HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-07-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

VICTIMS OF ABUSE IN STATE CARE (COMPENSATION) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 8 April 2009. Page 1929.)

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (20:41): I thank the council for the opportunity to conclude my opening remarks on my bill tonight and indicate (as I did to the whips) that we will not be moving this bill to a vote today due, in part, to amendments recently tabled by our colleague the Hon. Ann Bressington, which we want to consider in detail, and also while we await the government and opposition position on the bill. I want to recap on how we came to have this bill before concluding my remarks.

In large part, the opportunity to prosecute offenders who perpetrated abuse upon former wards of the state was made available by my predecessor's bill—namely, Family First's Hon. Andrew Evans MLC—to open the prosecution period for pre-December 1982 sexual offences, and that had an enormous impact on starting to get some justice for these very important people.

The Mullighan inquiry followed that bill, and one of the recommendations of that inquiry was that the government look at the redress schemes initiated in Tasmania, Queensland and Western Australia. To date, we do not believe the steering committee to act upon that recommendation has made or completed an investigation into those schemes. If, indeed, the government comes forward before the close of session in both houses tomorrow and does the honourable thing by these very important people, Family First would be the first to congratulate it, along with all my other colleagues, I am sure. However, we will soldier on because these people need redress.

The interstate schemes offer different ranges of compensation to victims, and our bill for $50,000 maximum compensation is the middle of the road of those proposals. So, we would not accept the fact that the government says that we are over the top when it comes to the compensation. The bill put forward by Family First is middle of the road.

The elements common to those schemes are: first, personal, direct apologies to the individual victim of abuse—not just a statement in the house or a ministerial statement saying that we are sorry but a personal and direct apology to the individual victims—as the thing the victims with whom I have been working want most is a direct and individual apology; secondly, time limits for when to claim compensation; thirdly, waivers of liability as a condition of accepting the compensation payment; and, fourthly, the pathway remaining open, as it is now, for victims of abuse to make a court claim against their state government for more damages than the scheme provides. So, it does give them an opportunity to go for more damages.

We see this bill as a natural progression in Family First's advocacy for victims of sexual abuse and for lifting what I can only describe as the dark cloud of secrecy, denial and pain that will hang over this whole state—not only those people who have been the victims—until that abuse is revealed and dealt with.

This is a powerful and important justice issue. Some submissions we have received on this bill suggest that wards of the state are like ordinary victims of crime, and these representative groups (I have great respect for these groups, so I will not name them, but their position disappoints me) spoke against creating a special category of victim by having a specific scheme for former wards of the state. These groups advocated (and I believe that the government, via the Attorney-General, said the same thing through one media outlet) that we have a victim of crime compensation scheme and that victims should use that scheme. That is wrong. Family First will oppose that, as will, I am sure, many of my colleagues. It is wrong. There is an argument for special circumstances here.

There are some serious and one could even say offensive elements to that argument. First, the perpetrator for these victims is, in effect, the whole state of South Australia, which failed in its duty of care to protect victims, irrespective of which party was in government at the time. The fact is that the state failed to protect the victims. Wards of the state are, therefore, different: they are special victims of crime.

Secondly, the burden of proof to achieve compensation in victim of crime matters requires you to prove that a crime was committed. You do not have to identify a perpetrator but you do need to prove that an offence occurred. Many of the wards of the state have had great difficulty in proving what occurred, because the perpetrators are deceased, unable to be located or too powerful to prosecute or the evidence has been lost or destroyed.

This scheme provides a $7,000 compensation payment by simply establishing basic criteria that are far lower than the burden of proof for victim of crime compensation. The state government by its apology has now admitted its failings with respect to these wards of the state, and it therefore follows from that apology that basic compensation should be paid now, together with a specific and individual apology.

