HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2018-06-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Limitation of Actions (Child Sexual Abuse) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 June 2018.)

Ms LUETHEN (King) (11:02): I rise to support the Limitation of Actions (Child Sexual Abuse) Amendment Bill 2018, which amends the Limitation of Actions Act 1936 and abolishes the limitation period for claims for compensation made by victims of child sexual abuse. I support this bill because the truth must come out and the social and personal impacts of child sexual abuse must be recognised, acknowledged and compensated.

When humans are young, their world revolves around their parents, who are their primary caregivers. Parents or caregivers are the primary source of safety, security, love, understanding nurturance and support. Child abuse violates the trust at the core of a child's relationship with the world. When the primary relationship is one of betrayal, a negative schema or set of beliefs develops. This negative core schema often affects an individual's capacity to establish and sustain significant attachment throughout their life.

Again, as I said in my maiden speech, I apologise if this topic makes you feel uncomfortable. I understand that because this criminal activity can make a child feel uncomfortable for their lifetime. I would like to share an excerpt from a survivor, Corin Linch, who has shared a poem on the Blue Knot Foundation website:

He warned me to be silent or else I would die,

Was that the day a young child, lost the ability to cry?

The threat was real; my child's mind imagined death,

As in silence I cowered, trying to catch my breath.

But my innocence was stolen, by more than one man,

Now nearly half a century later I think it's time I took a stand,

Because for all that time I've lived with shame and disgust,

Built a wall around me because I felt there was no one I could trust.

Let me be clear, I am not talking about bad parenting or creepy people. I am talking about a criminal activity impacting too many children in our community.

The bill addresses observations made in the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse's Redress and Civil Litigation Report released in September 2015. The royal commission found that the existence of a limitation period creates significant barriers for survivors of child sexual abuse and operates unreasonably to deny victims access to justice. The Limitation of Actions Act 1936 currently sets a limitation period of three years for bringing a common-law action in personal injury. For a person who suffered abuse as a child, this means that an action must be commenced by his or her 21st birthday.

This imperative piece of legislation takes into account all victims of child sexual abuse, not just those who have fallen victim to the predatory behaviour in government and non-government institutions. The royal commission into child abuse uncovered a culture of abuse, cover-up and complacency. It helped expose paedophiles and led real change. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull deserves great credit for his government's response. A national redress scheme for victims has now been agreed to, laws have been changed in response to recommendations and victims finally have access to justice.

I am proud and grateful that this new Marshall Liberal government announced in May 2018 that South Australia will join the National Redress Scheme to provide financial and therapeutic support for people who were sexually abused as children in government institutions. Joining the National Redress Scheme is an important step in the state government taking responsibility for and helping to heal the pain caused by the sexual abuse of children in government institutions. I agree with Premier Steven Marshall's comments on this decision:

Nothing can undo the inexcusable abuse that survivors experienced as children, but we can acknowledge what they have been through and provide financial compensation and emotional support.

Today, the bill asks us to show understanding, care and compassion for every victim of child sexual abuse. I ask that we reflect again on the unacceptable rates of child sexual abuse in Australia. The statistics estimate that one in five children is a victim of child sexual abuse. Picture in your mind a typical local year 4 classroom with 27 children sitting on the mat in front of their teacher. Statistics suggest that five of these innocent children are being sexually abused, most by someone they know and trust.

When I am at school assemblies, I look for the sad faces and I am always thinking that I want to make the world safer for each of these children. In 70 to 80 per cent of child sexual abuse cases there is a familial relationship between the victim and the offender. In other words, the offender is most often the father, the stepfather, the uncle, the neighbour or the family friend. Although parents often fear that strangers will abuse their children, it has been well documented that most child sex offenders are known to their victims.

Just last week, parents in my electorate were alarmed that strangers threatened the safety of children in our streets and it caused much discussion online. I was worried for my community, too. However, I am deeply concerned every day knowing that abuse of children, by people they know and trust, is happening in our neighbourhoods.

The royal commission made important recommendations that we must fix the variation of policies and laws in Australia to better protect children's rights. It called for nationally consistent laws to protect children, their best interests and their rights. The Liberal Party in opposition previously introduced this bill in 2016, following the Nyland royal commission. This bill, under the previous government, was never debated and had no support from the Labor Party. I am proud that this new caring, people-focused state government is acting swiftly to put victims first and ensure that they have the appropriate mechanisms to seek justice and compensation for horrendous, unacceptable crimes committed against them.

Last week, there was a report in the paper about the levels of mental health issues we are seeing in our community. Researchers argue that the state government would need to boost its clinical mental health budget by $100 million and grow the trained workforce by more than 950 community and mental health professionals to ensure children being impacted by these issues are receiving the best level of care.

The research paints a disturbing picture of children's mental health in South Australia. Child abuse and neglect make it very difficult for children to make sense of the world, and their brains do not fully develop. Dr Segal said in this report that the consequences of children having poor mental health was dire and could lead to a cycle of damage and powerlessness from school failure, self-harm, alcohol abuse, suicide or involvement in crime. She said that the cycle of mental illness was also impacted by the fact that people who had experienced trauma during childhood had the tendency to replicate their parents' behaviour when they raised their own children.

Every parent wants to do the best for their child, but often their own trauma or history gets in the way because children with a trauma history struggle to parent themselves, perpetuating the situation. It has been well documented that the sexual abuse of children has a range of very serious consequences for victims. Reports list depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, antisocial behaviours, suicidality, eating disorders, alcohol and drug misuse, postpartum depression, parenting difficulties, sexual revictimisation and sexual dysfunction as some of the manifestations of child sexual abuse amongst victims.

Survivors of child sexual abuse are 18 times more likely to take their own lives than the general population, and they are 49 times more likely to die from an accidental drug overdose. Furthermore, child sexual abuse has been found to be a key factor in youth homelessness, with between 50 and 70 per cent of young people within supported accommodation assistance programs having experienced child sexual assault. A survivor of child sexual abuse recently wrote:

I tried suicide many times and failed. Now he is in custody awaiting sentencing I am finally finding some peace.

The abolishment of the limitation period is so important because there are so many reasons victims may not speak up for a very long time, including that they might not know that what is happening to them is not normal, they might not have the knowledge or language to speak up, they might not have a safe person to speak up to, they might not be believed, they might have been threatened not to speak up, they fear the abuse will happen to their other siblings if they speak up or they might be simply too ashamed to speak up.

One of my friends did not speak up until her 40s because, she said, she grew up in a country town and she thought that if she ever told anyone in the town everyone would find out. As a young girl, she was raped every time her older brother's friend slept over. Two of my friends started having terrible dreams in their 40s and, through counselling, discovered they were victims of incest. They have told me how hard their families fought to deny and cover up the abuse and discredit these individuals who spoke up. Victims may never feel the courage or motivation to come forward against a perpetrator, let alone at the young age of 21.

As I shared in my maiden speech, I met adult survivors of child sexual abuse who told me their stories, and none of them had personally prosecuted their perpetrators. For the survivors brave enough to speak up, to take action, to hold their abuser accountable and to seek compensation, I ask everyone here for your support for them. In the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse it was found that very often a person who was the subject of abuse as a child does not disclose or even recognise the significance of the abuse until they are well into their adulthood.

Sadly, what can happen, particularly in circumstances of child sexual abuse, is that the memory and recall can be suppressed or not really dealt with or acknowledged. There are so many reasons that children keep this secret to themselves. We know that it is not right and we know that the abuse should not occur in the first place. We know that they should feel free and comfortable to be able to tell someone, and we know they should have relief and protection. In South Australia, we can give children a voice earlier to help them have a healthier future.

