HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-09-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

VICTIMS OF ABUSE IN STATE CARE (COMPENSATION) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 July 2009. Page 2907.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (23:32): I rise to speak on this bill. Children are a precious gift. We are entrusted to provide them with a safe, nurturing environment in which they can grow into adulthood. Our community looks to our government to care for children who, for whatever reason, cannot get that support from their own family networks. One of the most shameful chapters in the history of our state has been the failure of successive governments to provide a safe and secure environment for children who need to fall on the state for care.

On 1 April 2008 the South Australian Children in State Care Commission of Inquiry Report (commonly known as the Mullighan report) was released. On 17 June 2008 the government and a range of church leaders made an apology to system leavers. The Hon. John Darley in this place in November 2008 said:

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 they are little more than lip service if they are not followed by prompt and decisive action aimed at redressing past wrongs.

The bill we are considering tonight puts a spotlight on the government's failure to promptly and decisively act on a key recommendation of the Mullighan report. Recommendation 40 of the Mullighan report states:

that a task force be established in South Australia to closely examine the redress schemes established in Tasmania, Queensland and Western Australia for victims of child sexual abuse;

to receive submissions from individuals and relevant organisations on the issue of redress of adults who were sexually abused in state care; and

to investigate the possibilities of a national approach to the provision of services.

It needs to be acknowledged that Commissioner Mullighan did not recommend that South Australia establish a redress scheme: he recommended that it should be investigated. This bill requires the council to consider the pros and cons of establishing a redress scheme.

The Senate Community Affairs Committee addressed the issue of how best to provide compensation, redress and reparation for victims in its report 'Forgotten Australians: A report on Australians who experienced institutional or out-of-home care as children' in August 2004.

The committee highlighted the specific difficulties faced by people who have suffered abuse within institutions in successfully pursuing compensation through the civil court system, including limitation periods; problems establishing liability, particularly when records are often not available through the efflux of time; the cost of litigation; and the adversarial nature of the system.

The adversarial nature of court proceedings, for example, can involve victims recounting traumatic events from their childhood. Testifying and facing cross-examination is often painful, bringing back memories and opening old wounds. Victims can feel that they are the ones on trial because they are forced to prove what happened to them. The Senate committee noted:

The adversarial nature of traditional civil litigation, particularly as compared to redress mechanisms, mean that they are an unlikely forum for the promotion of acknowledgment, apology and reconciliation, as it encourages defendants to deny, not acknowledge, responsibility. This lack of scope for an apology is compounded by the process of challenging evidence that often involve personal challenges by the defendant about the plaintiff, his or her lifestyle and the substance of his or her claims.

The government's response to concerns about the burden of civil litigation is that in South Australia victims of abuse in state care, as victims, already have access to a statutory compensation scheme as an alternative to civil proceedings in the form of the Victims of Crime Act 2001. However, the current scheme for the compensation of victims of crime is ill-suited for the compensation of those who have been abused while in state care.

Generally, claims must be made within three years. The burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt that a crime was committed, in contrast to the balance of probabilities envisaged under the redress scheme in this bill. The compensation available is likely to be lower than that available under the proposed scheme, and the resources of the fund could be exhausted. In her press release dated 11 September 2009, the shadow attorney-general, Vickie Chapman, said:

...consistent claims made by the government that victims of child sex abuse while in state care could seek compensation from the Victims of Crime Fund were rubbish.

The Victims of Crime Fund is simply not adequate as the threshold and procedures are oppressive (have to prove beyond reasonable doubt and amounts are paltry).

The fund is not there to cover the negligence of governments who have failed to protect children in their care.

In relation to reparation schemes, the Senate committee noted:

While reparation schemes vary they usually contain a number of components including the provision of apologies/acknowledgment of the harm done, counselling, education programs, access to records and assistance in reunifying families. A common feature of redress schemes is also the implementation of financial compensation schemes. While the design of the schemes vary they have as a common goal the need to respond to survivors of institutional child abuse in a way that is more comprehensive, more flexible and less formal than existing legal processes.