Thirdly, there is the issue of $43,000 in additional compensation. My amendment that was circulated to members yesterday makes it clear that this is additional to the $7,000, not instead of the $7,000. So, this $43,000 is payable to those who can meet the criteria set out in this bill. These criteria have been created with wards of the state specifically in mind. Of course, it is the same maximum amount presently as victim of crime compensation, that is, $50,000. I believe that our colleague the Hon. Ann Bressington wants to take that figure upwards, and Family First will be looking at that very closely. We understand our colleague's amendments. We can have that debate. The council will have it in the spring, and let us hope that we get the best outcome for these special victims.

Fourthly—and, again, this exposes the folly of the 'keep them as normal victims of crime' argument—former wards of the state are largely out of time. The Victims of Crime Act requires an application for compensation to be made within three years of the commission of the offence. Already this offends the Hon. Andrew Evans' moves on offenders from before December 1982. Those offences are now at least 25½ years old; that is how far they go back.

Fifthly, the fact is that other states, albeit through policy initiatives rather than legislation, have created what we call special schemes of redress for former wards of the state. They have had no trouble whatsoever with a regime running parallel, if only for a limited time, with their own equivalents of victim of crime compensation.

I point out that there is one other model for compensation for wards of the state, and that is the Irish redress legislative package. Family First has looked through that, and it is an admirable and generous piece of legislation—although one would have to ask: what price for the pain? The state inflicted that pain, each and every one of us. What price for the pain?

As I said, we believe that the model we have proposed is modest, having regard to interstate comparisons. It is middle of the road, if I can put it that way. I admit that it is even more modest having regard to the Irish model, which we could consider the top shelf model. The Irish redress scheme has no cap on compensation, it has no time limit and it pays medical costs in addition to lump sum compensation.

The point—and I will say this slowly so that the government can understand this without any doubt—is not the model; the point is the concept. I repeat: the point of this bill is not the model; it is the concept. As we are doing with our move for an independent commission against corruption in this state, we are using this redress bill as a rallying point behind which other parties can gather in support of the concept, not the model.

In the committee stage we can sort out the specifics of the model, including our colleague the Hon. Ann Bressington's amendments, but I am seeking support for the concept of the redress. I indicate to those listening tonight: please do not get uptight about what you may or may not like about this particular model in this bill. Remember, we are here tonight debating and fighting for the concept of redress for former wards.

With all the support we can get, we hope that this government will see that there is merit in redress, that there is justice in redress, and there is a very pressing need for redress now. It is good enough for Queensland, it is good enough for Tasmania, and it is good enough for Western Australia; it should be good enough for South Australia.

Let me conclude by saying that this is about former wards of the state. They have gone through a lot, more than many of us have had to bear in our lives—in fact, more than most of us could ever imagine that we would have to bear. They deserve our respect and they deserve some dignity.

Former wards of state distrust all governments, naturally, because of what the government of the day—without naming colours, and it has happened under all colours—allowed to happen to them. I have read some of the books and I have met with some of the people involved.

It will take considerable leadership. As I said in my question about the Parole Board yesterday, it will take a brave acceptance of responsibility for the government and the opposition to agree to the concept of redress and to work with Family First and our other colleagues to find a model that is acceptable to all parties concerned.

Other state governments—and I have to say that these governments have all been Labor governments—have run redress schemes. In some cases they have actually concluded them. The abuse and neglect continue for former wards of state in South Australia. So far, as I see it—and anyone can debate against me—it has mainly been a case of lip service being paid to this matter until we give the closure. That is what this is about.

The government has not set up a one-stop shop for former wards. We are still battling to get them basic facilities. They are working out of a multipurpose facility with a mail box. That is not acceptable. The government has not provided the redress that wards have received interstate. I trust that the media will pick up on this and help us keep pressure on the government of the day—not that what has happened in the past is necessarily the responsibility only of the government of the day. However, it is the responsibility of the government of the day to fix the problem. It is high time that those parties who are undecided about this bill go away over the winter break, make up their mind and accept the concept of redress for wards.

