HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-11-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CHILDREN IN STATE CARE

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. A. Bressington:

That the Rann government makes known to the Legislative Council—

1. the services provided and the expenditure thus far for those people who, as children, were abused while in the care of the state;

2. exactly what recommendations made by the Hon. E.P. Mullighan QC is the government going to implement;

3. whether or not this government will take on board the recommendations and requests of the members of the 'consumer reference group' to meet the needs of those who have lived their lives with the trauma of being abused whilst in the care of the state; and

4. what steps the government has undertaken to give those victims of abuse justice, redress and closure.

(Continued from 15 October 2008. Page 318.)

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (20:43): Members would be aware that the Democrats were very strong supporters of the Mullighan inquiry. In fact, back in 2005 when it was set up my colleague the Hon. Kate Reynolds attempted to enlarge the terms of the inquiry in terms of who would be able to give evidence. We were unsuccessful in that, but it was still something about which we felt very strongly, and when the opportunity came last year, I think, to amend the bill, when the APY lands were brought into the ambit of the inquiry, I moved a motion which, with the support of the crossbenches and opposition, was successful in amending the legislation. So, we now have the provision where the government is required to report on an annual basis for five years on the recommendations and what they are doing about those recommendations, the progress on them, and so on. From my understanding, that is the gold-plated version of report accountability that is now being advanced all around the country.

We certainly have a level of accountability in regard to the recommendations of this committee that we have not seen in the past. By members in this place agreeing to that amendment we have ensured that this report will not be allowed to sink without trace. Implementing the recommendations will require adequate resourcing, and for this reason I will support the Hon. Ms Bressington's motion.

I am very mindful of the fact that we do not control the budgetary process, so our power to influence what money is put towards implementing the recommendations is a little beyond us. I also acknowledge, amongst the many people who were part of the state foster care and ward system, Mr Ki Meekins for the publication of his book Red Tape Rape. His persistence and bravery in standing up publicly on behalf of too many young people like himself who were victims at the hands of the state is to be very much applauded. As the Hon Ms Bressington said, acknowledgment only goes so far.

There are strong demands for follow-up services to be provided and they must be provided. The type of counselling and therapeutic support these people need comes at a cost, and I support the honourable member's call for the resources to be provided without delay. I do not think anyone could have missed the warning sounds coming from the state Treasurer in the past week about our economy, but I am hopeful that, by passing a motion such as this, we send a strong message to the Treasurer, in framing whatever budget cuts he comes up with, that this is one area that must not be allowed to suffer. Parliament has to maintain pressure on the government to ensure resourcing is provided because the children who were in state care—and, for that matter, those still in state care—should not be punished a second time around. I indicate my support for the motion.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (20:48): On behalf of the opposition I indicate that we will support the honourable member's motion. I am fighting the flu at the moment, so I will keep my comments relatively brief. Members are aware that I was elected in 2002 and the then leader of the opposition, the Hon. Rob Kerin, who officially retired today, was keen to pursue this issue and vigorously pushed for a royal commission into all of the issues that have been raised in this lengthy inquiry and in the Mullighan inquiry.

I reiterate a number of the things the Hon. Ann Bressington said in relation to the pain, suffering and anguish these people have had to live with over many years. From the stories recounted to me by the people who came to see me and who wrote letters to me, and from the discussions we had in our party room in relation to the pursuing of a royal commission, I can say that all points raised in this motion are worthy and resources need to be provided to give those people the care and support they need to ensure that they get some sort of closure, if ever you can have closure on some of the terrible things that happened to them and the pain they have had to endure over many years of living with those memories.

It is not a part of our state's history that any of us can be proud of at all. It was interesting to note during the debate on the royal commission the government's reluctance to go down that path. We were happy in the end that we had the Mullighan inquiry, but somewhat disappointed that we did not have a full royal commission. With those few words, the opposition supports the motion.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (20:50): I rise to support the motion of the Hon. Ann Bressington moved on 15 October, which was phrased as a series of questions to the government. I am now in a position to give the council a response to this motion as called for in the text of the motion, and I will do so by addressing each of the queries the honourable member has raised.