The pros and cons of redress schemes and the alternative means for redress schemes are issues that need to be addressed by the government in responding to recommendation 40 in the Mullighan report. I turn now to consider what the government has done in response to that recommendation. In the government's implementation report of September 2008, the Minister for Families and Communities said:

In July 2008, the South Australian government established a task force of persons with appropriate experience to closely examine redress schemes for victims of child sex abuse and to investigate the possibilities of a national approach to the provision of services. The task force is expected to report back to the government on its findings by the end of 2008.

In November 2008, in response to a motion moved by the Hon. Ann Bressington, the Hon. I.K. Hunter, on behalf of the government, said:

The government will consider the report of the task force after it has received it later this year.

Later in the same contribution, he said:

I look forward to the findings—expected, I am told, by the end of next month.

That was 10 months ago, and we are still waiting. In a submission to the Senate Community Affairs Committee Inquiry into the Implementation of the Recommendations of the Lost Innocents and Forgotten Australians Reports in February 2009, the South Australian Minister for Families and Communities gave the following commitment:

Upon receipt of the task force report, the government will consider the task force findings and recommendations and determine the most appropriate course.

In the House of Assembly yesterday, in response to a question from the shadow attorney-general, the Attorney-General stated:

From day one of the report of the Mullighan inquiry, I have said that two courses are open to those who claim to be victims of sexual abuse in state care.

One of them is to do what any citizen could do, that is, to brief lawyers, bring an action for damages and prove that case on the balance of probabilities; and the Crown, in acting as defendant, will act as a model litigant and do what it can to be fair to the plaintiff.

The second course, which I announced on day one, was for people who allege they were victims to apply to the Victims of Crime Fund, which is a fund that gets its revenue from a levy on fines and expiation notices and some from consolidated revenue. Individuals who claim to be victims would get every consideration from me should they not succeed in establishing that they were victims beyond reasonable doubt. I would look at an ex gratia payment of up to $50,000 and do so on a burden of proof much less than the normal burden of proof required either in criminal courts or, for that matter, in civil courts.

A scheme exists already for victims of crime which those who claim to be victims through the Mullighan report can access, and it was there from day one.

Later in the same response the Attorney-General said:

The task force surveyed schemes in other states, reported to me about the schemes in other states and did not, so far as I can recall, make any recommendations. The solution for people who say they were victims of sexual abuse in state care is the Victims of Crime Fund or an ex gratia payment under the provisions of that law.

When asked by way of supplementary question whether he would now table the report, the Attorney-General said:

When my cabinet colleagues have seen it, I will consider releasing it; but, believe me, there are no revelations in the report.

The Attorney-General's response reflects three things in my mind: first, the government does not have any sense of urgency to address this issue; secondly, the government is comfortable with the current remedies; and, thirdly, the government is not inclined to establish a dedicated statutory compensation scheme for victims of abuse in state care.

The government promised the task force on the redress scheme would conclude at the end of 2008. As we rush towards the end of 2009, the silence of the government is hurtful. It undermines the credibility of the cross-party support for an apology. We need more than an explanation of delay: we need a clear, unequivocal statement of the government's position. We need action.

The Liberal Party will not be party to the government's procrastination on this issue. Accordingly, in the context of this bill, the Liberal opposition has felt morally obliged to address the issue of whether or not this state should have a redress scheme. We have thought long and hard about whether we would give in-principle support to a redress scheme. On balance, the Liberal Party has come to the view that there would be value in a redress scheme being established. We consider that victims of abuse in state care should have access to a dedicated scheme. We offer our in-principle support to the development of a fair and reasonable redress scheme which minimises the cost to both victims and the government and minimises the distress to victims in settling compensation claims.