In conclusion, I indicate that we will look to bring this bill to a vote in the earliest part of September. This bill has been on the Notice Paper since early April. We will consider all reasonable amendments. We want to work towards support for a concept, or a model, that will do justice to wards of the state and bring the urgent closure that these great people deserve, having had endured the most difficult of situations, which we in this place, who have not had that occur, will never understand. I look forward to other members' contributions, and I commend the bill to the parliament.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (20:54): The Greens are happy to support this bill. We agree with the Hon. Rob Brokenshire that, in many ways, it would be preferable for us to be discussing a government bill that achieved the purpose of his bill. We may yet see one before the winter break is over, in which case I may well transfer my loyalty to a government bill (and maybe the mover of this bill will do likewise) but, in the absence of a government scheme, I believe that this bill is workable.

The mover says that it is a modest scheme, and I accept that it is modest. The amounts involved are modest when judged against the hardship and the loss that the victims of abuse as wards of the state have suffered. When we look at the maximum compensation payable under this bill, we see that it is $50,000. The average full-time earnings for males in Australia are already over $50,000. It is less than a year's salary at those average levels.

However, for many of the people who may be eligible for compensation, whilst a small amount of money would no doubt be welcome, I would expect that the personal apology will, in fact, be the greatest reward that comes from this scheme—an acknowledgement on behalf of the state that we collectively and communally neglected our responsibility to the people who were in our care. I think that is a fundamental part of this legislation.

I accept the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's contention that these people are a special case and not simply a subset of victims of crime. All victims of crime suffer in different ways, but for me what earmarks this category of potential claimants as special is the fact that they were under the protection of the state, the one body that should have been able to be relied on to give people a safe and a nurturing environment and, as a community, through our agencies, we let them down.

I, too, look forward to the committee stage of this debate. It may be possible to finetune some of the details of this legislation. The principle is sound, however; the principle is just; the principle does not need any modification. These people, who were victims of crime whilst in the care of the state, are deserving of compensation and they should be able to access a scheme without having to go through the rigours of an adversarial court system which would, in fact, compound the injury that many of them have suffered.

In many ways, this regime is no different to those which were the subject of other similar inquiries such as the stolen generation where commissioners have called for a non-adversarial compensation fund where people can obtain some redress provided they can prove to a satisfactory standard that they are a deserving case. This is a similar situation. I congratulate the member on introducing the bill and I look forward to our debating it further in September. However, for now, the Greens are very happy to support the second reading.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (20:58): I rise to indicate that I also support the second reading of the Victims of Abuse in State Care (Compensation) Bill 2009. In doing so, I commend the Hon. Robert Brokenshire on making a move to have victims of abuse in state care acknowledged and vindicated through fair and proper compensation. I will flag my support as 'in principle' but I also flag that I intend to move some amendments because I truly feel that this bill falls far short of what is deserved by these victims.

I acknowledge, though, that this bill is a step forward and will perhaps put a bomb under the government to bring forward a bill that is in line with other states that have made the decision to accept responsibility for the trauma and pain suffered by children who were removed from their families with the understanding that they would be protected and offered a better life.

We must never forget the magnitude of the abuse that took place, and we must also continually remind ourselves that the neglect at the hands of the state claimed the lives of 377 children who died while in state care. I propose that any legislation passed in this place to deal with this travesty must reflect the losses that have been inflicted on us as a society and more so on those who survived.

Our poor history goes back to 1908: that is the earliest death that could be tracked by the research undertaken by the Mullighan inquiry. It would be my hope, wish and dream that this parliament could take meaningful steps to ensure that, from 2009 (almost exactly 100 years later), we could close the gaps, tighten the practices and make sure that such abuse does not happen again.

That is a big ask, I know, and I have no doubt that in the past steps were taken that have obviously failed. So, the answer is not to accept that this problem is bigger than all of us but to strive for best practice in all areas of child protection, and when problems are identified find the solutions rather than making excuses for why they are occurring or denying that it is happening.