I am proud that South Australia has an internationally recognised Keeping Safe: Child Protection Curriculum, a curriculum which reflects contemporary child safety topics, such as cyber safety, problematic sexual behaviour, domestic violence and gender equality. This curriculum is available for teachers, early childhood staff and other educators to help children and young people in an age-appropriate way to recognise abuse and tell a trusted adult and learn strategies to keep themselves safe. This curriculum was first delivered in 2008, and it is my understanding that it is mandated across South Australia. I have seen firsthand this curriculum effectively embedded and being taught at the Golden Grove Primary School, headed by an outstanding principal, Wendy Moore.

Sadly, I am not convinced it is embedded effectively across our state, but I am going to seek the support of our colleagues to explore this opportunity further. I have discussed this implementation with the Minister for Education, because I have been asking for many years now whether we are teaching it effectively and whether there is evidence of compliance and, alarmingly, I have not received answers that give me confidence in its effective implementation. However, it is a great opportunity to help kids speak up earlier. The child protection curriculum strengthens the likelihood of children and young people speaking out to protect themselves and others and helps us break the cycle of abuse that we have today.

Another key issue today is that a very small percentage of child sexual offenders are convicted. That means that, when we screen community members to identify who is safe to work or volunteer with our children, we are omitting so many offenders in this screening process. Low sentencing rates put our children at constant risk. Child sexual abuse is a social problem with huge social and economic costs. It is not just an issue of the past, because it casts a shadow on people's lives which affect adult life and can affect the children of victims as well. The truth must come out and offenders must be held accountable if we are to break this cycle of abuse.

I wish today to acknowledge the daily work of child protection advocates across Australia who seek to create awareness and lobby for change and a safer community. A special mention to Cristina's House of Hope, Safe4Kids, Some Secrets Should Never Be Kept, Bravehearts and Fighters Against Child Abuse Australia for all the work they do every day. I congratulate my Liberal colleagues, because this is a commitment our previous Liberal opposition made to South Australia.

We committed to introducing legislation to remove the limitation period for victims of institutional child sexual abuse within the first 100 days in government, and this is what we are doing. This bill achieves this result but applies to all victims of child sexual abuse, not just those who suffered abuse in institutional settings, as I previously mentioned. As recognised by the royal commission into institutional responses, it is critical that survivors have the opportunity to come forward into adulthood and seek some redress where appropriate. This is a right that should not be denied to them.

I commend the Attorney-General for her recent comments. This government, in stark contrast to the former, is implementing decisive change and we are proud to do so. We want to ensure that victims do not need to beg to the court to hear their story when they are ready to tell. Brave survivors who speak up deserve a bold government to make laws which hold offenders accountable. If not us, then whom? If not now, then when?

Let's be the bold government that child victims and adult survivors need. Let's break the cycles of abuse and create cycles of opportunity. The limitation of actions amendment bill is an important step towards addressing decades of injustice and indifference shown to victims, both institutional and otherwise. Put simply, I support this bill because the truth must come out and survivors must be supported so that they can live their best life possible. I congratulate the Attorney-General on presenting this bill and I commend the bill to members.

Ms STINSON (Badcoe) (11:21): I rise to support this—

The SPEAKER: Is the member the lead speaker?

Ms STINSON: Yes, I am the lead speaker, sir. I rise to support this bill and indicate Labor's support for this bill. I want to make a few reflections before going to the substance of the bill that has been put forward. Obviously, to be a victim of crime is an incredibly harrowing experience. It is devastating at the time and then it is also devastating as the years go on. The emotional turmoil certainly manifests over many years, and if not addressed and proper disclosures are not made and counselling is not sought, then that emotional distress can be very devastating for people who have suffered any crime and become a victim.

As a journalist, covering the court system for more than a decade, I have had what I think is the great privilege to be trusted to tell the stories of hundreds, if not thousands, of victims over that time, in South Australia, the Northern Territory, Western Australia, and overseas in Cambodia where I was lucky enough to cover the war crimes tribunals for independent Cambodian radio for some time. It is a huge responsibility as a journalist to speak with victims of crime, to listen to their stories, and I suppose to be the carrier of those stories and to have the responsibility of telling those stories in a full and frank way but also a sensitive way, respecting the very high emotions of the experience of abuse, whatever type of abuse that might be. I have always taken that responsibility very seriously.

It is a really big thing to talk to a relative stranger about such a personal experience as being a victim of crime and it is a really big step to take to seek out a journalist or to agree to speak to them about that experience that you have had. Victims do it for a wide range of reasons. It can obviously be quite cathartic and therapeutic to tell your story and it can be healing to feel like you are being listened to. In the work that I have done with victims, I have found that a great many times victims just want to be heard. It is probably one of the most essential things to people when they have been a victim of any crime to feel like they have been heard by members of the public, by their peers but also by people in authority who maybe can make some change.

The other reason why victims come forward is also to have that sense of empowerment, to share their story with the objective of getting the attention of decision-makers such as all of us who are lucky enough to be in this chamber, to get that attention and to be able to seek some sort of change, whether that is legislative, whether it is the practices of departments or government bodies or whether it is a change in community attitudes that those of us in this room have the power to influence. People also come forward and tell their stories because they want to warn other members of the public and other potential victims about the experience that they have had and ensure that other people do not go through the terrible experiences that they have had to endure.

To share your experiences as a victim of crime as a child is a particularly big thing to do. Generally, when people get to the point of sharing their stories as an adult, they have had many years, sometimes many decades, to think about what happened to them. A lot of the time those feelings have not been resolved and people have not sought professional help. Sometimes, people are actually telling you, as a journalist, for the first time. They are speaking out about what happened to them as a child for the very first time, which is an incredible, emotional thing to observe as a journalist. You can only imagine the pain, turmoil and conflict that a person is going through when they are telling you this story.

I really admire the people who have shared their stories with me and with many other journalists because I think it does make a difference. I think it makes a huge difference to the person to be able to personally share their story, to be able to feel like people are listening to them, sometimes for the first time, to be able to reveal something that has happened to them, to their families and their friends, and to be able to be free of that secret that they have been holding onto, sometimes for many decades. It is a really brave thing to do and people are very vulnerable in those moments when they are revealing what happened to them as a child.

In particular, I reflect upon speaking with victims of the former magistrate, Peter Liddy. I remember quite vividly, as a fairly young journalist, sitting in a cafe in the southern suburbs with one particular victim. He was in his 50s and came to me wanting to talk about the experience that he had had at the hands of the now convicted Mr Liddy. As he went through the detail of what had happened to him as a child, he explained the incredible experience of not even realising or knowing whether something wrong was happening to him, being so young as not to understand that a crime was being committed against him and that this was a huge violation.

It was not for many years, until he grew up, that he understood the depravity of what happened to him and, in time, also became aware that he was not the only one and that many others had fallen victim as well. He conveyed a great sense of isolation; he thought he was the only one. He had a great fear of disclosing the abuse, of the retribution that may have come, especially from a person in a position of huge power, and what it might mean for him and his family if he were to disclose the abuse that had happened to him once he got older and realised that he had been abused and that crimes had been committed against him.

I felt a great sense of responsibility when he told me his story. I think we were in the cafe for about two hours. Tears were streaming down this man's face—and he was a big guy. He was a big, tough-looking guy, and you would not have thought anything in the world would have bothered him, but it turns out that he had been a victim of sexual and physical abuse as a child. Now, all these decades later, he was seeking someone to hear his story. The reason he did it was to encourage other victims to come forward and to let people, especially children, know that they are not alone and that wherever possible they should report abuse and not wait, like he did, several decades before disclosing what happened.