We will give expression to that in-principle commitment today by supporting the passage of this bill. However, a detailed scheme will not be developed or endorsed by the Liberal Party from opposition. We do not have access to the files of the Attorney-General's Department, nor to the files of the Department for Families and Communities. We do not have access to the other information and advice that we would need to determine what would be a fair and reasonable scheme in the South Australian context. Accordingly, in giving support to the passage of this bill, we do not endorse the detail of the model and, in not supporting the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's amendment or the Hon. Ann Bressington's amendments, we indicate that we do not have the necessary information to participate in the process of developing the detail of the scheme at this stage.

The opposition commends the Hon. Robert Brokenshire for the bill and his amendment, and the Hon. Ann Bressington for her amendments. They have done a service to the parliament by raising the issues and airing a range of proposals which deserve further consideration by government,. However, as I said, in the absence of legal advice and an analysis of the likely costs of both litigation—

The Hon. A. Bressington: How long have you had to get it?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Excuse me; we are in opposition.

The Hon. A. Bressington: How long do you need?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: We are in opposition; we do not have those resources.

The Hon. A. Bressington: How long do you need to get legal advice?

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. S.G. WADE: As I said, in opposition, we do not have access to the files of the Attorney-General's Department, and we do not have access to the files of the families and communities department. The opposition reserves its position on the structural details of the most appropriate redress scheme for South Australia. We do not know whether the redress scheme envisaged by this bill or any of the amendments are ideal, but we do know that the government has had long enough to address this issue in good faith.

We call on the government to stop the delay. We want the council to pass this bill today, to put the onus on the government to address the need for fair and reasonable redress as a matter of urgency.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (23:45): The Hon. Stephen Wade has very kindly put on the record the response of the Attorney-General in the other place, and I would like to add to it. Whilst the government appreciates, understands and, indeed, concurs with the sentiment of this proposal, the government opposes this bill. This bill seeks to introduce a new dedicated compensation scheme as well as a requirement for mandatory apology to victims who claim to have suffered abuse and neglect in state care. I understand that the bill was modelled on the Queensland redress scheme to compensate abused former state wards.

Though well intentioned and, I do not doubt, a genuine attempt by the honourable member to help heal the pain caused by the shocking allegations of abuse, the government prefers what it has already put in place to provide redress.

At the outset may I first recognise the important work of Commissioner Mullighan in conducting the inquiry established by the South Australian government, and the presentation of his report and recommendations. May I also put on the record my sadness at the abuse, and I commend those victims of abuse who bravely came forward to lift the veil of silence. I am also glad that the government has moved to carry out 49 of the 54 recommendations made by Commissioner Mullighan.

This bill is opposed, not because the government seeks to avoid appropriate recompense to victims or because it is avoiding an apology—quite the opposite. On 2 April 2008 the Premier announced that an apology would be made to victims of sexual abuse while children in state care. On 17 June 2008, on behalf of this parliament and previous parliaments, the Premier delivered an historic apology.

The government spent $13.5 million on establishing the Children in State Care Inquiry. Over 170 allegations were referred to police for investigation, and an extra $190.6 million over four years has been added to the state budget commitments to keep children safe—the largest ever investment in protecting children in this state's history.

The effect of the bill is that a person who claims to have suffered abuse while a child in state care, whether the abuse took the form of physical, sexual or emotional abuse or neglect, may ask the Attorney-General for compensation and the Attorney-General may make a payment. If the Attorney-General is satisfied that the person suffered abuse or neglect but is not satisfied that the person suffered significant physical or psychological injury as a result, then the payment may be up to $7,000. If the Attorney-General is satisfied of such injury, the payment may be up to $43,000 in all.

However, the Hon. Mr Brokenshire has now moved an amendment to increase the maximum payment to $50,000. A payment must be accompanied by a written apology. The Attorney-General can require waiver of other rights as a condition of the payment. The bill also states that if offered a payment the claimant must have independent legal advice for which the Attorney-General must pay the reasonable cost, up to $500 or higher prescribed amount.