It is also true that legislation alone is not the answer. As I have said many times, legislation without the political will to apply the law and without ministerial oversight, it is nothing more than an empty debate, with no visible outcome for anyone, especially the children.

I do not lay the blame at the feet of this government alone for what has been decades of abuse and neglect, and it is unfortunate that this government alone has been made responsible for finding the funds to provide victims with redress and services. However, my only thoughts at this stage are for the victims, past, present and future. I must say as a citizen, that in 2002, I was disappointed with the reluctance of this government to establish the inquiry and disappointed that the Attorney-General made light of the demand for an inquiry with the following comment made on FIVEaa:

Graham Archer from Channel 7's Today, Tonight was calling for a royal commission into child abuse in South Australia covering a period from 30 to 40 years and barristers were all joking that this was a tremendous idea because it meant $35 million would be spent on them.

Well, I would say that it was money well spent and that the victims of such heinous abuse deserved every cent invested in the Mullighan inquiry. I also hope those barristers to whom the Attorney-General was referring feel some deep sense of shame after what has been uncovered during the course of the inquiry, and I hope that one day they will find it in their heart to own their comments and publicly apologise for their flippant attitude to this state's shame.

The report of the Inquiry of Children in State Care Commission Inquiry was difficult to read, and there is no doubt that it was a very difficult project for the Hon. Ted Mullighan QC, who wrote:

Nothing prepared me for the foul undercurrent of society revealed in the evidence to the inquiry; not my life in the community or my work in law as a practitioner and a judge. I had no understanding of the widespread prevalence of the sexual abuse of children in South Australia and its frequently devastating and often lifelong consequences for many of them. I was not prepared for the horror of the sexual cruelty and exploitation of little children and vulnerable young people in state care by people in positions of trust and responsibility or the use of them at paedophile parties for sexual gratification, facilitated by the supply of drugs and alcohol. I had no understanding that for many the consequences of having been sexually abused as a child was the loss of a childhood and an education.

The Hon. Ted Mullighan went on to say:

While the full extent of the sexual abuse of children in state care can never be known, it is possible that the people who gave evidence to the inquiry are just the tip of the iceberg.

We are all very familiar with Mr Ki Meekins and his persistence over the years to raise this issue in the public arena and to expose one of the best kept secrets of our history in South Australia. Although I am sure that Ki Meekins has been a thorn in the side of both major parties over the years, as is the case with most who find themselves on the wrong side of the state, he has gained the respect of many in his efforts to expose the abuses of the past and to change the system for the kids in state care.

In his book Red Tape Rape, he exposes the systematic abuse of children who were exposed to the predators who worked in or volunteered for or simply attached themselves to institutions responsible for the care and protection of those children. Ki Meekins' book is a chilling account of that abuse and of the process of literally turning our most vulnerable children into nothing more than 'street fodder'. Then, through ongoing neglect, the state continued the abuse by turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to the troubled and tormented individuals who were unfortunate enough to be under the guardianship of the minister.

Like most other members in this and the other place, I have had conversations with some of the victims of abuse in state care and, to this day, it is easy to see the torment in their eyes and hear it in their voices. Some 40 or more years on, many cannot recount their experiences without breaking down, and, of course that is a sure sign that the wounds are still wide open and that healing is a long way off. In fact, for some the word 'healing' has little or no meaning because they have not been treated with the respect and empathy they deserve.

We continue to ignore the fact that these children would have been no worse off if they had not been removed, and the state and every minister played a part in prolonging their pain and suffering and still do to this day. It is well understood that Ki Meekins does not represent all victims, and it is my heartfelt belief that this group (which should be cohesive) has been split and, with this split, as usually happens, we have some who want different outcomes for different reasons.