Obviously, we know that a lot of children either do not recognise the abuse being committed against them or do not have, or feel like they have, the support to be able to disclose abuse. This is one of the reasons why I support this bill. It is not reasonable to think that by the age of 21 people who are victims of abuse—sexual, physical, or otherwise—will necessarily be able to articulate that a crime has happened to them, will have the support around them to be able to make a disclosure, or will have the understanding of what that disclosure means. So I fully support removing that limitation, particularly for child victims of crime.

I would also like to take the opportunity to speak about the great work of the victims of crime commissioner, Michael O'Connell. He was often a conduit for me, as a reporter, to be able to speak with victims, understand their stories, sometimes arrange interviews and speak with people on terms that were comfortable and sensitive to their experiences. I would like to commend the great work that Michael O'Connell has done during his role as the victims of crime commissioner and also before that, in working with victims of crime over many, many years.

He is a remarkable man, both in terms of the grassroots work he does to support victims and be their advocate in court, and offer them information about how to navigate very complicated legal systems as well as the complicated world of media. It can be really confronting to want to tell your story and engage with the media but not know how to do that and what the consequences will be for you if you do go and talk to the media about your story. Michael O'Connell has always been a very honest broker in that process and has assisted journalists and, more importantly, victims to be able to consider whether they want to talk with representatives of the media, how they will do that, what their rights are and, ultimately, whether they want to go ahead with doing an interview or speaking with journalists at all.

It is different for each person. Not all victims of crime want to speak to the media, nor should they, but for those who want to take that path or look at disclosing publicly their abuse and telling their story to a wider public, Michael O'Connell has been a great force for good in assisting them to make those really tough decisions. It is a relatively small decision in the scheme of the many decisions the victims of crime and victims of crime as a child need to make in the journey through the justice system, but an important one nonetheless.

Michael O'Connell has also assisted victims in the court. I have had the great pleasure of working with him as a board member and then as chair of the Victim Support Service. There is a massive degree of respect for this man in how he conducts himself and always puts the interests of victims first. I really enjoyed working with him, as a reporter and then as an advocate for victims myself. I think he will be sorely missed. The degree of professionalism with which he approaches things and the calmness of his demeanour are things that are not always prevalent in the criminal justice system, nor the considered nature of his deliberations about what is best for victims when it comes to advocating in relation to government or even non-government policies.

He is also an academic. He is a world leader in terms of victimology. His views, and indeed his presence, are sought all over the world, over and over again each year, because people respect the depth of knowledge that Michael O'Connell has about the victim experience, policy development and advocating for the rights of victims. I think it will be an absolutely huge loss with him no longer being the victims of crime commissioner.

I do hope he finds a place somewhere else in our state's justice system because I think his wealth of information, knowledge and experience and the depth of his understanding of the victim experience really need to be utilised somewhere in our justice system to ensure that the rights of victims are still kept at the forefront of the development of justice policy and, indeed, how we actually exercise justice in this state. So I would like to recognise the role that he plays in terms of advocating for victims and particularly those victims who are making important decisions about disclosing crimes against them as a child.

This bill currently looks simply at victims of crime, as children, of a sexual nature. I would like to indicate that Labor will move amendments in the other place to strengthen this bill and to ensure a broader range of victims of childhood abuse are able to seek remedy before our civil courts. Lots of victims experience multiple forms of harm—sexual harm but also physical, emotional, mental harm, sometimes financial harm and also neglect. There is also another area of harm which is being discussed more and more, which is that of cultural abuse.

This bill obviously seeks to amend the Limitation of Actions Act 1936 to specify that an action for damages resulting from the sexual abuse of the person when the person was a child may be brought at any time and is not subject to any time imitation. Currently, as we have heard from the member for King, a person who is abused as a child (under the age of 18) has three years from their 18th birthday to take civil action in relation to a matter. However, as I have canvassed, it is well known that in the child protection and justice sectors, many child abuse victims do not come to terms with their abuse or disclose it to third parties until well into adulthood.

There are, of course, complex and multiple reasons for that delay, and those are very personal and individual. Reasons can include feelings of shame and embarrassment, of denial and fear of retribution, as in the case that I outlined in relation to the offender Mr Liddy. Family circumstances can be a reason. Distrust of authorities is quite a big one, especially for young people who are abused in state or institutional care and have concerns about interacting with the justice system. Everyone knows that it is a big deal to go through court. It takes many years, and some victims of a range of crimes decide not to proceed to court because they know the financial and emotional toll the court process will take on them.

All those reasons are perfectly understandable, but they should not pose a barrier to an adult seeking redress for crimes committed against them as a child. For many victims and their families, being heard through court or other processes and attaining some degree of justice against their abuser or, for that matter, the institutions employing their abuser, is highly therapeutic. It allows them to be able to move on with their lives.

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse recommended the removal of time limits for civil action against government and non-government institutions in recommendations 85 to 88 of its Redress and Civil Litigation Report. This bill, of course, proposes to remove any limitation on the period within which an action may be brought for damages relating to the death of or personal injury to a person resulting from the sexual abuse of the person when they were a child.

It is important to note that victims are already able to seek ex gratia payment from the scheme established after the Mullighan inquiry, as a recommendation of that inquiry, or indeed under the victims of crime compensation scheme. Victims soon will also be able to seek payments from the National Redress Scheme. I understand that damages payments, where the defendant is the state at least, will be paid from SAicorp funds, which the Attorney has advised me is sufficiently resourced to meet any demand, although the Attorney has not been able to give exact figures of how many cases are expected to arise from this bill or indeed what the cost of those is expected to be.

New South Wales, Victoria and, of course, more recently Queensland have abolished time limits for civil actions in relation to child sexual abuse, and South Australia, it seems, now as well. In relation to the amendments that Labor proposes to move in the upper house, we will move those amendments to expand the bill to cover physical, financial, emotional or mental abuse of a child or the neglect of a child. We are seeking to do this in order to reflect the serious harm caused by non-sexual forms of abuse, including physical abuse and torture. Devastatingly, there have been cases before our courts in the last five to 10 years of systematic torture of children, including a family of children in one particular instance.

It will also recognise the mental and emotional abuse that occurs at the time and as a consequence of other forms of abuse. If a person is sexually or physically abused as a child, that can absolutely and always does manifest in mental health issues later in life, and that of course should be recognised by any court. Financial abuse may seem a funny issue to raise, but we see in cases of domestic violence that finances can be used as a tool of abuse. Control over money and resources can happen and can have devastating effects on children and adults.

Neglect and the failure to provide the essentials of life is another form of abuse. Unfortunately, in recent years there have been many cases of very serious neglect, and we have seen them in our courts. I also mentioned cultural abuse, which is basically a forced separation from one's cultural identity and practices. That could be in terms of people who have Aboriginal heritage or, indeed, who come from other ethnic backgrounds.

I raise the matter of costings in relation to this bill. The number of expected new cases as a result of this amendment is unknown. No estimates have been provided to me by the Attorney-General's office. I have requested them, but the Attorney-General's staff have responded that it is difficult to quantify what the result of that will be. Obviously, some people will use redress schemes rather than the civil process.

It would be good to be able to get a bit more of an idea of what the consequences of the bill might be because, without knowing the cases, the budget ramifications of this bill are also unknown and uncosted, though, as I mentioned before, I have been assured that there are sufficient funds in the SAicorp funds to cover any damages that the state may have to pay out. Of course, we know that in the past the removal of time limitations has resulted in sudden and heavy burdens on criminal and civil courts.