Any payment approved by the Attorney can be recovered by the claimant as a debt. The bill also provides that the Commissioner for Victims' Rights must advise and assist claimants, including arranging for their legal advice about a payment. If the claimant later receives other damages or compensation for the same harm, then the Crown may recover (as a debt) the compensation paid by the Attorney-General.

The bill does not compel the Attorney-General to make a payment in any particular case; rather, it establishes an application process, although the bill relies on the making of regulations specifying the information and documents that the claimant must submit.

The bill proposes that claimants have one year from the date of commencement to apply but does not set any time limits for the determination of claims. Eligibility is restricted to persons who were legally in the care of the state: that is, it follows the terms of reference of the Mullighan inquiry and excludes those who were voluntarily placed in care by their families without any court order.

Mullighan found that most inquiry witnesses who claim to have been in state care had not been the subject of formal orders and thus were outside the terms of reference. The same may be true for many applicants under this proposed law. In deciding whether to make a payment, the bill provides that the Attorney-General may rely on information supplied by the claimant which must be verified by statutory declaration or on further information that he obtains by investigating the claim. He is not obliged to investigate.

I note that the bill is silent as to the source of the funds to pay these claims. Indeed, that is because this place does not have that authority. Clause 7(2) requires a mandatory apology to the victim which must refer to the circumstances of his or her abuse and must acknowledge that the abuse occurred because of a breach of the state's duty of care. A mandatory apology is inappropriate because no breach of duty needs to be proved to entitle the claimant to compensation under this bill, and it may well be that that question remains unresolved in many cases in which payments are offered.

Payment under the proposed redress scheme is not necessarily founded in legal liability for negligence. Indeed, what is the true value of an apology imposed by statute as opposed to the apology given freely and genuinely that has already been given on our behalf by the Premier? There is also the difficulty that the apology, if it goes into detail about the alleged abuse, could expressly or implicitly identify a known person as an abuser even though such a person had not been found guilty of any offence. The bill does not protect against liability in defamation. The Premier's apology was appropriate, sincere and afforded a further opportunity for healing.

Secondly, this particular scheme is unnecessary in light of the mechanisms that the government already has in place. The government's opposition to this bill is by no means unsympathetic to those terrible instances of child abuse in state care occurring over several decades as detailed in the Mullighan inquiry report.

Civil remedies are available in some cases at common law. Indeed, there are actions already before the courts. As a model litigant, the state is treating each of the cases (and will treat any further cases) with the sensitivity and compassion that they deserve and will be working to ensure that these matters are dealt with efficiently. It has already made a significant settlement of matters.

Additionally, as the government has previously advised, in appropriate cases claims can also be made to the victims of crime fund. Payments from the victims of crime fund are generally capped at $50,000. This is the very same figure that this bill proposes, only it is available through the victims of crime fund rather than through this dedicated scheme, the adoption of which would be more complicated and administratively burdensome.

For those matters that might fail to reach the required burden of proof, I know that the Attorney-General has indicated that he will consider those applications under other sections of the Victims of Crime Act that permit ex gratia payments. These payments also have a cap of $50,000. The South Australian government's option for redress through the victims of crime fund is generous by national standards. Western Australia, which previously offered a maximum payment of $80,000, has recently announced a reduction of this amount to $45,000. That now makes South Australia one of the most generous avenues for redress in Australia.

Finally, the government has followed the Mullighan recommendations in examining the available remedies for claimants in South Australia as well as compensation schemes in other jurisdictions. I understand that the Attorney-General has that report. Indeed, he stated that in parliament recently. He has used this report to inform himself and the cabinet.

It should be noted that the recommendation does not oblige the establishment of a separate compensation scheme. The scheme that this bill proposes to establish offers the same maximum payment to victims of abuse in state care as that which is currently available through the Victims of Crime Fund. Therefore, the government believes a separate scheme that this bill establishes is unnecessary.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (23:56): I note the hour but, with honourable members' indulgence, I just want to spend a few minutes to sum up the second reading debate. We have done a lot of work today and, even though it has come on so late, in my opinion—and I am sure in the opinion of many of my colleagues—this is a very important piece of legislation that puts together a complex web of frustration, anxiety and unnecessary pain over a very long period of time to hundreds and possibly thousands of victims of abuse in this state.