I personally do not believe that the demands made by Mr Ki Meekins and his group on behalf of those they represent are extreme. What he has been seeking is long-term, effective support that would enable those he represents to move forward with their lives. In short, he asks for:

adequate redress in line with other state models;

a health card (referred to as a Gold Card) that would provide ongoing support for people to recover emotionally over time and have all their health needs met;

a healing centre where specific services can be provided to meet the unique distress of adults who suffer the ultimate betrayal as children; and

a desire for all those who perpetrated the abuse of our children to be held to account.

Not too many would see any of these requests as extreme, and anyone who would has little regard for the harm that has been done in the past that now affects how the victims of this abuse function in the here and now. It takes courage just to get out of bed every day and carry around the baggage of 40 years of painful memories and, of course, the everlasting belief that to trust others will cause further pain and suffering.

As has been mentioned in this place many times, child protection workers have a very difficult job. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. I do not believe that any one of us in this place envies the decisions that have to be made. We also acknowledge that mistakes will be made, because that is part of the human experience, and we all accept that government intervention is often less than ideal.

In saying that, we must also acknowledge the past in order to ensure a better future. By acknowledging the mistakes made and facing the consequences of those mistakes, we are less likely to continue to repeat what is a sad past in the area of child protection.

It is even sadder to know that the same mistakes are still occurring, and one of the problems I have with this bill is that, in a fashion, it literally reinstates a statute of limitations, which I find curious given the hard work put in by the Hon. Andrew Evans to overturn that law and pave the way for victims of abuse in state care to move closer to being recognised.

With the wording of clause 4(a), I believe that this bill provides compensation only to those who turn 18 years prior to 1 February 2009. I am still not sure of the relevance of this date but, to me, it ignores the fact that abuse is still occurring, or at least that allegations are being made and, if proven, those abused children will need to be dealt with in the future. Children enduring abuse or neglect today are no less deserving than those who experienced it prior to 1 February 2009. By dealing only with past abuse, this bill condemns future victims to going through the same arduous and painful process as those in the past.

In my opinion, if we are going to have a bill dealing with neglect and abuse in state care, it must have foresight as well as hindsight and must be able to include those victims who are yet to come forward from the recent past and present. It is naive to view this as a problem that belongs in the past, because there are still many problems in the area of child protection and the services available to those children removed from their families.

Clause 5(4) also provides limited access to compensation by only allowing applications to be made within 12 months of the bill's proclamation or within a longer time specified by the minister. I have drafted an amendment to delete any reference to an application period because, as I said, I believe it is almost a return to the statute of limitations style of legislation the Hon. Andrew Evans worked so long and hard to have repealed.

Many whistleblowers in this state have been told that the reason they will never be acknowledged or vindicated by the state is that 'the state cannot afford to compensate all victims'. My response to that statement is: improve your systems, policies, practice, training and supervision, and make a commitment that the buck will always stop with the minister and the chief executive. Close the loopholes and make sure that no level of abuse of power, position or negligence will be tolerated.

When we contemplate and justify what we will not do as though it is something we cannot do, when in fact we simply refuse, the grief and pain caused and suffered is only escalated by the insult that is carried out. In turn, our burden and liability do not diminish or disappear but become even greater. It was Nixon who said, 'It is not the crime that is the problem: it is the cover-up.' Who would know better than he, and would we not think that the government of the day would have lessons to learn from those who have suffered the ultimate embarrassment and public humiliation, if only to avoid the same?

This was the experience of the James Hardie victims when the company, after it was established that it had known of the dangers of asbestos, set out to silence the victims and stonewall the compensation. The same processes were used against victims of child sexual abuse within the Anglican and Catholic churches until, eventually, the tide of public opinion forced a formal apology and moves towards some compensation.

Why is it that we feel the Crown of South Australia should behave less honourably and with greater impunity than a private corporation or non-government body would ever get away with? Is it not the ultimate litmus test of how an oppressive dictatorship would operate?