First, the honourable member asked what services are provided and the expenditure thus far, for those people who, as children, were abused while in the care of the state. Members will be pleased to note, I am sure, that there are a number of initiatives in response to the Children in State Care Commission of Inquiry report. In response to recommendation 39, the government has committed new funding of $180,000 per year, for three years, for adults who, whilst in the care of the state, were subjected to childhood sexual abuse. This funding provides free specialist counselling and related support services to survivors.

A position has been created within Post Care Services by the Department for Families and Communities to link adult victims of childhood sexual abuse to appropriate services, and this position was filled about one month ago, I am advised. Additionally, Post Care Services provides a range of services for care leavers in South Australia. These services include accessing community services and support, and assistance in accessing records.

During the life of the inquiry, the government funded Relationships Australia (SA) to provide free counselling services, and is currently funding them to maintain a register of trained practitioners who are free of church and government affiliation. The government will also fund Relationships Australia to provide training to counsellors and therapists involved in providing therapeutic services to care leavers. This will be funded for three years and will be reviewed at the end of this period.

In response to the question, 'Exactly what recommendations made by the Hon. E.P. Mullighan QC is the government going to implement?', I refer the honourable member to the government's initial response made on 19 June 2008. The response and a six-month implementation plan can be downloaded from the Services SA website. But, in short, the government has committed to the full implementation of 36 of these recommendations, has offered qualified support for 13 recommendations, and is giving further consideration to four recommendations. A report on the outstanding recommendations will be forthcoming at a later date. As members can see, the Labor government is fully committed to implementing the recommendations of the commission.

Thirdly, the honourable member asked whether or not this government will take on board the recommendations and requests of the members of the consumer reference group to meet the needs of those who have lived their lives with the trauma of being abused whilst in the care of the state. The consumer reference group was set up when Post Care Services was established within the Department for Families and Communities and continues to provide information and advice to the service through input from the wider community.

Furthermore, as outlined in our implementation report of 25 September 2008 and in response to recommendation 40 of Commissioner Mullighan's report, a task force has been established by the government to examine redress schemes for the victims of childhood sexual abuse and to investigate the possibilities of a national approach to the provision of services. The government will consider the report of the task force after it has received it later this year.

Finally, the honourable member asked what steps the government had undertaken to give victims of abuse justice, redress and closure. A number of initiatives have been undertaken in that regard. For the duration of the commission of inquiry, Relationships Australia was funded by the government to provide free counselling services to those involved. As I outlined earlier, $180,000 per annum has been made available over three years for free specialist counselling and related support services.

Significantly, and in a move for which I am proud of the government, the Premier delivered an apology on behalf of the current and previous parliaments of South Australia on 17 June 2008 to those who were abused as children whilst in state care. The apology was written following extensive consultation with adult victims of childhood sexual abuse whilst in state care, and a shared apology was signed by the Premier, the then minister for families and communities (Jay Weatherill) and representatives of the Catholic, Anglican, Uniting and Lutheran churches and the Salvation Army at a ceremony attended by survivors of abuse following the Premier's apology in parliament.

As I have stated, a task force has been established which is examining the redress schemes for victims and will consider the possibility of a national approach to the provision of services. I look forward to the findings—expected, I am told, by the end of next month.

As part of the government's review of procedural laws that apply to sexual offence proceedings, we have enacted the Statutes Amendment (Evidence and Procedure) Act 2008—a response to recommendation 35. The act will establish procedures to fast-track sexual abuse cases involving child complainants by providing priority listing of these cases.

The Hon. Ann Bressington raised the work of post-care services in her speech. This service provides valuable advice to the government and will continue to do so in the future. This range of initiatives helps victims get the justice, redress and closure that they deserve, and we as a government are committed to ensuring that this continues long into the future.

