HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-09-11 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CHILD PROTECTION INQUIRY

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. R.L. Brokenshire:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be established to investigate and report on—

(a) Any matter arising from the 2012-2013 Independent Education Inquiry also known as the Debelle inquiry;

(b) Any matter raised by the Debelle inquiry related to incident and records management, including compliance with legislation and policy;

(c) Any matter relating to the tenure of the Chief Executive of the Department for Education and Child Development in June and July 2013;

(d) Progress on the implementation of the recommendations of the Debelle inquiry; and

(e) Any other relevant matter.

2. That standing order 389 be so far suspended as to enable the chairperson of the committee to have a deliberative vote only.

3. That this council permits the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it sees fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to such evidence being presented to the council.

4. That standing order 396 be suspended to enable strangers to be admitted when the select committee is examining witnesses unless the committee otherwise resolves, but they shall be excluded when the committee is deliberating.

(Continued from 24 July 2013.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (16:29): Once again the government opposes this motion and the establishment of this committee. We have had an inquiry led by a retired Supreme Court judge, Justice Bruce Debelle. The terms of reference were broad and the powers given to the inquiry extensive. When Justice Debelle thought more powers would be useful, that is what happened—royal commission powers were granted. If, at any time, Justice Debelle thought that the terms of reference needed to be amended or broadened, I am sure that would have happened. In fact, the independent Debelle inquiry went to the quite extraordinary step at the end of last year to publish an ad in The Advertiser newspaper so that they could 'correct misinformation concerning the conduct of this enquiry'. That written ad concluded:

At this stage it is not necessary to seek extended terms of reference. That question will be kept under constant review.

If Justice Debelle thought that he needed extended terms of reference, I am absolutely sure he would have asked for them.

What this motion proposes to do is to re-examine the very matters that the Debelle inquiry covered. This motion arrogantly supposes that politicians on a select committee will be better able to investigate facts and make recommendations than a retired Supreme Court judge with royal commission powers. What we have not heard from the proponents of this motion are any compelling reasons why the select committee is needed.

We have not heard where the Debelle inquiry went wrong, what powers the Debelle inquiry should have had but lacked to properly perform its duties, what incidents the Debelle inquiry should have inquired about but did not, and what were the defects in the methodology of the investigation or the reasoning of the Debelle report.

So far we have had no answers to any of these questions, and unless we get them today it is clear that this is no more than a political stunt. The Greens admitted as much this week when they said in the media:

This is a noose around the Weatherill government's neck—they need to either step up or realise this will dog them until March.

This is all about the politics, not the substance.

The Debelle inquiry ran from 1 November 2012 to 27 June 2013—239 days. The Debelle inquiry took more than 8,000 pages of evidence from the Department for Education and Child Development alone. The inquiry published an issues paper in November 2012—23 written submissions were submitted in response to this issues paper; 94 witnesses appeared before the inquiry, not including families of victims whose identities must remain confidential; roundtable discussions were held with government agencies and community organisations in February and March of this year. The final report ran to 328 pages and cost around $1 million.

Does this proposed committee propose to be more thorough than this? In what ways does this committee propose to be more thorough and more skilful than the Debelle inquiry? This question needs answering by those who are proposing to set up this committee. As I said, unless these questions are answered it is no more than a political stunt.

I am sure that a bit later Rob Lucas, in his typical folksy way, will talk about the government's—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: The Hon. Rob Lucas.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The Hon. Rob Lucas will talk in the typical way that he does about the government trying to hide things and, 'We need to have a look just to see if there is maybe, possibly anything else,' go on a big, expensive fishing expedition. On anything that has been stated to date in other jurisdictions you would not get close to getting something like this off the ground with such unsupported whims and no evidence. You would never get a warrant, you would never get a subpoena based on the lack of evidence that has been presented to justify this committee.

