal Hyde would lead that work. The minister also instructed the fast-tracking of the employment of an additional 180 residential care workers, with a focus on the employment of qualified early childhood workers.

The minister also attended to the concerns and anxieties of staff, both of residential care facilities and foster carers, by walking around agencies and speaking one-on-one to each of those workers and assuring them that they had her respect and support because she did not want that honourable profession denigrated by the public remarks that were being made about Families SA. Last but not least, she insisted that we have an early royal commission, which I agreed to, to look at these important matters, with as broad as possible recommendations, and members of the public are encouraged to provide their feedback on these draft terms of reference.

Mr Speaker, in whom are we entitled to have confidence: a minister who actually puts at front and centre the integrity of the investigation process and the integrity of the prosecution, or a politician who actually seeks to put all of that at risk? Mr Speaker, in whom are we entitled to have confidence: a politician who seeks to put the experience of victims at the forefront of her mind, seeking to shield them from further publicity, or a politician who seeks to revel in the publicity associated with child sexual abuse?

Mr Speaker, in whom should we have confidence: a minister who actually goes to those workers who dedicate their lives every single day of their working life to ensure the care and protection of those little children and ensuring that they actually have the confidence of this government, or a politician who seeks to inflame and provoke public criticism of those very same workers?

We have seen this all before. We have seen the opposition make choices about child sexual abuse and the way in which they have decided to play that into the political sphere in the past. We saw the devotion of extraordinary amounts of resources by this party, the Liberal Party, in the lead-up to the state election. Somebody told them it would be a great idea to focus on the issues surrounding the Debelle inquiry because that would destroy the Premier and that would bring down this Labor government.

Where did that get them? What was the high-water mark in the last state election campaign for this particular issue? That is the abject apology the Leader of the Opposition was forced to give to me personally because his party had lied about the question of child sexual abuse. That is where the politics of playing politics with child sexual abuse got you and your party in the last election, and you have learnt nothing. You come into this place and seek to trade on the question of child sexual abuse and you will be judged harshly for it.

You had a choice. On the first days when this matter was first revealed you decided, appropriately, to adopt a measured and statesmanlike approach to this matter. That is what you chose to do. Faced with the media revelations about details of this matter, media revelations that we had both arms tied behind our back and could not respond to, even when it would have been advantageous to the government to put information in the public sphere which would have exculpated some of the criticism which was occurring to our agencies and our staff, we stood there mute while we were being criticised publicly by the Leader of the Opposition, who decided it was too irresistible to take the opportunity to climb on board the media frenzy to get stuck into this question of child sexual abuse.

That is a question of leadership. That is why this motion is as much an evaluation of the Leader of the Opposition as it is anybody else in this chamber, because the Leader of the Opposition made a choice. He made a choice to do the right thing, to actually be the statesman, to treat this with respect, to allow the investigations to occur, to allow the prosecution to run its natural course, to permit a royal commission, which we announced on the first day, having the broadest possible scope to evaluate the conduct of the government, which could be returned to at any point, and if there was accountability it could have been sheeted home to the government at any time in a proper process. He turned his back on that because he grasped at the political opportunity that was before him. I have seen this before, during the election campaign. I have stood next to—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The leader is called to order.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I have—

Mr van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Stuart is called to order.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I have stood next to the Leader of the Opposition during the election campaign, I have stood next to him during debates, I have stood next to him when I have seen a man who does not know why he is standing there. What we have seen over the last couple of weeks is a person who does not know his own mind about this issue, somebody—

Mr Whetstone: Rubbish!

The SPEAKER: The member for Chaffey is called to order.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —who made a decision about how he would deal with this issue and then, when he had put in front of him the temptation of the cheap political opportunity, he grasped at it.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The problem is you do not believe; you do not believe in anything you are doing. You have actually—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The Leader of the Opposition does not have the courage of his own convictions because he does not know his own mind. I have to say that this is the big question you need to ask yourself in politics: what on earth am I doing here? You do not know the answer to that question.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That's right. Maybe it is because you are not interested in social issues. Mr Speaker, the minister has, at every single turn in relation to this matter, had one fact and one concern at the forefront of her mind: that is, the wellbeing of these little children. She has been deeply distressed—as we all have been—about these revelations. She has wanted to share with the South Australian community every single detail she possibly could, and she has done that to the extent that she has been permitted. The police commissioner has confirmed that very fact. She is dealing with a very distressing matter with professionalism, diligence, calm and determination. She will continue to do that. I have full faith in her. She has my complete confidence, as she should have of the house.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:37): I rise to support the motion of no confidence in the Minister for Education. The minister is the legal guardian of some 2,800 children and is responsible for the care and protection of all children in South Australia. Let us be absolutely clear, from this side of the house, that we accept the minister is not responsible for the unspeakable actions of people who commit crimes against children. However, the events of the past three weeks demonstrate that the minister is now more concerned about shielding herself than she is about reassuring the public that the government is doing everything it can to protect children.