In the wake of the Mullighan inquiry, and the removal of time limits, we saw a great many cases and hundreds if not thousands of people coming forward, people who had always wanted to take legal action but who were prevented from doing so due to the time limitation enshrined in law. That was obviously a really positive thing that the previous Labor government did to make sure that people who had historical cases could have their day in court.

Not all those cases were successful, but talking to victims who had been through that process—even victims whose cases did not result in findings in their favour, or in damages being awarded—many were still glad to be able to tell their story and to have a public forum where they could air what had happened to them and shine a light on some of the depravities that had happened to children over the decades. It is an important process for people to have that option, even though with the passage of time a fair trial is often not possible for a defendant, as a defendant may have passed away or there may be other reasons that prevent a trial from proceeding. Sometimes, indeed, the health of the victim and other witnesses prevents a matter from going forward.

As I mentioned, this bill does not remove the time limitation for physical, financial, emotional or mental abuse or neglect, and we seek to make amendments to remedy that. It is well known in the child protection sector that these forms of abuse are prevalent and have damaging impacts upon the development of children. Sometimes victims tell me that the impact of that physical abuse is as devastating for them as the impact of sexual abuse.

Obviously, each victim is different in their experience, but I do not think that we should be saying that people who experience a particular type of abuse should have more rights and more freedoms to take an action later in their life than victims who experience a different type of abuse. To me, abusing a child is abusing a child. It is a crime, whether that abuse is sexual, physical, mental, emotional or any other kind of abuse. That is why we seek to put forward these amendments, and we hope those opposite will support them.

I would like to finish by recognising that this bill expands upon the private member's bill that the now Attorney put forward in 2016. That bill was restricted to government and non-government organisations, whereas this bill is wider and looks at abuse of a child by any party. I welcome that and commend the government for expanding the bill to include it. As I mentioned before, there should not be different classes of victims; victims who experience child abuse in any setting should be recognised, and I am encouraged that this bill seeks to recognise all victims of child sexual abuse and, I hope, other forms of abuse as well.

I would also like to recognise the work that is ongoing in both the Department for Child Protection and other agencies as well as in the non-government sector, which works with victims of historical child abuse and, unfortunately, victims who have been more recently abused. Their work is remarkable. It is emotionally taxing, but they perform an incredibly important role in assisting victims of crime who, at any stage, want to come forward and disclose a crime that has been committed against them, particularly those who may come in later in life to disclose abuse. They do very important work. They are not recompensed to the degree they probably should be to reflect the gravity of the work they do, but I want to recognise them.

I also want to recognise all those people who were abused as children in state care, in institutions or indeed in other places by other people. It is an experience that many of us cannot even fathom. We look at our own children and at the children in our lives and cannot imagine that anyone would harm a child in any way—yet, of course, there are people in our community who, over many decades, have abused children.

We must do all we can to offer every opportunity to people who have been victims to be able to seek the redress they need in whatever form that may be and, through our redress schemes, through our criminal system, and of course—as this bill relates to—through our civil system. I support the bill, and commend the government for bringing it forward. I hope the government will support the amendments we will move to ensure that the abuse of children in any form is recognised and that remedies are made available through the civil system.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (11:48): I rise to support the bill and, in doing so, recognise the contribution the member for King made earlier this morning as well as that of the member for Badcoe as lead speaker for the opposition. Both have spoken from the heart and from personal experience of their engagement with victims of abuse, and I have listened carefully to their contributions. I welcome the opposition's indication that it will support the bill.

What does the Limitation of Actions (Child Sexual Abuse) Amendment Bill 2018 do? It has the effect of removing altogether the limitation period that would otherwise apply. It is an up-front insertion of a new part 1A and a new section 3A that will provide that no limitation period applies to actions the subject of that section. Those are actions for 'damages relating to the death of or personal injury to a person resulting from the sexual abuse of the person when the person was a child'. That is the effect of the bill. I welcome it. It removes a limitation period that has previously existed.

Some context is relevant and appropriate in this sense because, over generations past, South Australia has been at the forefront of this sort of remedial provision, this sort of remedial process that ameliorates the heavy effect that limitation periods have had on victims. We go back to 1975, and by act No. 21 of that year, in the Dunstan period, section 48 of our Limitation of Actions Act was introduced.

Section 48, as honourable members will be aware, has long provided for plaintiffs, those who would bring an action, to be relieved of the otherwise harsh effects of a limitation period in circumstances where a new fact came to the plaintiff's attention or in circumstances where the conduct of the defendant had contributed to the action not being brought and gave the court discretion to extend time where the interests of justice meant that an extension should be granted.

That is a provision in a regime that has applied in this state for generations. For a long time, it was a remedial provision that led the way in this country to leaving the door open, leaving the possibility open, for a plaintiff to seek relief notwithstanding the fact that the limitation period might otherwise have expired. It was a regime that was introduced for that very purpose. In South Australia, when we do the comparative analysis state to state and federally, we have a legacy of a longstanding approach that is relatively ameliorative when it comes to the possibility for relief.

Indeed, this was observed by His Honour Chief Justice King, for whom the seat of King was recently renamed, in the case of Robinson v Craven, a 1994 decision of the Full Court. The purpose of section 48, he said, on page 269 of S.A. State Reports, Volume 63:

…is to relieve plaintiffs whose actions are out of time, of the hardship resulting from time limitations. Its purpose is ameliorative. It would not accord with that purpose to construe the section as extinguishing causes of action which would not otherwise be extinguished.

So we have for a long time in this state had a regime in place that has provided a means for the extension of time. It is further relevant at this point to make it clear that limitation periods apply so as to bar the remedy. They do not extinguish the cause of action. Importantly, it has always been and remains a matter for the defendant to take the point as to whether or not the limitation period is to be pleaded.

Over the period since the introduction of section 48, until the introduction now of this bill in this state, we have had a situation in which there is a way forward for a plaintiff who wishes to pursue a remedy otherwise out of time, and there is a question for a defendant as to whether or not to take the point and to plead the limitation. So, it is a procedural issue. If the defendant does not take the point, then the substantive cause of action might be pursued and that has been the case for a long period of time.

We have had a situation in South Australia where, on the one hand, from 1975 onwards we have been at the forefront of reforms for relieving would-be plaintiffs of potentially harsh circumstances of time limitations and, secondly, we have been in an environment in which defendants have had a difficult choice to consider as to whether or not to take the point. To draw one further observation in this context from Robinson v Craven, a 1994 decision of our Full Court of then Chief Justice King, Justice Millhouse and Justice Perry, in relation to that question of whether or not the defendant would take the point as to time, Justice Millhouse observed:

A defendant does not have to take the point, he does not have to plead that the plaintiff is out of time. Indeed when I was a student and a young practitioner it was regarded as bad form to take the point: one took specific instructions from a client to do so before pleading the Statute of Limitations.

An ameliorative regime has been in place in South Australia. We have had observations of longstanding of our Full Court in relation to the need for the defendant to take the point if the time limitation is to be pleaded, and remarks about the appropriateness of taking the point in circumstances that are before the court and before the litigants. In those circumstances, we come to the Nyland royal commission and the Nyland royal commission's recommendations, and it is fast forward to that time, and we had then further the results of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse as well.

Over the course of now recent years, each of the other states—at least most of them—have introduced the removal of limitations so far as actions by victims of child sexual abuse are concerned. It started in Victoria. Victoria was the first to do so, their legislation being introduced in 2015, followed by New South Wales, Queensland, ACT and recently Western Australia.