Here is the chance, when people make their contributions, to present the evidence to justify this committee. The Hon. Robert Brokenshire, the Hon. Rob Lucas and others will have the opportunity—in fact, the responsibility—to make a compelling case as to where the Debelle inquiry was deficient. It is time to put up today, show us this is more than a political stunt. We are all looking forward to the exact ways and reasons that the Debelle inquiry was insufficient.

If this was just an inquiry about records management it might have more validity, but it is not. I am pleased that the Attorney-General has announced a review to look at the practices in relation to records management, particularly to reflect today's technology. To re-investigate the matters covered by the Debelle inquiry shows that this is just a political stunt.

However, if it is the will of the Legislative Council that this committee be established, then I think it is incumbent to make sure we have a very thorough examination of how these types of incidents have been handled in the past. In fact, in preparation, a number of FOI applications have been lodged to ascertain how such incidents were handled by departments, education and police ministers in the nineties, what practices were in place back then and how they compare to how such incidents are handled today. Getting to the bottom of the details of the occurrence and handling of such incidents in the past will be an important task of this committee to ensure that past mistakes are not repeated.

I am the father of three primary school-aged children, but you do not have to be a parent to be shocked and horrified by the offences that gave rise to this inquiry. However, I would much prefer that those who are charged with implementing the recommendations of the Debelle inquiry were getting on with doing that rather than fronting a politically motivated upper house committee.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (16:35): I rise to support the establishment of the select committee, as proposed in the motion of the Hon. Robert Brokenshire. The opposition supports the need for this select committee because the most important issues that arise from the Debelle inquiry relate to child protection and communication with parents and school communities. The Hon. Robert Brokenshire strongly presented a number of concerns arising from the Debelle inquiry, but they are not limited to child protection.

What we found in relation to the Debelle report was that the government's failure to properly manage records management failed the parents and children of South Australian communities. The fact is that records management will continue to fail the South Australian community in areas well beyond child protection unless the government takes action.

This is not just a matter of the government complying with the community's expectation of good government; it is also a matter of the government complying with the legislation that this parliament has passed. Section 17(1) of the State Records Act provides:

If a person, knowing that he or she does not have proper authority to do so, intentionally—

(a) damages or alters an official record; or

(b) disposes of an official record or removes an official record from official custody,

the person commits an offence.

And it is not regarded as a trivial offence. Under that legislation it is subject to a maximum penalty of $10,000 or imprisonment for two years. Likewise, section 23(1) of the State Records Act provides:

An agency must not dispose of official records except in accordance with a determination made by the Manager with the approval of the Council.

The importance of the State Records Act is highlighted by the honourable member's terms of reference. Subclause 1(b) of the terms of reference of the proposed select committee states that the select committee be established to investigate and report on:

Any matter raised by the Debelle Inquiry related to incident and records management, including compliance with legislation and policy;

The opposition welcomes that clause. State records are an important responsibility, not only to support the effective discharge of our duties in relation to child protection but across the whole gamut of state responsibility.

Under the act, state offices and agencies are required to comply with a series of policies and standards issued by State Records. One of those is the General Disposal Schedule No. 18. That is, specifically, a general disposal schedule relating to the disposal of documents out of ministerial offices. It makes it clear that email records are official records, and it puts a responsibility on ministerial officers to make sure that they properly handle the official records.

If the government had received the Debelle report in the middle of this year, and that had been the first alarm bell in terms of its poor management of records, then perhaps the government could stand before us with more honour. However, in 2010—the very year that this incident occurred—there were two alarm bells that rang in relation to this government's poor management of State Records.

In 2010, State Records undertook an assessment survey of agency record management practices which found, according to a briefing from State Records, that there was wholesale noncompliance with the act. The survey relied on agencies themselves to identify their compliance with their responsibilities in the State Records Act, and there was limited sampling to verify the responses provided. I quote from the latest annual report of State Records. On page 13, referring to the survey, it says:

Following the assessment survey of agency records management practices undertaken in 2009-10, agencies continue to provide State Records with plans outlining improvement actions they are taking. During 2011-12, action plans were received from 101 agencies. State Records will continue to follow up on the agencies that have not yet provided an action plan.