In closing, I thank the Hon. Ann Bressington for providing me with the opportunity to demonstrate how seriously this government has responded to the issues raised in the Mullighan inquiry.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (20:55): The Greens, too, are very pleased to support this motion. I, too, thank the Hon. Ann Bressington for putting it on the agenda. We know, all too well, that unless we keep it on the agenda the Mullighan report could go the way of so many reports; that is, sit on the shelf and gather dust. I also thank the Hon. Ian Hunter for delivering what I suppose is the government's answer to this resolution. What I imagine we will do now, separately and perhaps in cooperation, is to go through the honourable member's answer on behalf of the government and dissect it and look at where more work still needs to be done.

I acknowledge that the government has committed to implementing in full most of the recommendations of the Hon. Ted Mullighan, but we still have some question marks over those recommendations that have qualified support and those recommendations that the government is still considering. I guess that this motion and the responses from members is a clear indication to the government that we expect the action to be ongoing, and not just the initial response to Commissioner Mullighan's inquiry.

I had the pleasure of meeting Ted Mullighan for the first time a couple of weeks ago here in Parliament House when he was here for the White Ribbon Day's ambassadors' launch. I mentioned to him that I had taken his report home and that it sat on the coffee table. It is not your typical coffee table book, with beautiful images of far-away places. Members of my family had taken an interest in the inquiry and they were keen to see what was in the report. It was chilling reading. I have now brought it back to my office—

The Hon. A. Bressington: No-one comes over for coffee any more.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: As the honourable member says, no-one comes over for coffee any more. It is not quite that, but it was an important report which I wanted to share with my family. The Hon. Ted Mullighan's inquiry is now over. His job may be finished, but our job is far from finished. We need to ensure that the government continues to take the report seriously and continues to put resources into responding to the recommendations. I am sure that members will continue to hold the government to account until all victims of abuse in state care are receiving the justice that they deserve and every support that society can offer them.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (20:58): On Tuesday, 20 July 2004, a bill was introduced into this place to establish what has now become commonly known as the Mullighan inquiry, due to the appointment of the Hon. Ted Mullighan as commissioner of the inquiry. After a little over three years, evidence given by hundreds of witnesses and the whole process costing an estimated $13.5 million, the final report was handed down in March this year, with a number of extremely important recommendations. I note that section 11A of the Commission of Inquiry (Children in State Care and Children on APY Lands) Act 2004 provides that the government must report within three months as to which recommendations it proposes to implement and within six months to state exactly what it intends to do. This section made its way into the legislation as the result of an amendment moved in 2007 by the Hon. Sandra Kanck, who wanted to ensure that the recommendations were implemented in a timely fashion and were not going to just gather dust on the shelves.

I commend her for such an amendment, as we see in the subject of this motion how important timely responses are. Who knows how long it would have taken the government to formulate a response and take action had this section not been inserted into the legislation. I do not see the point in commissioning inquiries and spending public funds if nothing is to be done about them, especially when the subject of the inquiry is as serious and as far-reaching as the Mullighan inquiry.

I refer to the response document to the inquiry pursuant to section 11A of the act, tabled in parliament on 17 June 2008 by the then minister for families and communities (Hon. Jay Weatherill), which outlines which of the recommendations will be adopted. I sincerely hope that the recommendations contained therein are well on their way to being implemented and that this motion encourages a swift and thorough response.

I appreciate the government wants to make a considered response to what are quite complex issues. However, I also appreciate that victims have been waiting a long time for changes and the support they need and deserve as a result of the abuse they suffered. Apologies are important, but are little more than lip service if they are not followed by prompt and decisive action aimed at redressing past wrongs. With that, I indicate my support for the motion.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (21:01): I also indicate Family First and my personal support for this motion. I congratulate the Hon. Ann Bressington on bringing this motion forth: it is timely and appropriate. I am also very heartened by the contribution of the Hon. Mr Hunter a moment ago signalling the government's response to the questions that have been put to them. I am encouraged by that. It certainly seems that their endeavour is genuine in order to meet the very real needs of the people who were the subject of this inquiry. In supporting the motion tonight, I am acknowledging the formal apology put by the Premier and leaders of church groups to these unfortunate victims.

