HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-12-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

FAMILIES SA

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (15:20): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the minister representing the Attorney-General a question on Families SA.

Leave granted.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: On 4 March and 24 March 2009, I asked a series of questions of the Attorney-General and the Minister for Families and Communities about the abuse of public office, lack of enforcement of court orders and the lack of compliance with policy and procedures of Families SA by case workers, arising from the detailed chronology provided to all members by Mr John Ternezis concerning his daughter's case.

On 22 September 2009, I received a wholly insufficient answer to my questions, which in part read:

The minister, the Ombudsman and the Crown Solicitor's Office do not agree with Mr Ternezis and the honourable member about the facts, or that the law does not make them guilty of these allegations.

This follows a long history of ministers and public officials denying any wrongdoing on the part of the state in this case, despite irrefutable facts to the contrary. Simply, the facts are that Mr Ternezis' daughter ran away from home at the age of 13 and subsequently came under the control of the minister via a Youth Court order, which included a residency order and a curfew, which the state was responsible for enforcing.

Despite the state having effective control, Mr Ternezis' daughter ended up, at the age of 14, living with three men, who were supplying her with drugs, resulting in a serious drug habit. She then got pregnant to one of the adult men at age 15 and had a baby. This all occurred while Katrina was in the custody of the minister and with the department's knowledge, as detailed in the chronology provided.

Yet, it is these facts with which the Attorney-General disagrees. Worse still, the Attorney-General, like other ministers, the Ombudsman, and Families SA before him, has failed to provide any rationale for his denial. My questions are:

1. Of the facts that Mr John Ternezis and I have provided, which facts in particular does the Attorney-General disagree with?

2. Given that the Attorney-General in answering my question also spoke on behalf of the Crown Solicitor's Office and the Ombudsman, will the Attorney-General inform the council of which facts they disagree with and inform the council of any advice that they have provided?

3. Does the Attorney-General disagree that this 15 year old child became pregnant to an adult while in the care and control of the minister and, if so, what facts does he have to support that disagreement?

4. On what basis does the Attorney-General say that the law does not require the department to comply with the requirements imposed by the Children's Protection Act 1993, its own policy and procedural guidelines and orders made by the Youth Court of South Australia, as set out in the chronology provided?

5. Is the Attorney-General stating in his answer that the law is so deficient that it does not hold the state accountable for breach of duty of care to a child under the control of the minister?

6. Given the liability of the state in this case, will the Attorney-General concede that his previous answer is just another example of this government putting its own interests before children and the truth?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:23): I will refer those questions to the Attorney and bring back a reply.

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