Let me stress that we are told there are about 400 agencies responsible to State Records for their compliance with the act. We are told that 101 of those in one financial year alone needed to provide action plans on their strategies to address non-compliance. We do not know how many submitted in the 2010-11 year; we do not know how many submitted since, but the fact is that this indicates that well above a quarter of state government agencies were so noncompliant that they needed to develop action plans to address that noncompliance.

What we were advised in a briefing today with State Records was that, having done the survey in 2010, they were not going to follow up again until 2014. That is the first alarm bell. In 2010, State Records did the assessment survey. The other alarm bell in relation to this government's failure to properly manage records management relates to the Burnside inquiry. Three years ago today—let me stress that: three years ago today—an article appeared in The Advertiser under the headline 'Under fire'. It was written by Craig Cook and it reads:

Police 'hampered' the year-long corruption investigation into the Burnside council, partly because senior police provided 'unhelpful' and 'unnecessary' responses to requests for information, a report has found.

The draft report of former auditor-general Ken MacPherson's investigation into the troubled council expresses 'serious concerns' over the police role in the inquiry. The 1095-page draft also contains dozens of references to possible breaches of the law.

It found the email systems for all state government agencies, which keep back-up emails for only 30 days after end-of-month reports are retrieved, to be 'seriously inadequate for proper governmental accountability'.

In the draft report, Mr MacPherson outlines an inadequacy in South Australia Police systems which made it difficult for investigators to access the email accounts of its members.

So what did we have? Three years ago we had a former state auditor-general—a highly respected member of the community, and certainly respected by this government in that he continued to enjoy appointments by this government—stating that the practices of all state government agencies were seriously inadequate for proper government accountability. The government can say that it did not have a copy of the draft report. It was on the front page of The Advertiser. That year we had a State Records Act survey which showed gross wholesale noncompliance, and then later in the year we had a report from the former auditor-general which indicated serious inadequacies of proper government accountability in relation to email management.

So what did the government do in relation to those two alarm bells? Apparently nothing. On all the briefings I have received and on all the information I have read, no action was taken by this government in relation to State Records or in relation to the reports on the Burnside inquiry. In fact, what I find particularly curious is that the 2010 assessment survey of agency records management practices excluded one class of government agency: it excluded ministerial officers.

As an opposition we believe that ministerial officers, too, need to be required to comply with records management. I think one of the issues that this select committee should address is: when are ministerial officers going to be audited, why they were not then, and when will they be?

We had two alarm bells in 2010. On 1 December 2010, the rape took place. At 9pm the victim's parent reported it to the police. On 2 December an email was sent to the minister's office with the subject line 'Urgent, FYI' and with high importance. Rightly, there was a wave of community concern regarding the right of the school community to be informed and the failure of the department to keep the community informed. Eventually the government established the Debelle inquiry. Eventually they strengthened its powers and the honourable judge proceeded and provided the state with a very effective report.

The Hon. Kyam Maher wants to have it both ways. On the one hand he wants to say that the terms of reference of Justice Debelle were so broad that this inquiry is almost impertinent. On the other hand he says that the government is responding to the concerns and has appointed the Moss review. Let's look at the terms of reference of Justice Debelle. The terms of reference of the inquiry are:

To undertake an independent review in relation to the events and circumstances surrounding the non-disclosure to the school community of allegations of sexual assault committed by an employee of the Out of School Hours Care service at [the metropolitan school] against a child in his care in 2010.

The review should consider the actions of all relevant agencies, and make recommendations relating to the actions of the parties involved and the procedures and processes that should be in place in these circumstances.

Considering the assertions of the Hon. Kyam Maher that the terms of reference were broad enough, let's look at what Justice Debelle himself said about the breadth of those terms of reference. Firstly, he said:

Broadly speaking, the Terms of Reference require two tasks to be undertaken. The first is essentially an enquiry to ascertain facts. It is to investigate the events and circumstances surrounding the arrest and later conviction of X, who was an employee of the OSHC service at the metropolitan school, and the failure to inform the parents of that school in a timely manner that he had been convicted. The second part requires recommendations of procedures that should be in place to deal with future occasions when allegations of sexual misconduct are made in schools.