The first necessary step in genuinely setting out to protect victims of the state is a full and complete acceptance of the premise, not that we cannot afford to compensate victims, but, rather, that we cannot afford not to. We impose harsher penalties on criminal offenders guilty of far less than the state has ever been held to account for and, as I recall it, our Premier (Hon. Mike Rann) made a promise to be the model litigant as far as victims of abuse in state care were concerned.

A media release entitled, '$22 million compensation fund available to former state wards', dated 2 April 2008, states:

Any person who was sexually abused while in care, is eligible to immediately seek compensation through the Victims of Crime Fund that has $22 million available for victim compensation,' Premier Mike Rann said. Victims of sexual abuse while children in state care are eligible for a payment of up to $50,000 without having to suffer again by being dragged through the court process. And this fund is available to survivors now...While the state government will be considering what's happened interstate, survivors who want to pursue a civil settlement against the state and other non-government organisations that may be involved in their case are free to do so through the court process. The state government is committed to acting as a model litigant, and any civil claims by survivors will of course be dealt with compassionately and expeditiously.

So in April 2008 there was $22 million available to victims. What must be realised is that this money is not from the pockets of the state government but, rather, from the Victims of Crime Compensation Fund, for which many of the victims who gave evidence to Mullighan are simply not eligible. For those who are, and who have applied, paltry sums are the result.

In one notable example, a gentleman who has been left in the most sorry state, suffering agoraphobia and unable to trust anyone, received the sum of just over $20,000, following what was an arduous and painful application, and, of the amount received, nearly 75 per cent was taken in legal fees. How this government can feel a sense of satisfaction in this result and claim that its duty to these victims is discharged staggers belief.

It would also be reasonable to put to members in this place that the model litigant would be prepared to accept full responsibility for the situation created by the state, and the model litigant would ensure that redress and services were in place to meet the needs of the victims, rather than what we have at present.

The motion, moved last year and supported unanimously, did little to spur the government into action, and what we got was a good news story of what the government had already done, even though the services were poor, inaccessible and less than desirable to meet the needs of those victims. There was no admission that, in fact, improvement was needed, and there was no acknowledgment that there was any intention to expand and improve on what was in place.

Since the Mullighan report we have seen a government that has baulked at its responsibility to its most vulnerable citizens, and we have seen a government that has stalled in delivering promises that, no doubt, make good media on the day. This government has been called arrogant by political commentators, and Dean Jaensch, just last week, said that this government is the most arrogant government this state has seen, but there is also a belief that on this issue this government has shown a callous disregard for its citizens and, sadly, on this matter, I agree.

We are in the midst of a global financial crisis, we can expect to face some tough times and every government must prioritise but, please, it is hard to convince those who were abused in state care that when this inquiry began in 2002 there would not be demands for redress and adequate services, and some forward planning certainly would not have gone astray in putting things right.

South Australia has dragged the chain on this one, and it is a poor indictment on the value that we place on those who have suffered unspeakable wrongs and a poor insurance policy for future victims. I know that minister Rankine has some great initiatives in the pipeline to address the level of care children receive, and I know that she is a person with not only the intent but also the backbone to demand better of her department. I hope that the Premier and the Treasurer can also display a show of heart on this matter before much longer and make it happen.

The last thing that any one of us wants to hear is that the victims are still the victims and that only the face of the abuse has changed to that of rejection, delay, invalidation and, worst of all (the ultimate insult), penny pinching. This government has wasted far greater resources than these victims combined would ever need by stonewalling their claims and litigating them through the courts only to argue that the state never owed them a duty of care anyway. We expect convicted serious offenders, whether murderers or rapists, to admit their guilt before we release them on parole or rehabilitate them into the community, but our Crown does not have to give any undertakings never to repeat the deceitful or criminal conduct of the past.

To me, it is unthinkable that, under these circumstances, the state would even contemplate denying a duty of care because, after all, every minister and government employee was meant to be the replacement family for these children. They were meant to be the protectors of the children, not the protectors of those who preyed upon them. This bill before us is a dream come true for the government in actual fact, so much so that I was inclined to think that the government had some input into its drafting.