My next point is that we await concrete promises of action in response to the recommendations of the Mullighan report from the government, but, as I said, I am quite heartened by the comments of the Hon. Mr Hunter a few moments ago, which go a long way to addressing any concerns that members in the chamber have. Much is still to be done, but certainly the indication given to us by the Hon. Mr Hunter tonight is very reassuring indeed.

It is well-known that the Children in State Care Commission of Inquiry took evidence from some 792 people and detailed some 826 allegations involving 922 perpetrators, which are staggering numbers. It is truly a sad state and a terrible reflection on possibly the time and also the circumstances and, indeed, this state (although I am sure we are not alone) that those numbers are so high. When you consider that some 922 perpetrators have been investigated by this inquiry, it really is staggering. The mover of the motion (Hon. Ann Bressington) has quite rightly called it a mountain of human heartache, and I think that only probably begins to describe the situation.

It would be remiss of me in my brief contribution not to mention the contribution of the Hon. Andrew Evans (as he then was) in this whole situation. The Hon. Ann Bressington was kind enough to pay due credit to him in her contribution. Of course, it was the Hon. Andrew Evans—that is, when he was the then honourable, if you like, when he still had that title—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: He will always be honourable.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: That is right; indeed, he will. Of course, it was he who moved the amendment to remove the statute of limitations so that sex offenders who had committed their crimes prior to 1982 could be prosecuted. Without that, it is highly unlikely we would have had a Mullighan inquiry at all. I think he will be remembered fondly for that action. It has, indeed, opened the floodgates of a great deal of pain, but I think that, if we do not go through that pain, there is never true and genuine healing. He deserves to be commended for those actions. Indeed, along those lines, since 2003 and up until 31 December last year, there were some 69 finalised historical sexual offences as a result of the bill that Andrew Evans introduced removing the statute of limitations. Of those, 29 were found guilty and 23 were actually sentenced to a period of immediate imprisonment. So change is under way, and I am happy to support this motion wholeheartedly.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (21:05): I will also be brief, although this is an important motion. It is also the first time since I have been in this council that I have been able to speak on the public record about the Mullighan inquiry and the importance of looking after the victims of these horrendous crimes.

I want to join with my Family First colleague the Hon. Dennis Hood to say, as I have said before in this place, that I am proud and privileged to have replaced the Hon. Andrew Evans in this council, and I owe him a great deal for that. Part of what I owe him is the responsibility to ensure that there is an ongoing opportunity to support the victims of these horrendous crimes. As my colleague the Hon. Dennis Hood said, if it had not been for the Hon. Andrew Evans the Mullighan inquiry probably would not have got up. I also know for a fact that those perpetrators who are behind bars (with many more, I hope, to be behind bars sooner rather than later) are there only as a result of the Hon. Andrew Evans' efforts.

At that time I was in the other place, and it was not—as the media and the government sometimes project—a matter of the government coming forward with the initiatives to address, first, the legislation and, secondly, the Mullighan inquiry. There was actually more than a year of intense questioning in the other house before that inquiry came about. As an Anglican I was pretty concerned when the government was happy to table a report on untoward things done by the Anglicans at the time, but it was not happy to acknowledge what the state did; that took quite a lot of debate and effort. On this occasion I need to note that the Leader of the Opposition in the other place at that time also worked hard.

I put that on the public record because I strongly support the motion of the Hon. Ann Bressington with respect to ensuring that we are kept informed—and not only on this occasion. I am heartened by the remarks of the Hon. Ian Hunter on behalf of the government but, having said that, I know how government works, and when the media get onto another issue and other things are happening it is easy for the government to back away. It does not have to do the spin any more, and it is the hard yards and the hard grind that then have to take place.

I think I know the importance of this council probably more than anyone—apart from the leader of government business in this place who, I see, has a different opinion on this. We do need to keep a watchful eye, and I would like to see ongoing reports regarding what happens with the Mullighan inquiry, not just in this instance. I would like to see absolute transparency on this so that the least we can do is put in a proper effort. We will never entirely heal the pain and suffering of those people; that is impossible.