Justice Debelle went on to say:

In my view, the proper discharge of the first task requires an examination of how the events following the arrest of X were managed both by the school and by the Department for Education and Child Development on the one hand and by the South Australia Police on the other.

Later in the report he said:

The direction in the second paragraph of the Terms of Reference requires an examination of current processes so that recommendations can be made as to how the Department for Education and Child Development and other relevant agencies should manage allegations of sexual misconduct by a member of the staff at the school or by a person employed by a governing council of a school.

The opposition has no dispute with Justice Debelle on how he has interpreted his terms of reference. They were a focused set of terms of reference and he acted according to them, but it is not any reflection on Justice Debelle to say that his masterly report still raised other issues. Whilst he addressed a specific set of emails, as was appropriate in his terms of reference, that report has led to the opposition and other members of the community to raise legitimate concerns in relation to other aspects of government practices.

In that context the opposition raised a series of questions in parliament and then on 4 July the opposition called for the review to be reopened. On 18 July the state Liberal leader highlighted a whole series of questions that had been raised in parliament and elsewhere by the state Liberals. I quote from the leader's press release of that date in relation to unanswered questions:

The state Liberals understand that a copy of every government email is stored on an external server. If this is the case, what action has been taken by Mr Weatherill to retrieve the email forwarded on by Mr Blewett? To whom did Mr Blewett forward the important email notifying him of the rape of a child at a western suburbs school in December 2010? What is the protocol with Telstra storing important data off-site, especially in regard to the retrieval of this data? If this data has actually been destroyed, did minister Weatherill's office seek appropriate approval to destroy it from the State Records Office, as per the State Records Act?

In the context of that series of unanswered questions and others, state Liberal leader Steven Marshall sought an urgent briefing from the State Records Office to clarify data management issues raised in the Debelle report. Let me remind members that was on 18 July. We highlighted at that stage the issues that we would like to have addressed at the briefing. They were, specifically, that we would like to be briefed on:

the legislation and policy relating to records management which applies in the government of South Australia, particularly in ministerial offices;

the prevailing records management practices of state government agencies, including ministerial offices;

the oversight of compliance with the legislation and policy relating to management by State Records or other agencies;

issues of compliance with the legislation and policy relating to management by State Records or other agencies;

issues of compliance arising from the Independent Education Inquiry; and

what remedial action is proposed.

That was on 18 July. On 24 July, the Hon. Robert Brokenshire moved the motion we have before us and, in the context of those concerns, the opposition welcomed the fact that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire included in those terms of reference an item specifically asking the committee to address records management issues raised by the Debelle inquiry. In that context, I think it is relevant to turn to GDS 18, the government's own policy in relation to what is expected of ministerial officers. On page 12, GDS 18 says:

Retention periods for temporary records shown in the Schedule are minimum retention periods for which records must be retained before they are destroyed.

The schedule on page 30 in item 4.1.4 says:

Records relating to routine inquiries concerning the Minister's portfolio or responsibilities from members of the public including constituents. Includes inquiries referred to another agency for a response.

Disposal Action is, 'Destroy five years after last action.' I say to members that even if you wanted to describe an email tagged 'urgent, FYI, high importance' as a routine inquiry, it should not, under the government's own policy, have been destroyed within five years. Specifically, this document is prepared for ministerial officers. It takes into account all of the dynamics, which I appreciate at times are very stressful and the information demands acute but, still, it was updated on 9 February 2010 and applies right through to next June.

I think the Hon. Robert Brokenshire had every right to include that element of the terms of reference in the set and, as I said, on 18 July we had sought an urgent briefing from the government in relation to State Records management. What was the government's response to our request for the urgent briefing? The response did not actually come from the State Records Office: it actually came from the Attorney-General. In a letter, dated 7 August, his response was:

The relevant legislation and policy is available for you to access from the State Records website.