The leader has outlined the minister's failure to be full and frank in her public and private statements regarding this matter. Aside from these matters, what also concerns me is the minister's use of ongoing police investigations and legal proceedings as an excuse for not answering very basic questions in this parliament. Nobody in this place would expect the minister to jeopardise a police investigation or legal proceedings: nobody.

There may be other victims and offenders involved in this matter, and we do not want to interfere with the protection of the victims, the pursuit of offenders, or indeed the successful prosecution of the guilty. However, this is not an acceptable reason for the minister refusing or failing to account to the people of South Australia for her actions, and for those of her department.

This week, we had the ridiculous situation of where the minister claims she has received advice from the police and Crown Law that she cannot speak about a particular matter, but when the police commissioner goes on radio and discloses that information, this raises the question as to whether the minister actually received specific advice from SAPOL as to whether she could disclose that previous care notification which was made regarding the alleged offender and whether it was investigated by SAPOL.

Yesterday, the situation became even more absurd when the Minister for Education again refused to disclose basic information, namely the date of a briefing, but minutes later the Minister for Police provided the parliament with the date on which he had been briefed on the matter. How can identifying a date on which the minister received a particular briefing possibly interfere with a police investigation? How can it possibly interfere with a police investigation, minister?

The police commissioner is doing his job, the Minister for Police is willing to provide information to the public, but the Minister for Education continues to use the falsehood that disclosing what she has done since she was informed of certain matters will impede police investigation. The truth is that the minister is accountable to the people of South Australia, and she needs to answer these questions. Her credibility and the government's are in tatters because of her ongoing failure and refusal to do so, and the only conclusion that can be drawn from these events is that the Minister for Education is simply not prepared to do her job and that South Australians cannot remain confident in her.

Can I say that we welcome the government's announcement to have a royal commission into the child protection system, but again the Minister for Education has failed to advocate for the royal commission to be established immediately. The Premier, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Education have said the royal commission will not be established until after legal proceedings against the alleged offender have concluded.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Furthermore, if it is appropriate for the minister to appoint a taskforce—

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens is called to order.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Furthermore, if it is appropriate for the minister to appoint a taskforce, Mr Hyde to investigate, and the forensic pathologist to start investigating matters in her department, it is then appropriate to appoint the royal commissioner now. The royal commission that will be established is not an investigation into the guilt or innocence of the alleged offender, but of the acts and omissions of the minister's department and to ensure that any systemic failure is rectified.

The minister should know this, because the minister knows that the royal commission can be established while legal proceedings are on foot. We had the Debelle royal commission just last year into the minister's department, which was undertaken while legal proceedings were pending. By refusing to immediately progress the royal commission, the Minister for Education again is letting down South Australians, particularly our children.

The circumstances of the past three weeks have made it abundantly clear that the children of South Australia need better protection. A children's commissioner needs to be established who has investigative powers, but the only voice opposing this is the Labor Party. This is another area where the Minister for Education has failed by offering a weakened structure and failing to support a commissioner with powers. It is time for the Premier to find someone in his cabinet who will have the courage to admit the government's error and fight for the funding to have a proper children's commissioner.

It has also been reported that the Premier retains confidence in the Minister for Education, and indeed he espoused that again today. This is disappointing, but unsurprising, given that he appointed her to the role. The Minister for Investment and Trade and the Minister for Regional Development, however, have an opportunity today to restore public confidence in the parliament and the government by supporting this motion.