For the record, in painting the picture, there have been a lot of steps, and this is a step in the process of healing. This is a bona fide step, and I do not accept the government's response to this bill in any way whatsoever. It is an absolute cop-out and it just proves that there was, I think sadly—and I have to say this—more spin than actually wanting to get a proper outcome for these people.

Just briefly on the history, it goes back to the person that I have had the privilege of replacing in this council, and that was the Hon. Andrew Evans, who amended the legislation. I thank all colleagues in this council and in the House of Assembly who supported that legislation to allow perpetrators to actually be prosecuted and put behind bars where they belong.

The Hon. A. Bressington: Statute of limitation.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Yes; and forever I will be grateful. From there, of course, along came the Mullighan inquiry. I congratulate the government on initiating that; it was important. Ted Mullighan did a brilliant job.

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I think he tried his best. There is also the police Paedophile Task Force. As a former police minister, I know that the dedicated police in that area have very difficult work and they have done everything they can to try to get these perpetrators. But right now—and I have been reported in the media on this—we see the police Paedophile Task Force about to close. I did not want to enter into debate in the media with police officers whom I respect, so I did not say it, but I will say it here in the council: it is more to do with the lack of budget funding from the government to SAPOL than SAPOL wanting to close the Paedophile Task Force.

In fact, only a couple of weeks ago, the Victoria Police, under a Labor government, have set up a dedicated, specific and highly technical Paedophile Task Force to specifically target these paedophiles, whose number they say is growing at an alarming rate. I place on the record my concern that, while SAPOL will do the very best it can, it is a cost-cutting exercise in the budget that is seeing the Paedophile Task Force close. So, that is the picture.

We come now to the bill. I thank all honourable members for their contribution on this landmark piece of legislation. I am grateful to those who have indicated their support in the chamber or to me privately. I am also grateful to those who might have particular issues with the model proposed by Family First but who can see that the most important thing is to pass a bill to get the legislation through this council.

The Hon. A. Bressington: So you can get some media?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Can I finish?

The Hon. A. Bressington: You're a disgrace.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I would like to carry on—and continue the pressure on the government to get on with setting up a compensation scheme. I am most grateful that the victims of abuse have been supportive and pragmatic in their approach to this bill, and I applaud their maturity and acumen in negotiating an outcome that I believe is a very positive step forward for former wards of the state and other victims of abuse in state care.

As I said in my second reading contribution, by acts of cabinet (not legislation), the Western Australian, Queensland and Tasmanian governments have all implemented redress schemes. Last weekend, I observed that the embattled New South Wales Premier, Nathan Rees, issued an apology to the 'forgotten Australians'—a label adopted by some victims of abuse in South Australia—which is a step in the right direction for that state which has not had a redress scheme. I acknowledge that this is a step the state government here and all members of parliament have already taken, but the reality is that, on justice to victims of abuse, this government is now with the New South Wales government right at the back of the pack.

I move through to recent developments in Western Australia, because in August redress hit the press there. The Western Australian scheme, which by the measure of the three schemes interstate was the most generous at $80,000 maximum compensation, was cut back to a maximum of $45,000. To put the record straight, it was always the intention of my bill that it would be $50,000, but a drafting error was made inadvertently which is the reason for my amendment—the 43 plus 7. Of course, we have also seen the Hon. Ann Bressington's amendments to make the compensation higher. We are sympathetic to that if this chamber supports it.