We know from the briefing received today that that is completely fallacious. The items we sought in the briefings were substantially addressed at this morning's meeting. They are not available on the State Records website. It was a furphy for the government to deny us a briefing. I also note that the Attorney-General advised my leader:

State Records assess compliance by surveying agency practices against the adequate records management standard. I am advised that the next survey is scheduled for 2014-15 and ministerial officers will be included.

We welcome that. We are concerned that they were excluded in 2010. We cannot see the basis for excluding them in 2010—they are subject to the same act, and they are subject to a specific general disposal schedule.

There was no suggestion on 7 August that there was going to be any review of State Records management. The Premier, on 4 July, in responding to my leader's commitments in relation to improved standards under a Liberal government, said that Premier Jay Weatherill agreed that important records should be kept and said the government was considering changes. We get a comment in the media from the Premier and we get a letter from the Attorney-General. There is no hint of a review.

Then we come to today. Presumably, in anticipation of today's debate, on 9 September the Attorney-General issued a press release, entitled 'Retired judge to review State Records Act'. It states:

The state government has initiated an independent review of the State Records Act so that it remains relevant to current practices and technologies across Government.

Deputy Premier John Rau said he believes the Act as it stands presently is not achieving practical results.

'Official government records are an important resource for the community for understanding the history of decisions made across Government...It is becoming increasingly apparent to me that the State Records Act, which was written in the late 1990s, is losing its relevance in the digital information age.

Where was this Damascus road experience? We had two major incidents in 2010: the State Records review, which would have reported to the Attorney-General as the relevant minister, and the Burnside inquiry, in which the whole government was taking an acute interest, and reported on the front page of The Advertiser were concerns of the investigator. Yet, two days before this house considers this matter, the government claims that it will set up a review which, according to Kyam Maher, means we do not need to have the select committee proposed by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire. I ask the government: why it did not announce this review in 2010 and not 2013?

What was interesting in the comments of the Attorney-General was that the review is focusing very much on the act. Let me quote the last two sentences of his press release from Monday:

The review may recommend that more education is required, it may make suggestions for amendments to the Act, or it may even call for a new Act altogether.

What is important is that the Act becomes relevant to current and foreseeable means of communication and that any ambiguities about how the Act is understood and implemented across Government are cleared up.

In the House of Assembly earlier today, the Attorney-General said that the review is basically to look at whether the legislative framework is adequate. The Hon. Robert Brokenshire's terms of reference do not ask us to get fixated on the act; they ask us to look at records management as a whole. What we are concerned about as an opposition is not whether the act is a noble statement of intention—noble statements of intention do not provide South Australians with a records management system with the transparency and information they require. We want a system crowned by an act, if you like, which actually works.

What the State Records Act review of 2010, what the Burnside inquiry and what the Debelle inquiry show is that the system is not working. This issue about whether we need to catch up with the digital age again is a furphy. GDS schedule No. 18 clearly addresses emails. In fact, in 2002 State Records published a specific policy about the management of emails. It is not as though the government woke up in 2013 and said, 'Oh, no, people have been sending us emails.'

Let me stress, too, that this is not just a matter of the State Records Act. Sound state records management is important for compliance with a whole range of statutory provisions. How can the government fulfil its responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act, for example, without actually knowing what records are there? How can it fulfil its responsibilities under the information privacy principles? How can it make sure that it has information available for legal proceedings—let's say for a victim of abuse in state care? How can it fulfil its responsibilities under the Public Sector Management Act?

The fact is that emails are the letters of today. I get far more emails than I do letters, and that is not to say that emails are ephemeral: many of the emails I receive have the formality and seriousness of what would have in the past been in letters. It is absolutely vital that those letters in the form of emails find their way into an appropriate records management system.