The member for Badcoe indicated welcoming the broadening of this legislation to apply to all actions against all defendants. I make the observation that when the equivalent legislation was introduced in Queensland by the Labor government in that case, it was originally presented as applying only to abuse in institutions. That was amended in the course of debate by the LNP to be extended to apply to all victims, as does the legislation that is presently before the house.

We have seen over recent years the steady introduction of similar removals of limitations in cases involving the sexual abuse of children, but not so in this state. I listened carefully to the member for Badcoe rising in support of this bill. It is important to note that the previous government, which is very quick to claim the legacy of Dunstan and be on the side of reform and so on, took no action in this regard. It took no action over a sustained period and, moreover, when it had an opportunity, steadfastly refused to introduce legislation of this kind.

As recently as February of this year, the previous attorney is reported as having written to a survivor and would-be claimant about the previous government's steadfast opposition to change when called upon to introduce this reforming legislation. On 3 February, The Australian newspaper reported that, in January of this year, the attorney wrote to a practitioner representing an abuse victim indicating that the then government had no plans to abolish existing limits for victims of child sexual abuse. Further, he is reported as having written:

My view is that the law in its present form, and as currently applied by the courts, appropriately allows for justice to be served.

I welcome the opposition's support now of the new government's introduction of this legislation, but I want to say that it was there for years. Not just for a short period of time but for an extended period of time, there was an opportunity for a government of long standing in this state, a government that claims a proud heritage of reform going back a long way, to introduce this very change, yet not only did it do nothing but it steadfastly refused to take any action.

Further, in the context of the former attorney's remarks, there is more to be done. The former attorney was quick to claim the legacy of 1975 and say, 'In South Australia, we have section 48, and we are not as harsh as other states have been over the journey,' but compare that with what the federal government did in its response in 2016. On 4 May 2016, then attorney-general, minister Brandis, issued a directive that commonwealth agencies for which he was responsible would not take the point in matters otherwise involving a time bar. I go back to my remarks about the way the law operates and, indeed, the regime that section 48 operated under. The federal response was yet another way of dealing with that very situation: 'We won't take the point as a defendant.' Alright, well that possibility was open.

The states went about what they were urged to do by commissions, state and federal, and introduced the kind of removal of time limit that this bill removes. However, the former government in this state, which is very quick to rely on the proud heritage of the Dunstan years and reforms introduced at another time, had the opportunity very easily in at least one of two ways to take steps to reform access to justice for victims in this area and chose not to do so, so I am glad that we are all on the same page.

Sometimes it takes an election and a fresh government with a new agenda to clear out what is old and bring in what is new and move on into the future, but here we are. We now have the opportunity to introduce this legislation, which will remove the time limit for civil action in this state. Unlike in 1975, we are coming last where we have a legacy of coming first. We are doing this at the first opportunity as a new government in this state, and I commend the government for moving so quickly.

In the short time I still have available to me today, I would make an observation in line with the remarks of my friends the member for King and the member for Badcoe about the personal circumstances of victims and how difficult it is for victims to both air and take action to seek redress for what they have suffered. That indeed is a very hard road, and I would not for a moment wish to leave this house with any false notion that somehow the introduction of legislation of this kind sweeps away all the barriers and makes things now immediately possible to seek perfect redress.

In my observations and experience, I am afraid that that is not always possible and, while we can make civil remedies easier to pursue and we can remove some barriers for victims, as we ought where we can, this will remain a difficult road for victims and our hearts go out to them. We must do all we can to continue to share their journey, feel their pain and, where possible, make reforms so as to ensure that justice is available for all victims. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr BOYER (Wright) (12:08): I, too, rise to say a few short remarks in support of the bill that is before us now. I am very pleased that the new Labor opposition has chosen to support this bill. In response to some of the points raised a moment ago by the member for Heysen, I was privy to many of the conversations in a former role around whether or not we as a government would support the previous bill.

Although it was always explained to me that applications to set aside a statute of limitations were normally, or almost always, approved, my own opinion is that that is no reason not to support abolishing the statute completely, because I think our role as a government and as lawmakers is not to put more hurdles in the way of victims of any kind of abuse. Even if it was in some respects a moot point about whether or not the limitation was set aside, it is, in my view, not really the point.

The member for Badcoe, our shadow child protection minister, has indicated that we will, of course, support the bill but has reserved our right to move amendments in the other place. Any amendments that we seek will be to strengthen this bill and to ensure that a broader range of victims of childhood abuse are able to seek remedy before a civil court. The bill before us seeks to amend the current act and will allow for a person to seek damages resulting from sexual abuse that they were subjected to as a child at any time, and is not subject to any time limitation. Currently, a person who was abused as a child under 18 years of age has three years from their 18th birthday to take civil legal action in relation to that matter.

The commonwealth Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse recommended the removal of time limits for civil actions against government and non-government institutions. We know that the existence of a limitation period creates a significant barrier for those abused and, for those childhood victims, the realisation may well be after their 21st birthday. In fact, we heard earlier the member for King who spoke about some cases where the victim was far older than 21 years of age and into their later years in life before possibly they realised that they had been abused as a child.

However, it is not always just a matter of realising or remembering what happened; in many cases, it is gaining the courage to raise it, which can be very difficult, particularly when so many cases of child sexual abuse happen in family settings and the perpetrator of that abuse is someone known very well to the victim. In so many cases, that can make it even harder to have the significant courage—and I personally cannot imagine how much courage it would take—to stand up and tell other family members and the police that you have been sexually abused by a family member or someone very close to you.

I am also pleased to see that New South Wales, Victoria and, more recently, Queensland have already moved to abolish time limitations for civil actions in relation to child sexual abuse. The current Limitation of Actions Act 1936 specifies that action can be brought following sexual abuse but, of course, we know that victims can suffer much more than just sexual abuse. Earlier, we heard the member for Badcoe outline the nature of the amendments that we will be tabling in the other place to expand the bill to cover physical, financial, emotional or mental abuse of a child or the neglect of a child.

I think these are very appropriate amendments to this bill, and it is timely in the sense that we have an opportunity here at the start of a new parliament to thoroughly discuss these issues and make the most of the political capital that we have in this place to offer as many protections and avenues for redress as we possibly can to victims of not just child sexual abuse but also other forms of abuse.

We also need to acknowledge the failure to provide the essentials of life and the abuse that has been pushed onto our Indigenous and ethnic communities through cultural abuse, which the member for Badcoe mentioned as well, including the forced separation from cultural identity. We have heard many stories in recent years about the effect that this has had. In much the same way as the lasting effect of sexual abuse, there is also a lasting effect of cultural abuse or forced separation upon people as well.

Before I finish, I would like to take the opportunity to echo some of the words of thanks and praise to the outgoing Commissioner for Victims' Rights, Mr Michael O'Connell, who I had a great deal to do with in my previous role working for different ministers for child protection. He is an incredibly honourable man. He has a quite unique skill set, in my opinion. In my former roles, I was a very close party to a couple of significant royal commissions regarding matters around child sexual abuse and the handling of child sexual abuse matters in South Australia—namely, what we know as the Debelle and McCoole royal commissions.

In my capacity as a staff member to ministers for child protection during those royal commissions, I had cause on many occasions to seek the guidance and assistance of Mr O'Connell. There are some things I will never forget from that time: sitting down in the kitchen at the dining table with the parents of children who had been abused by an out-of-school hours carer in what was known as the Debelle royal commission, and also during the royal commission conducted by Justice Nyland. It was a very harrowing experience, I must say, sitting down and looking into the eyes of parents of children who were sexually abused by someone who had been tasked with caring for that child and accepting that we had failed them completely.