As a former police minister I saw some of the terrible crimes that came across my desk documented in various files, and I have to say that what happened to these victims involved some of the most horrendous types of crime that anyone could endure. We should not forget that, and we should not take it lightly at all. I believe this council has a place in continuing to demand transparency and action. Therefore, I feel a great sense of relief that the Hon. Ann Bressington has brought this motion before the council, and I want to see regular transparency.

I would like to finish by commenting particularly on the last clause of the honourable member's motion regarding what steps the government has undertaken to give those victims of abuse justice, redress and closure. I have some personal interest in that one in particular, and I have to say that it must be carried forward. Just the same as I support the gold card and ongoing support for veterans, I equally support ongoing support for these victims throughout their entire life. I encourage the parliament to keep a very close watch on the circumstances of delivery, as this government and successive governments should continue to do on behalf of these people. I am very proud to support the motion.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (21:10): I thank all the members in this place who have contributed to this motion. I must say that, for the first time in the 2½ years I have been in this place, I have a warm heart knowing that the government has not chosen to hide under the desk about this particular issue and the struggles these victims of abuse in state care are still suffering and the load they are now carrying. I was heartened to hear, as were other members in this place, the Hon. Mr Hunter's response and the fact that the government has put some of the things in place that these people may need to move forward in their lives.

Although the government has done the right thing and has promised to do the right thing, I agree with the comments made by the Hon. Mark Parnell and the Hon. Robert Brokenshire that we have to keep a watchful eye on this. I have been involved in a number of parliamentary inquiries on the other side as a witness. I have seen the great amount of effort that has gone into collecting that evidence and collating it into a report, and the media that is done on those reports, only for those reports never to be seen or heard of again. That cannot happen with this one.

Although the government has done some of the groundwork on this, I ask whether the government is actually listening to the victims and taking into account what they believe and know they need because, intrinsically, every person who has suffered trauma knows what they need in order to heal.

I do not want to be cynical on this night, because I think it is history making that everyone—the cross-benches, the government and the opposition—is in agreement that a move forward is on the way. However, I cannot see the government implementing the things that the people who have come to me, written to me or phoned me have mentioned, such as a universal gold card.

When you hear the victims talking about how that gold card could be implemented and used, their views about what they want from that are really quite sensible. They know that, if a gold card were to be given to some of the people who are involved in this recovery process, those people would have a tendency to abuse it. One of the recommendations made to me by one of the people is that these people need to sign a sort of a contract that, if they receive the gold card and they have been involved in criminal activity or whatever, they have to accept that they will have to change their ways in order to have access to the services of that gold card.

I understand that this is a complex issue, and that this is a simplistic approach, but it shows that those people are trying to do the right thing. They are not standing with their hand out now, demanding endless amounts of support, money or whatever under the illusion that they are the things that will help them to heal. What these people want is the right kind of therapies and the right kind of trained staff. In my speech, I mentioned that the services being offered by Post Care are simply not meeting the needs of these people. We need to make sure that the services that are in place are achieving the desired outcome of healing for the people who are accessing those services.

One of the big things the group wants is their own healing centre, and I think this has been agreed to across the board at various levels. They want a one stop shop. So many of these people cannot leave their home. They are agoraphobics and a lot of them have other phobias as well that would prevent them from keeping appointments with psychologists, in offices and so on. We need to understand the needs of these people to feel safe. They have a great level of difficulty trusting government; they have a great level of difficulty trusting anybody, and we cannot do this as a one size fits all measure. We need to look at this on a case by case basis. These people need serious case management plans because there are going to be many different people with many different needs.

I hope and pray that the government is going to take that into consideration and is going to consult not only with the reference group that has been formed but another group now that has also come from that that is looking specifically at a way forward for the victims. I thank everybody—I thank the government and the opposition—and I intend to keep this on the agenda. If I am not getting reasonable feedback from the victims of kids abused in state care, you can bet your dollar that there will be another action taken in this place that will not just be a motion. I leave this with the council and I thank members for their contributions.

Motion carried.

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