In that context, I note that the federal Liberal member for Swan, Mr Steve Irons, spoke on 18 August 2009 in criticism of the Barnett state coalition government for cutting the Western Australian compensation from $80,000 to $45,000. To put his comments into context, he revealed that he was a former ward of state, later a foster child of the Irons family. I applaud him and the Australian democracy for his being able to come from that situation to represent his community in federal parliament. Mr Irons does not say he suffered abuse in state care, but his comments in August are very relevant to this debate. He said:

I call on the Western Australian state government to reverse its decision which saw the compensation scheme payment reduced from $80,000 to $45,000, and to reopen the scheme to be used for future claims. I also call on the federal government to urgently consider the recommendations to the report Lost Innocents and Forgotten Australians Revisited.

So, what has the Barnett government in Western Australia done? Well, look at what Western Australia Labor has said. This is interesting because we have had a change of government and we now have had a cut to the scheme. On 7 August this year, the Western Australian Labor shadow minister for community services, Sue Ellery, said:

I have been contacted by redress applicants from across Western Australia asking me to help them get this callous cut overturned.

You have a Labor opposition in Western Australia saying that it is a callous cut because they are cutting it from $80,000 to $45,000, but you have a Labor government in South Australia saying that it is not interested in a dedicated and specific fast-track approach to assist with the healing. This is what this is about: it is about a fast-track approach. It is about a genuine and bona fide apology for each individual—not a broad apology, but a specific apology to each individual. The Labor opposition in Western Australia said:

Premier Barnett could end the additional distress he had caused by reversing the cut and topping up the scheme so that the commitment made in good faith by the previous government [which was a Labor government] is honoured.

On 4 September, on the Western Australian version of ABC1 Stateline (which gives political issues a broader exploration than they sometimes get on commercial networks) Premier Barnett reflected upon his first year in office, and redress was one subject that arose. I think it is important to put the interview on the public record as follows:

Colin Barnett: I am generally pleased. I think we have set out and delivered most of what we promised and I believe we have provided good government. Made a few mistakes along the way, I wouldn't deny that, but for a first year I am generally well pleased.

Frances Bell: On those mistakes do you concede that the changes to the redress payments and the cut to the pauper's funeral are two of those mistakes and that may have made the government seem heartless?

Colin Barnett: I can understand how people might feel that. The changes to the redress scheme was a difficult decision but I believe the right decision. And what I would emphasise—

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Can I put it on the public record? It continues:

And what I would emphasise is that we are maintaining the funding for that program at its full level and have said that we will increase funding if it's necessary.

It is a debate for Western Australia about whether or not funding is at the full level, but the irony here is that Western Australia Labor is agitating for the full $80,000 compensation (as they had established) and the Western Australia Liberals are also supporting redress but reducing it.

Meanwhile, Victorian Care Leavers continue their campaign for redress. The Care Leavers Australia Network President and co-founder, Leonie Sheedy, joined a protest outside the minister's electorate office in July this year and explained the Victorian situation well. While the Victorian government has provided $7.1 million for a service for care leavers and $30,000 towards a memorial for care leavers, Ms Sheedy said that it was not much compared with funding offered by other governments: Western Australia, $114 million; Queensland, $100 million; and Tasmania, $75 million.

I want to put on the record—because a concern was raised by a former ward—that they hope the compensation payment would be exempt from social security considerations. We have looked at this situation, and in this state we cannot do anything about it other than appeal to the commonwealth with respect to Centrelink. There was a determination in 2008 that 'a payment made by the state of Western Australia under Redress WA to a person or their partner is an exempt lump sum under paragraph 8(11)(d) of the Act'.

Therefore, I have every confidence that this scheme, once implemented, will attract similar social security exemption, and I hope that it would be looked at favourably by the commonwealth. I am advised that there is nothing of weight we can put in the bill to ensure that exemption. All we can do—as I am now—is indicate that it is the legislature's intention that the payments not impact social security payments, and we can have a high degree of confidence, given the precedent in Western Australia that, likewise, this scheme will be given an exemption.

I will not take members' time much longer. I want to emphasise that the maximum level of compensation does not preclude former wards of the state who were victims of abuse to seek compensation in the courts or by negotiation with the Attorney-General.