They are new to the cabinet and both have agreements with the Premier that permit them to retain their independence and their integrity on matters as important as this. Now is their chance to serve the people of South Australia and vote to restore respect to this parliament and to deliver a better child protection system for our South Australian children.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Minister for Health, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Health Industries) (14:45): The member for Bragg, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, has raised the issue of the royal commission. Let's be quite clear: the government, from day one, has said that we will have a royal commission into this terrible issue and that the royal commission will have broad terms of reference and all the powers of a royal commission to inquire into every aspect of this matter. Let's be quite clear: the government has never, ever said that it will not proceed straight away to the establishment of a royal commission. The member for Bragg, in her desperation, is just making things up as she goes along.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes; as has been said before, how could she get it so wrong? She gets it so wrong because she just makes things up. The government has not resiled from its determination to quickly establish a royal commission and that is why, if the member for Bragg was paying attention, she would know that we have released the terms of reference for consultation. It was released earlier this week. I wonder whether the member for Bragg has indeed looked at those draft terms of reference and provided a submission to the government.

We think this is too important an issue to play politics with. This is too important an issue, when we are talking about the safety of young children, an issue that this government takes very seriously indeed and that we will never play cheap politics with—never. Of course, the royal commission may indeed need to proceed in two phases. It may not be able to investigate all aspects of this matter, and certainly not report, until court proceedings are completed. The government has been upfront about that from the very beginning, but there has never, ever been a suggestion that the government is seeking to delay the establishment of the royal commission. That is just a complete furphy.

With regard to other matters that have been raised in the course of the debate, firstly, the Leader of the Opposition has again repeated this nonsense that the minister never received a written briefing. That is blatantly untrue and the Leader of the Opposition knows it. Of course she received a written briefing and there is nothing in Mr Waterford's statement which suggests contrary to that. Secondly, there is this issue of the police commissioner and the remarks he made on radio earlier in the week. Let's be quite clear about this: this government does not seek to interfere in the investigations of the police.

We can see from the comments of the opposition the approach they would have taken to the independence of the police in this state if they had won the last election. It would have gone back to Queensland in the 1980s, with the Premier on the line to the commissioner interfering with investigations. That is the approach the opposition would have the government take on this matter. We will never interfere with police investigations and we will certainly never do anything that would potentially jeopardise an investigation into a very serious criminal matter.

Some things, I think, if we read carefully through some comments that the Leader of the Opposition has made in the course of his speech, do concern me that they may have the potential to do that, but let's be quite clear: the government will always take the advice of the police about what matters we can reveal and what matters we cannot, and we will always err on the side of caution when it comes to saying anything that might jeopardise either an investigation or, indeed, a prosecution in this particular matter. At all times—and the commissioner has confirmed this over and over again—the Minister for Education has acted in a way consistent with the advice of SA Police.

If the police commissioner wants to release information and make public information, that is a matter for the police commissioner. That is entirely a matter for the police commissioner. It is the police commissioner's investigation. The police commissioner takes responsibility for that investigation. I should quote from what the police commissioner said on radio this morning on this very matter. He was particularly asked the question:

…did SAPOL tell the Minister that she was not allowed to say anything about the circumstances surrounding the 32 year old man?

The police commissioner said:

We gave clear briefings to the Minister about...being very aware of and being very careful on anything said that may…prejudice the investigation or the subsequent court case…from that point any minister would need—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The Leader of the Opposition just does not take this seriously. He just does not take a police investigation seriously.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Stuart is warned for the first time.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: He is not interested in the important points the police commissioner has made, which are germane to this issue. He said, 'from that point'—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: You can't scream me down. You can try all you want—

…from that point any minister would need to take that into account and be very cautious in what they say, so I don't think she is hiding behind that…she is taking that…initial part of these investigations and then the investigation proceeds and we very rarely brief government…aware of what happens on investigation on a daily basis. I got briefed again this morning by Paul Dickson on how the investigation is proceeding so I—

the police commissioner—

can make statements that the Minister…could not make.

Then further, the police commissioner says:

…I have a more intimate understanding of the progression of the case and therefore a more intimate understanding of what I might be able to say and what I might not be able to say when it comes to prejudicing the investigation or prejudicing any subsequent prosecution; the Minister would not have that same level of detail…

That is what the police commissioner, Gary Burns, said this morning on radio, which goes to the very heart of the opposition's attempts to try and smear the character of the minister.

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Unley is warned for the second and final time.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The minister has had two priorities: the welfare of the children for whom she has ministerial responsibility and, secondly, to not do anything that might jeopardise the investigation and the prosecution of this particular man. All the minister's actions have been consistent with those two priorities.