It provides minimal redress for victims ranging from $7,000 to $43,000 in two tiers. If a former state ward can demonstrate that they suffered significant physical or psychological injury as a result of the abuse, they are eligible for the maximum payment of $43,000, and I do believe that is being amended. If, however, they cannot demonstrate that the abuse caused significant injury, they are eligible for a maximum payment of $7,000, with the differentiation provided for in sections 6(1)(a) and (b). However, I am a little curious. If a child or an adult can prove they were sexually abused while in state care, I am a little befuddled as to why we would not consider they would have those long-term injuries and harms, because anyone in psychology and psychiatry knows that abuse and trauma stay with a person for life unless it is actually dealt with appropriately with appropriate services and therapy.

I do not mean to be critical of the Hon. Robert Brokenshire for putting forward this bill. I am sure his intentions were pure of heart but, as I have said, we have to get this very right—all aspects of it—because it will be the difference between making amends and continuing to fester disappointment and grief. Having applications made to the A-G in the first instance has several advantages; notably, an application will presumably be of negligible expense (if not free) and could possibly be prepared by a competent lay person.

It is also a matter of political nous that a denial or payment of a paltry sum will rest upon the shoulders of the A-G and, in turn, the government of the day rather than on the courts, which are above criticism. However, this bill lacks greatly by not allowing a decision of the Attorney-General to be reviewed by the courts, specifically by section 6(6). As such, the subjective determination by the A-G loses any enforceable structure, and there will be no precedence to guide the A-G's decision; no transparency in process and reasoning will be involved.

I will be moving an amendment allowing victims refused or dissatisfied with the determination of the Attorney-General to appeal to the District Court. The burden of proof is undoubtedly low, requiring only that the A-G be subjectively satisfied that the claimant suffered abuse or neglect and that significant physical and psychological injury did or did not occur. In my opinion, these figures do not recognise the severity of the abuse many victims suffered. While it will no doubt be argued that these figures are comparable to the figures under the Victims of Crime Act 2001 (under which payments are made for victims of rape, etc.), this argument ignores the distinguishing circumstances of these victims.

They were under the care of the state when the abuse and neglect occurred, and any payment made needs to reflect just this. It has always been my concern that the state will use a form of ex gratia payment for specific instances of abuse that occurred to abdicate its broader breach of duty of care to wards of the state. This would be done by making a payment which is most likely to be a paltry sum on the condition that the state ward will not pursue a civil action for a breach of that duty of care. This bill allows that in section 6(3) which is then further reinforced by section 12.

Blackmailing victims into withdrawing their claims for further compensation and relinquishing their full legal entitlements to other forms of compensation is the kind of conduct we expect from unscrupulous and dishonest insurance companies, not of a purportedly civilised and democratic Western government. Why the Hon. Robert Brokenshire would seek to facilitate this is beyond my reasoning but, I repeat: the bill before us is, in its current form, a dream come true for the government.

This bill also fails to prevent the A-G from silencing the recipient of a payment. Although slightly different, because it was an out-of-court settlement, Ki Meekins was silenced from speaking out about the abuse he suffered and the amount paid to him. It is possible, due to the politically sensitive nature of the abuse and the payments, that the A-G will also attempt to silence recipients of a payment under this bill. This is something we cannot allow and, hence, I will be moving an amendment to prevent such an occurrence.

Where is our collective conscience? Do we simply breathe a sigh of relief, grateful that it was not ourselves or a loved one put through these experiences? How dare we tell victims that they can like it or lump it when we deny them the right to sue the state for a breach of duty of care in exchange for nothing more than a mere $43,000 or, when amended, $50,000. Is this the value we place on a lifetime of family breakdown, personal trauma and lost economic opportunity, amongst other things, that these victims may have suffered? If so, then shame on us.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.J. Stephens.

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