I have received representation from former wards in relation to the $50,000 level of compensation in this bill. Some are saying it is sufficient, some are saying it is not sufficient and some are saying they do not want much more fuss. In summary, I am saying that we must do something. We must put pressure on the government. I personally am sympathetic to the Hon. Ann Bressington's amendments, so I will listen to them in the committee stage. We have to get something out of this council to the lower house if we are to continue to put pressure on the government to come up with an honourable response to these people.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I rise to indicate my absolute disappointment and disgust with this process. I do not think anyone expected the government to support this bill, and that is no surprise, but that is not the side of parliament that I am disappointed in tonight. The title of this bill is Victims of Abuse in State Care (Compensation) Bill, and I think it is a sad day in this parliament when such an emotive issue can be used for nothing more than political game-playing.

When we had the second reading contributions on this bill in the last session of sitting, the Hon. Robert Brokenshire stated that he was amenable to discussing amendments. The Hon. Stephen Wade has indicated for the past two weeks that he is amenable to the amendments that will be put forward and has used political doublespeak all day today to deceive Ki Meekins. If you do not want to support the amendments, if you do not want to support anything other than political game-playing and using these people as political pawns, then at least have the guts to stand up and own your actions.

This is an absolute horror. These people do not want this bill without the amendments, because it is a nothing bill; yet those of us in this chamber will sit in our ivory tower and make a decision about their future and about what they are worth. Ki Meekins has worked 10 years to get to this point and he has been sold out; sold out for political gain. The Liberal Party and the Hon. Robert Brokenshire and Family First should hang their heads in shame.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Rubbish!

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: You should! You know that they do not want this bill as it stands; you told them you would be open to it. I do not care about these amendments; I am withdrawing the amendments. This was not about whether I win or lose: it was about making a bill that was worth fighting for—and you have sold them out.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Yes, you have; and you should be ashamed of yourself. If the victims of abuse in state care do not deserve compensation—

The CHAIRMAN: I remind the honourable member that she is speaking to clause 1, and she will direct her remarks through the chair.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Thank you, Mr Chair; I appreciate that. The victims of abuse in state care do deserve redress, and they do deserve to be acknowledged for their pain and suffering—but not this way. I will not vote on this bill, and I will not move my amendments, and if the Hon. Robert Brokenshire believes that he will get favourable media out of this—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: I am not interested in media.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: You are interested in media. This is pre-election campaigning, but this issue is above election campaigning. I am disgusted with this, and will not vote on this bill. I withdraw from this debate entirely.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Is the honourable member indicating to the committee that she withdraws all her amendments?

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Yes, Mr Chair.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would like to respond to some of the comments made by the Hon. Ann Bressington. I have had discussions with—

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I rise on a point of order. Clause 1 is scarcely a time for continuing debate—particularly after midnight. Clause 1 is about the title of the bill, and the standing orders. The matter should be relevant; it is not about—

The CHAIRMAN: It is getting late. If the honourable member has some problem with clause 1 or a question about clause 1 for the mover of the bill, ask it, or let us all go home.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Perhaps it is a matter of referring to the clause in standing orders that deals with personal explanations, but I think it is appropriate that I have the opportunity to respond to the allegation just made by the honourable member.

The CHAIRMAN: The allegation she made to whom?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: She made the allegation that I made misrepresentations to members of the public. I will not speak for long.

The CHAIRMAN: You can deny the allegation.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would just like to make it clear that at no time in recent days, or at any time, have I indicated what my position would be on amendments. What I did indicate explicitly—

An honourable member interjecting:

The CHAIRMAN: Order!

The Hon. S.G. WADE: —to people associated with the Hon. Ann Bressington's office is that I would not be putting my position until I came into this chamber.

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The CHAIRMAN: Order!

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 5 passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 4, line 5 [Clause 6(1)(b)]—Delete '$43,000' and substitute '$50,000'

There was a drafting error, which was found after printing, with respect to a $7,000 component. It was always intended that the amount be $50,000, and the amendment will correct the error.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Remaining clauses (7 to 13) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.

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