In the Debelle matter, it was not just a case of us having failed those children in the sense that they were sexually abused whilst in the care of a government employee, but also there were failures following that in terms of communicating with the broader school community around what had happened. In the case of Shannon McCoole, children who had been completely and utterly let down by their biological parents to the point where they were put into state care for their own wellbeing and protection, you might say, were only to be abused by a state government carer.

I give these examples to make clear to this place how important the role of the victims of crime commissioner is, because that unique skill set of Michael O'Connell, to which I referred earlier, included the ability to make sure that the parents of victims or victims themselves were actually listened to, which is what he did so well. The feedback that I always received from parents and from victims themselves after having spoken to Mr O'Connell was that they felt listened to.

Mr O'Connell is a talker. I remember that, whenever I got him on the phone, I had to set aside 10 or 15 minutes for a very long conversation, but it was the fact that he listened so well that was so appreciated by victims, and I think he will be very sorely missed, although I wish the new commissioner, Bronwyn Killmier, all the best. I have had reason to work with Ms Killmier in her role in SAPOL as an assistant commissioner, and I know she is a very hardworking and uncompromising person, as was Mr O'Connell.

Ms HABIB (Elder) (12:16): As a community, one of the darkest and most horrific situations we have had to face is the occurrence of child sexual abuse. Imagine victims of child sexual abuse not only having to live through such an horrific experience but also having to disclose afterwards what has occurred. For many victims of abuse, such disclosure does not happen until well into adulthood. The memory and recall can be suppressed or not really dealt with or acknowledged.

There are many reasons why children keep this secret to themselves. That being the case, where a victim does not disclose sexual child abuse until well into adulthood, victims would be unable to access compensation under the current law known as the Limitation of Actions Act 1936, which limits the time period a victim of child sexual abuse can make a claim for the abuse to three years.

For a person who has suffered abuse as a child, this means that an action must be commenced by his or her 21st birthday. This limitation is unlike other states, which have accepted their role in serving justice to children. Removing this limitation was a key recommendation of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. As highlighted by the commissioner, three years is not an appropriate amount of time for victims to seek legal assistance and make a claim against their abuser to receive compensation.

Proper compensation and full access to justice, regardless of how long ago the abuse was committed, should be a high priority for any government. I stand proud, knowing that it is for us on this side of the chamber, the Marshall Liberal government. In fact, in opposition we brought a similar version of this bill to the house in 2016, and today, less than 100 days from the day we were elected, we are bringing this issue back to the house to be rectified.

It is worth noting that South Australia is the last state or territory to remove the time limits for this type of abuse and personal injury. The one major difference between the former private member's bill and the bill currently before the house is that this government bill takes into account all victims of child sexual abuse, not just those who have fallen victim to predatory behaviour in our government and non-government institutions.

For South Australia to properly recognise the harms caused in our institutions, this bill is an absolute necessity. This will add to the schemes currently in place, and, in the future, add to the options available under the National Redress Scheme. The Marshall Liberal government is taking responsibility for, and helping to heal the pain caused by, sexual abuse of children in government and non-government institutions.

I hope to see this bill pass through both houses quickly to ensure that we do not have a situation where parliamentary delays provide injustice to victims of child sexual abuse whose claims would be precluded. The Limitation of Actions (Child Sexual Abuse) Amendment Bill 2018 is an important step towards addressing decades of injustice and indifference shown to victims, both institutional and otherwise. I commend this bill to the house.

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (12:20): I rise to speak in support of the Limitation of Actions (Child Sexual Abuse) Amendment Bill. I am pleased that, as an opposition, we support it. I want to acknowledge all who have spoken in support of this bill for their compassion and their understanding of the changes we can bring about to people's lives through this bill.

I understand that the member for Badcoe has rightly developed a number of amendments to strengthen this bill, to deepen its effect by ensuring that a larger number of victims of childhood abuse are able to seek court remedies for the terrible pain and suffering they have experienced. I also speak in advance in support of those amendments. It is our fellow community members who have gone through abuse that we stand up and speak out for and alongside and that we seek to secure better rights for through this bill, community members whom we want to have the best possible access to appropriate remedies, remedies that might just open the door in a way that helps them to move forward.

However, it is also our children we stand up for through our support for this bill. Our children should always feel safe and secure and never have to experience child sexual abuse or indeed any form of abuse or neglect. They should be able to grow and thrive from a safe and secure base, surrounded by people whom they love and whom they can trust. Like others in this house, I have both close friends and local community members who have confided in me about the heartbreaking abuse they experienced as children.

In sharing their experiences, it is clear that it has been a heartbreaking and incredibly difficult journey that they have taken to reach a point where they have courageously spoken about what has happened to them. It is a journey that has deeply impacted their lives, their relationships and sense of trust, a journey that, in many cases, has taken years, and continues.

In every one of those conversations, those who have been victims have articulated feelings of shame, embarrassment and isolation, fear of retribution, both to themselves and members of their family, and a sense of not knowing who to talk to or, in some cases, whether they were allowed to. This is particularly so in circumstances where abuse happened at the hands of those in positions of power and authority over them, or by someone who was deeply esteemed by our community at large.

My brother, sisters and I were actively involved in lifesaving for years as children and we know just a little about the devastation that Peter Liddy wreaked upon people our family knew. I have also heard from local community members about how hard their journey became when they did not think they would be believed, or whether they should even speak up when they knew how well regarded the person who had committed the crime against them seemed to be by so many.

This difficult, heartbreaking journey that an individual may have to traverse for years or decades before speaking up should never pose a barrier to an adult bravely seeking redress for crimes committed against them as a child. For community members who were abused as a child, speaking up and being truly heard can be an important part of their harrowing journey, where they finally feel some small sense of justice, some small sense that they can trust someone in authority, that there is someone who will understand and will act and to have some sense of hope that they can move forward with their lives, having finally shone a light onto the terrible darkness that comes with child sexual abuse.

The bill seeks to amend the Limitations of Actions Act 1936 to specify that an action for damages resulting from the sexual abuse of the person when the person was a child may be brought at any time and is not subject to any time limitation. As the member for Badcoe has outlined, we will also move amendments to expand the bill to cover physical, financial, emotional or mental abuse of a child or the neglect of a child. We know the dreadful harm caused by any form of abuse. I look forward to the passage of these amendments.

Speaking in support of the bill and the impending amendments, I confirm my commitment to do everything I can to ensure that people are heard, respected and understood when they speak out that they were abused. Together with the many hardworking people in community organisations and groups, in government agencies and, indeed, all my colleagues in this place, I confirm my commitment to prevent child abuse in any form so that children can live a full and active life, surrounded by love, where they always feel safe and secure in their home, at school, in care, in sporting activities and in every activity that they engage in, and with the innocence that should always be a sacred part of anyone's childhood.

Ms COOK (Hurtle Vale) (12:26): I was blessed to grow up in a loving home. We had very few arguments and I wanted for very few essential items. My biggest worries were getting hold of the latest Barbie doll and getting the latest edition of the book, whatever it was, in the series that I was reading at the time. Life was very good in the Cook household.

I have spoken about this in this place before, but at the age of 28 I found out that I was adopted. It was a huge surprise to me and something that changed my life forever in terms of my perspective of my childhood. I was very lucky that I was adopted at about 10 days old into a family whose mission was to adopt another child because my mother could not have any more children. I was treated to the luxury of having older siblings and parents who loved me dearly and who did everything they could to protect me, including to protect me from the knowledge that I was not actually born into their family.