I wonder whether it might assist the council if I read what I was able to glean from the House of Assembly Hansard from about 2.30 this afternoon, when the Attorney-General proffered the terms of reference for the Moss inquiry. Let me stress that this is from an uncorrected Hansard, so it may not be an exact record. I am surprised that in the press release on Monday the terms of reference were not attached. Anyway, the terms of reference of the Moss review, as reported in the House of Assembly, are to inquire into:

…the extent to which electronic communication is used as a means of creating, storing and transferring official records; secondly, the extent to which there has been an increase in the volume of official records created by government agencies due to increasing reliance on technology and electronic communications; thirdly, how other jurisdictions have attempted to address these issues and their degree of success; and fourth, report on whether the existing legislative framework is appropriately managed or realistically capable of being so managed, including an examination of the destruction and retention regimes including efficient official record retention where necessary, and the extent to which the existing framework would be assisted or enhanced by a change in the culture of government agencies and current state records management practices and any legislative drivers required to achieve the same.

The select committee that is being proposed today is not just the whim of the Hon. Robert Brokenshire. It has received very wide support from around the parliamentary chamber and beyond. In fact, we are indebted to the Premier today for calling a press conference, at which he gave the opportunity for Senator Nick Xenophon to state publicly that he supports the reopening of the Debelle inquiry.

An honourable member: Very kind of the Premier to do that.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: It is very kind of the Premier to do that and I think that is a sign of perhaps more hope of openness and transparency from this government. Also, we welcome the fact that Dean Jaensch, a professor of politics, has indicated that there are unresolved issues in relation to the Debelle inquiry. We certainly look forward to the contribution of other members, but the opposition is convinced that there are unanswered questions from the Debelle inquiry that deserve to be addressed.

We welcome the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's terms of reference and the fact that they are broadly written, because at the beginning of the Debelle inquiry, when it was established in December, who was to know that we were going to open a Pandora's box in relation to this government's mismanagement of records management? Likewise, as this inquiry proceeds, there may well be other issues to come to the fore. That is why I think a parliamentary inquiry is valuable.

It is all well and good for Justice Moss to be given terms of reference by this government, and the opposition welcomes that inquiry, but the nature of issues such as this is that an open parliamentary inquiry with an open call for relevant issues, we believe, is the best way to make sure that all relevant issues are addressed.

In conclusion, let me reiterate a commitment that our leader, Steven Marshall, has made. He has said:

If elected to government in 2014, we will ensure that records are retained by State Records from all government ministers, departments and agencies for at least the lifetime of the government.

The community was shocked to know that this government, even from transfer from one minister to another, DBAN or totally wipe the hard disks. It is important to make sure that records are retained so that incoming ministers, incoming governments and the administrations that support them have access to the official records. That is why the State Records Act exists; that is why the policies and standards under that act have been put in place.

What has become clear from the briefings that we have received and from other information that has come out is that this government has totally failed to provide effective records management. We welcome the select committee proposed by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire, not only because it will give us the opportunity to deal with a range of issues coming out of the Debelle inquiry in relation to child protection, but, as I have highlighted, I believe it will also give us the opportunity to deal with serious issues in relation to State Records' management.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (17:03): I will be brief in my contribution; in fact, I will be very brief. I think we have had a great deal of debate about this matter. It will come as no surprise to members of this chamber that I will be supporting my colleague the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's motion. He was sweating on it; he was not sure, but of course I will be.

I will be doing that for a number of reasons and I think they have been outlined by the contributions of my colleague the Hon. Robert Brokenshire anyway in his initial introduction of this motion. Primarily I will be doing so because child protection is core business for Family First. This is a matter which is held dear to our hearts, and I think our party has a proud history in pursuing issues where children's wellbeing has been put at risk. We, of course, were the authors of the removal of the statute of limitations which allowed paedophiles to be prosecuted if they committed their offences prior to 1982. We have a series of other bills I could point to which are also in line with the objective of protecting children and the general welfare of children.