On day one, the Leader of the Opposition took a mature approach to this issue, but how long did that last? One day. Since then, he has acted in a way that shows a blatant disregard for the welfare of children in care and a blatant disregard for the investigation and prosecution of this man, indeed going so far as to make a gutless interjection across the floor yesterday questioning the independence of the police commissioner in suggesting that this government had somehow scripted—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is there on Hansard. You all know that he did it. He can shake his head. Everyone in this place knows exactly what he did, and we will hold the Leader of the Opposition to account for that. To go to another point, the minister has had dozens of questions directed at her—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: —over 60 questions directed at her, and many dozens of questions from the Leader of the Opposition. Has one of those questions—just one—gone to the welfare of the children in this matter? Has one single question? Every single question has been about political point-scoring.

What has the Leader of the Opposition been attempting in this matter? He has been attempting to get the minister to make comments or to say something that might prejudice the investigation. Question after question has been attempting to get the minister to say something that might prejudice the investigation: questions, many of which he knows the answers to; questions he has sat in on briefings and been told the answers to. He has been clearly told that this is information that should not be made public; information that might prejudice the investigation and prosecution.

You really have to wonder about the recklessness of this man. Doesn't that provide some insight into the motives of a man who earlier this year said he did not get into politics for the social issues? I will say one thing: on this side of the house we did get into politics for the social issues—social issues are what we are interested in. They are in our very marrow! They are in our marrow, and none more so than the minister for education, for whom social issues go to the core of her being. Mr Speaker, this motion deserves to be tossed out for the cheap, nasty political stunt that it is.

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (14:55): The Minister for Health says that he would never play cheap politics—never, ever. It is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard come out of his mouth. It was only last night that the Premier, Jay Weatherill, was on the news stating that he would not—

The SPEAKER: Member for Adelaide, it would be good if you just referred to members by their title and not by their surname.

Ms SANDERSON: Certainly. On last night's news the Premier stated that he would not, under any circumstances, support the Liberal's bill for a commissioner for children and he would have none in preference to having either his own or no commissioner, after 11 years of needing a commissioner for children. That is cheap politics.

The SPEAKER: Member for Adelaide, you are anticipating debate on a matter. Could I return you to the no-confidence motion.

Ms SANDERSON: Today I stand with the leader to move a motion of no confidence in the Minister for Education and Child Development. For the last fortnight this state has endured the most unimaginable news, which has escalated every day with further reports of children being put at risk, staff being overworked, communication breakdowns between department and governmental staff, and a litany of systemic failures. The minister is ultimately responsible for these failures and the minister must resign.

The Liberal Party is proclaiming here in this place today the pressing need for a change in culture, a change in priorities, and a change in outcomes in all areas of child protection. We are standing here today on behalf of the South Australians who are bombarding every office of their elected members saying, 'Enough is enough.' We are the voice for the children who have no voice. This minister must resign.

Every day parents and grandparents, teachers and doctors, police and overworked Families SA staff are calling for answers. I cannot understate the urgency of this matter. The government must demonstrate that our most vulnerable children are in safe care, and this must be a priority. Unfortunately, the minister has been unable to convey to the public that she can confidently say that our children are safe. Under the minister's jurisdiction the state has had to bear a catalogue of incidents that defy understanding and still the minister predicts there is more to come.

The only way to send a message of change is to change the system, and that must start at the top. If the minister will not resign, the Premier must take the lead and sack the minister. I call on the house to pass this motion out of respect for all children in state care. We have ultimate responsibility for these children and we owe them the protection they deserve when they are placed in state care.

Child protection is a serious issue and children need a government that takes this matter seriously. Premier Weatherill's government has commissioned a series of reports into child abuse over many years, and the Liberal Party respects and acknowledges the recommendations from each and every one of them. But from every review must come action.

Labor has failed to deliver time and time again. We welcome the announcement of a royal commission that will have broad and far-reaching access to systemic problems. However, the families and children affected will have to wait for years before they learn why this tragedy happened to them.

The minister has had almost five years to make changes to this department. Either the minister has tried and failed or has not tried at all. Either way we no longer have faith that this minister can do what is required to keep our children safe. For many of the approximately 2,500 children under the guardianship of the Minister, the minister is their family. It is the minister's responsibility to keep them safe and you have failed.