Whether that is right or wrong, it led me to many adventures as a young child and teenager, looking through family albums trying to find the person I looked like—when we went on holidays, looking up the nostrils of many adults to see if I could find those nostrils that looked like mine, the hair and the face. It may be no surprise to people, but there were very few people who were like me. I certainly did not find anybody I looked like.

I resolved that I was the height I was and the way I was because my family moved out here from the oppressive, awful darkness of England to a place where people grew to bigger sizes and were stronger. That was how I reconciled the fact that I was four sizes bigger than my sister in height and size, with very long arms, that I loved sport and found it quite taxing to be sitting in front of a book, studying. My childhood was one of luck and blessings, although my father worked hard for everything. I do not recall the year, but we had a colour television very late in life.

When I met my birth family, one of the first things they asked me was, 'Were you treated well?' I cannot imagine the thoughts and heartbreak of parents who have made that really tough decision to give up a child into care, and the worry they must have about that child and what that child is experiencing. Now, with the knowledge we have over the years of the treatment and the terrible abuse of children in care, I know there must be many people around our country who are worried that one of their children they gave up has experienced such terrible trauma.

I know that my half-sisters had no such trauma. They were born a little later to my mother and stayed with her, and I know that they were not treated like that in her care. She was genuinely concerned that I had suffered that treatment, but I was able to reassure her that that never happened and that I did have the life of a well-treated and well-adjusted young child in adopted care.

I thank any higher power that will listen that I was adopted into that home of family, love, security and decency. I think often of the many young people who were not so lucky, who suffered unspeakable acts at the hands of those who were charged with caring for them—and I use the word 'caring' lightly.

I have met, worked with and myself cared for hundreds of children under the guardianship of the minister of the day, either through hospital care or out in the charity sector doing mentoring. I have seen into the eyes of these children who have been stripped of their innocence. It is something that time simply will never heal. Therapy might improve the ability of these children to live with that pain as adults, but it makes me sick to my stomach to think about the lifetime of trauma that the children, then to become adults, must face as they uncover the horrors through therapy or return of memory, or whatever that might be.

Some of the darkest times in this state have been linked to the vile sexual abuse of children in our care, and nothing will erase this from our history, nor should it. We must acknowledge and remember each and every one of those victims and use this disgust to drive us to make changes to the system so that it never happens again. Sadly, 'never' is a word that can never be committed to in full. Monsters work their way through systems. We can just hope and remain ever vigilant.

I am also now a foster-parent, something that my husband and I thoroughly enjoy. We take great pride in it and we encourage as many people as we can to take on this role as well. I love watching our son grow up. He got his full licence yesterday, and I know that he just could not wait to get out and drive. It caused my husband and I great pain to watch him go out the door.

He is playing state sport. He is a regular teenage pain in the butt, and we love him dearly for that, too. We thank him for every challenge that he throws at us, and we do it with a smile. I know that he has been through pain. He has been through immense pain. I have sat with him as he has unpacked his journey and seen how that explains the behaviours we saw when he was an 11 year old. It is crazy that six years later he is about six foot two and a half and can probably jump over two of these benches; it is crazy.

Then, he was an 11 year old who did not want anyone to get close, and that was because he was too scared that they, too, would let him down. He tested us every day. We saw and we experienced him pushing us away constantly, but we are pretty tough and pretty resilient, so he has not got rid of us yet. It took lots of therapy and lots of love—lots of tough love—decent food, a roof every night and a routine. I could go on, but you all know. We are decent people and we know that these are the things that these poor kids really need. All of it helps. It has helped him to live his life in a way that he deserves to live his life.

We also know, as my husband and I were told by somebody very wise once, that it is not what you do for these kids, it is what you do for their kids that will really change the world. Having said that—and I will probably say it again and again, because I think they are important stories that guide the work that I do here in the chamber—I of course, along with all of us on our side of the house, wholeheartedly support this bill.

I support the member for Badcoe's great work in doing the background on this over many years, not just here in this place, to really get an understanding of the pain that these children go through. It helps also, member for Badcoe, with the intestinal fortitude to go on and push through with this.

I have listened to her contribution and discussions about amendments to strengthen the bill to ensure that a broader range of victims of childhood abuse are able to seek civil remedy through the court system. I have reflected on those amendments and put much thought into, again, as I say, my experience with many children who have experienced a whole range of abuses, none of which trumps another. Abuse is abuse, and it is completely scarring and life changing and crippling for these young people.

The bill, as we learnt through the great contribution of the member for Badcoe, seeks to amend the Limitation of Actions Act 1936 to specify that an action for damages resulting from the sexual abuse of a person when the person was a child may be brought forward at any time, not restricted by the current three-year time limit from the time of their 18th birthday. These changes are significant and important, as we know.

Through these personal experiences I have just mentioned, I know that many victims of childhood sexual abuse and childhood abuse of any kind struggle to come to terms with the experience they have until later in life. Thankfully, many do not even remember the abuse until much later in life. For myriads of reasons, including feelings of shame, embarrassment, denial, fear of retribution or humiliation, family circumstances, distrust of authorities and concerns about interacting with the justice system, they hold back.

Of course, as people grow and mature, enter and exit relationships and have children, new ways of thinking, thought processes and memories will emerge, often elucidating long-dormant memories of childhood abuse. The bill is based on an understanding of this common happenstance and seeks to ameliorate the current limitations by allowing any victim of childhood sexual abuse to report this crime at any time at any stage in their life.

The bill today is in part a response to the report of the commonwealth royal commission into child sexual abuse and recommendations 85 to 88, which recommend the removal of time limits for civil action against government and non-government institutions. New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland have already abolished time limits with regard to childhood sexual abuse, so it is heartening to see the South Australian government take action on this important issue, and I pay tribute to the Attorney, the member for Bragg, in leading this very early in this term of government.

As I have already noted, Labor will be moving these amendments to the bill to expand the definition of abuse under the bill to include physical, financial, emotional or mental abuse as well as child neglect as a form of abuse. This is in order to reflect the serious harm caused by other, non-sexual forms of abuse and to provide those victims with the same rights as victims of childhood sexual abuse.

I would like to quickly also make mention here today of my thanks for and ongoing support of Mr Michael O'Connell as the South Australian Commissioner for Victims' Rights, who is departing his role. He has served the South Australian community with integrity and honour for the past 16 years. He has supported countless victims of crime and their families throughout our state.

Michael O'Connell supported me and my family when we lost our son. It may be that Michael has created a beast. I was a very angry mother after losing my son—you can well imagine. My husband, my father—all of us—were completely angry and looking for answers. Michael was such a measured, calm, approachable, reasonable man. He made me question myself as to what good would that anger do and what in fact really would I want to see in the future. Bar my son coming back home, I would like to see that no other family goes through this, so he kept reminding me of that message.

He became somebody I could double-check my goals and intentions with regarding some of the things I was doing with my husband from the Sammy D Foundation's point of view early in the piece. He was very wise, measured, supportive, and I did not need to contact him much at all in the last five to eight years because he set up some amazing groundwork for me, something to check on, so I will always be grateful for that.

His service to the community was unparalleled, and while I have congratulated the Attorney a few minutes ago in my contribution, I would have to say that a man of the substance and value of Michael O'Connell, if it is as reported, did not deserve a phone call overseas to let him know that his services are no longer required to our state. Barring any discussion about the process, he deserved for that to happen while he was here with his family in this country. The Attorney-General should have given him that opportunity.

In closing, I also commend the work of Mr Ted Mullighan and the broad work of the Mullighan inquiry under former premier Mike Rann. Mr Mullighan's three-year inquiry considered hundreds of allegations of widespread child abuse within both government and non-government institutions, spanning some 40 years. For him and all others, including Margaret Nyland and people who work in the department, to have to look into these terrible forms of abuse must be scarring and damaging to those people as well. So at this point, Ted Mullighan's work is groundbreaking. Sadly, I did not have the privilege to work with Ted, but of course this side of the house benefits from the wisdom of the Mullighan pedigree in our party room. It benefits all of us and the parliament more broadly, and I look forward to working for many years with the offspring of said Ted Mullighan. With that, I conclude my remarks and commend the bill to the house.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:42): I rise to make a brief contribution to the Limitation of Actions (Child Sexual Abuse) Amendment Bill 2018. This bill fulfils the Marshall Liberal government's election commitment to abolish the limitation of actions period with respect to claims of child sexual abuse. It amends the Limitation of Actions Act 1936. So our government will improve access to justice for victims and recognises the importance of compensation for crimes committed against those who are survivors of child sexual abuse.

Victims of abuse, as we have heard today from the many speakers on either side, frequently do not disclose or even recognise the significance of that abuse until they are well into adulthood. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse recommended the removal of the limitation of actions in these cases, having found it operated unreasonably to deny victims access to justice.

Our party in opposition previously introduced a bill in 2016 following the Nyland royal commission. This bill was never debated and had no support from the Labor Party. Recently our government opted in to the National Redress Scheme for victims of institutional sexual abuse. This legislative change adds another option of redress for survivors who wish to make a civil claim through the courts. We are a government putting victims first and ensuring they have appropriate mechanisms to seek compensation for horrendous crimes committed against them.

In enacting this legislation, South Australia will be the last state or territory to remove time limits for this type of abuse and personal injury. In regard to what we are doing with the bill, as I have indicated, it will abolish the limitation period for bringing a common-law action in personal injury for victims of child sexual abuse. Currently, there is a three-year window to make a claim, between the ages of 18 and 21.

This legislation will apply to all victims of child sexual abuse, not just those who were in institutional care. There will be a retrospective arrangement with the abolition of the limitation period. Where cases have already commenced, transitional provisions clarify that this bill will apply in circumstances where a cause of action has expired prior to the bill's commencement. In addition, courts will have the discretion to grant leave to parties to relitigate matters where they had been dismissed because of the limitation period.

The cost of compensation for these common-law claims will be borne by SAicorp, the government's insurer, if the court determines that the state is liable. More often than not, these claims are settled out of court to ensure victims are not placed under undue pressure. It is expected that most survivors will utilise the redress scheme to seek compensation. However, this only covers institutional crimes. I note that the Labor Party, the opposition, will introduce amendments to be moved in the other place and we will take a look at those between the houses.

As we have heard today, and as the father of a couple of young boys who are getting bigger—six foot two seems a common dimension around the place—you are always concerned about your child's welfare and every child's welfare. I remember the case of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon in 1973. I do not think Joanne Ratcliffe is still around, but if she were she would be my age. I believe she lost her life and a whole lifetime, but that is another matter. We do not know what terrible abuse may have happened to those two girls. Other such matters have happened over time, like the disappearance of the Beaumont children and other terrible activities, not just in this state but in the country and around the world.

It is pleasing to see that we, here in this parliament, are finally taking a stand against the actions of the evil perpetrators of child sexual abuse. I can hardly think of anything worse that could happen to a child, especially when you hear the stories of when they are in care, whether it is non-government care or institutional care, when the very people who should be looking after them are the actual perpetrators of that evil. It disgusts me to the core. We are taking a stand and moving this legislation. I note that the opposition will progress the bill through this place, and I salute the Attorney-General and the Minister for Education for taking a lead role in this debate. I commend the bill.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Minister for Education) (12:48): I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the bill on behalf of the Attorney and close the debate today. I thank the members who have contributed to the debate: the members for King and Hurtle Vale for their extraordinary personal reflections, the member for Heysen for his detailed and thorough explanations about a number of the legal matters, and the members for Badcoe, Wright, Elder and Hammond for their contributions. I believe I have captured the gamut.

I particularly express my gratitude and commendation to the member for Bragg (the Attorney-General and Deputy Premier), who has been arguing for this legislation for some two years and has been a supporter of the causes and needs of victims of child sexual abuse for many years. This is important legislation. This is legislation that was sought, as others have identified, through the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, particularly recommendations 85 to 88 of its Redress and Civil Litigation Report, which recommended that all states and territories take immediate steps to remove the limitation period for cases arising from institutional child sexual abuse.

That is the legislation which the Liberal Party brought to this house two years ago and which I note the Labor Party argued against as recently as February this year. It is disappointing that it has taken us two years to get to the point where this legislation is now capable of passing the House of Assembly with bipartisan support. I congratulate the Labor Party on changing their point of view on this legislation.

I also acknowledge the work of the Hon. John Darley, who previously identified the need for similar legislation through his work in the Legislative Council. I hope, with the passage of this legislation today, that it will have speedy passage through the Legislative Council so that those victims who have been spoken about in such emotional terms in this chamber today will have this further opportunity for some potential legal redress.

I offer some constructive advice to the opposition. I thank the shadow minister, who has identified that the amendments she foreshadowed in her speech will be made available to the government through the Attorney-General's office and, I believe, other members as soon as possible. It is important that this legislation passes as swiftly as it can, for the reasons outlined. The amendments not being available for the House of Assembly to consider today need not, I hope, delay the bill in the Legislative Council. The Labor Party, the opposition, is welcome to make them public or provide them directly to officers within the government and the crossbenches upstairs. Providing them early means that we will be able to consider them and address them.

However, there has been some discussion about the substance of the amendments. The member for Badcoe summed up the substance—obviously anyone can read her speech, if they wish to—by saying:

I do not think that we should be saying that people who experience a particular type of abuse should have more rights and more freedoms to take an action later in their life than victims who experience a different type of abuse…It is a crime, whether that abuse is sexual, physical, mental, emotional or any other kind of abuse.

There may well be crimes associated with some of those other types of abuse. I also note cultural neglect or cultural abuse was identified during the shadow minister's discussion. The comment I would make at this stage is that this bill is the result of the federal Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and has been expanded to include other victims of child sexual abuse. Child sexual abuse is treated differently in the law in a number of different ways. One of the key components is that child sexual abuse is always serious and is always worthy of a serious tag. It is incapable of being otherwise.

We look forward to seeing the amendments and contemplating how the Labor Party propose that those other forms of abuse be dealt with differently and how that could be incorporated here. I would suggest that it is also worth considering whether it is a larger of body of work, if they do wish to put those other forms of abuse on the same par as child sexual abuse across legislation, and whether there are other bills they wish to look at. They may wish to contemplate private member's legislation, which could deal with that as a discrete body of inquiry. I imagine that would assist the parliament in ensuring that this bill is not delayed by any potential consequences that have not yet been seen as a result of their proposed amendments.

They have not yet been seen, of course, because, after two years of discussing this particular bill in its various forms, which has arrived in the stage that it now is, many of the issues related to child sexual abuse in particular have been flushed out and discussed at length. The amendments proposed by the Labor Party, to be dealt with in the upper house, are as yet unclear and of course they will need some investigation. I hope that they do not form a position where they in any way delay the bill, but that will be a matter for the other chamber, presupposing that this house is supportive of the bill. I thank all members for identifying their support for the bill. It is tremendous that we are able to pass this legislation this morning. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Minister for Education) (12:55): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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