Drastic changes must be made and they need to be made now. We cannot let another child be harmed due to this government's inability to manage this department. It pains me greatly to say it but this minister has had enough time and has failed. It is time to bring in a new minister. The minister must resign.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Minister for Investment and Trade, Minister for Defence Industries, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (15:00): This motion flows from tragic circumstances. A terrible crime has been committed by a devious villain. There is a need for action but there is no need for this motion and there is no need for the opposition to have handled it as they have.

Three speakers have tried to make a case today that the house should support their claim that there should be no confidence in the minister, and I must say that it has been a very weak argument which has been put. I do not like this motion and I do not like the conduct that I have seen in the house over the past week. I do not like the obsession of some with sexual abuse and scandal instead of meaningful policy.

I do not like the view of some that the way to get ahead is to raise such issues and beat them up for political purposes rather than to look at causes and solutions. The argument that has been put to the house today is that we should have no confidence in 'her handling', she being the minister on this matter. Well let me assure the house that as the Independent Liberal member for Waite, and I stand beside the Independent member for Frome, we have had a very careful look at this and we have reached our own conclusions.

Can I just—picking up on the points made by the member for Bragg—assure the house that we will not be guided by members opposite when we make our decisions on these issues. We will not see members opposite as the arbiters of what constitutes an independent decision. We will make our own minds up, thank you. Do not pretend that because we might disagree with you that we have not reached an independent leaning because I can assure you we have.

If there is one thing that has come out of what I have heard from you this week, it is that I am reassured about why I am standing on this side of the house and no longer over there. I had the same concerns when I heard the carry-on over the last year about sexual abuse, sexual abuse, sexual abuse. It is all you wanted to talk about. What about some meaningful policy debate?

Let me get back to the motion. The faults that you have identified cut to the issue about whether or not the minister was able to provide completely false and inaccurate information at the outset of these terrible events. I think that that has been explained by Mr Waterford and I hope you read his letter. When you are in government, if ever you are in government, you will depend on advice. Now that has been very clearly explained.

The next part of the argument is that the minister may somehow have erred in taking advice from police and others that matters should be left in the hands of the police and, shock horror, that it should be left for the police commissioner to reveal any matters to do with the police investigation or looking at a care notification. I might put to the house that it was completely appropriate to leave those matters to the police, and that is exactly what the minister has done.

What has come out of all this is a clear indication that the system is not perfect. What has come out of this is a clear indication that this matter needs to be investigated. I do not know what more anyone could ask for than a royal commission. From day one, minute one, the minister's advice to the Premier was, 'This needs a royal commission,' and the Premier's response was to accept that advice.

All of the issues that you have raised—whether it is about the powers of a children's commissioner or whether it is about any of the issues you have raised—I feel certain will be addressed by that royal commission. If that royal commission agrees with any of those propositions, no doubt there will be recommendations. Then we can act on the basis of a thorough, fulsome and proper inquiry. What this motion is seeking to do is what you have been seeking to do, which is to spoil the issue and make hay out of it for political purposes.

There is a villain in all of this, and I hope that soon he is rotting in gaol, because he is a terrible, evil villain that persecuted and abused these poor little children, and there are other victims: the carers and others who have been dealing with this situation. This motion should not be supported.

The SPEAKER: I should add that the minister's remarks probably violate the sub judice rule.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 18

Noes 21

Majority 3

AYES
Bell, T.S. Chapman, V.A. Evans, I.F.
Gardner, J.A.W. (teller) Griffiths, S.P. Knoll, S.K.
Marshall, S.S. McFetridge, D. Pengilly, M.R.
Pisoni, D.G. Redmond, I.M. Sanderson, R.
Speirs, D. Tarzia, V.A. van Holst Pellekaan, D.C.
Whetstone, T.J. Williams, M.R. Wingard, C.
NOES
Bedford, F.E. Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K.
Brock, G.G. Caica, P. Close, S.E.
Gee, J.P. Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J. Hildyard, K.
Kenyon, T.R. (teller) Key, S.W. Koutsantonis, A.
Mullighan, S.C. Odenwalder, L.K. Picton, C.J.
Rankine, J.M. Rau, J.R. Snelling, J.J.
Vlahos, L.A. Weatherill, J.W. Wortley, D.
PAIRS
Goldsworthy, R.M. Hughes, E.J. Pederick, A.S.
Digance, A.F.C. Treloar, P.A. Piccolo, A.


Motion thus negatived.

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