I think the other thing that needs to be said about this is that, despite the fact that we have had the Layton Report, the Mullighan inquiries and a good deal of debate in this chamber and elsewhere about child protection issues, still, just a couple of years ago, we had a trigger event which triggered this whole mess—if I could put it that way—in the education department. These things should not be happening in our schools and an inquiry, such as this, will help get to the bottom of why these things happen at all and what exactly can be done about them. It is something that I feel strongly about and I certainly support this inquiry wholeheartedly.

Having said that, there is one amendment I would like to make to the terms of reference of the inquiry and that is to delete paragraph 1(c) and I will read that for members' information. That says:

Any matter relating to the tenure of the Chief Executive of the Department for Education and Child Development in June and July 2013;

After consultation with other members of this place, Family First has decided to move to delete paragraph 1(c) from the terms of reference. My understanding is that Tony Harrison is a good man and certainly the dealings I have had with him have been honourable. We wish in no way to draw him into this unnecessarily. He may be involved peripherally obviously because of his position. We would seek to have that removed from the terms of reference and, therefore, I move:

That paragraph 1(c) 'Any matter relating to the tenure of the Chief Executive of the Department for Education and Child Development in June and July 2103', be deleted.

With that, I conclude my remarks and support the motion.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:07): I rise on behalf of the Greens to indicate that we will be supporting the establishment of this select committee. We did not immediately come to that conclusion and we certainly do not do so because this is some sort of political witch-hunt. Those are not reasons that attract us to supporting this select committee.

For those reading Hansard, because I am sure that every member of this chamber is aware of the motion, I will actually just highlight that this is not a rerun of the Debelle inquiry that we are supporting here today. This is a select committee to investigate and report on:

(a) Any matter arising from the 2012-2013 Independent Education Inquiry also known as the Debelle inquiry;

So matters arising from that particular report.

(b) Any matter raised by the Debelle inquiry related to incident and records management, including compliance with legislation and policy;

It is quite rightly the role of the Legislative Council to be investigating those matters and indeed:

(d) Progress on the implementation of the recommendations of the Debelle inquiry

Of course, these recommendations were accepted by the Premier and the government in principle, and so I imagine that there will be some significant and some very rapid progress for the select committee to review.

My greatest concern was that the FOI documents requested by the member for Unley with regard to this particular inquiry were released to the public online after the Premier went on the radio saying that he was not going to be subjected to—I believe his words were something along the lines of—a slow drip-feed of FOI, document by document. Certainly, I would agree with a full release and a full disclosure. As I said, I believe that this is a noose around the neck of the Weatherill government and that it will dog them until the election unless—and I went on to say to the media and certainly it was not captured in the sound bite that I believe was quoted earlier in this debate—the ministers front, the Premier fronts and everyone provides full disclosure.

I, for one, have encountered many members of the South Australian public and certainly I was quite surprised to find that a minister of the government would delete such emails and would not pass on these emails, not only to their own staff but to a further future minister of their own government, indeed, of their own faction.

We know the stories between governments of documents being shredded, but I would have thought that within a government there would have been at least that respect for those ongoing ministerial duties to have the history of any particular case. You would imagine that this would be a situation where that documentation would be seen as at least having importance to share with your ministerial colleagues and those who succeed you.

I have encountered people who were just gobsmacked to be told that emails can be deleted from a PC and are therefore no longer retrievable. Anyone who understands technology will tell you that there are ways of retrieving such documents—other than the act of deleting it from the PC I think being one to be questioned—and certainly I would like to see the investigation of such technologies as part of the purview of this particular committee.

Since the release of the report, we have heard the Premier make threats on the radio to take legal action against members of the opposition. I am not sure if those threats have been made good. I am getting nods from members of the opposition that they have indeed. I have also had great concerns with the way that members of the government have reacted to the idea that there be a select committee.

Certainly, members of the South Australian community—and I am going to cite particularly Danyse Soester and the South Australian Association of State School Organisations (SAASSO)—said that they were not afforded enough time to participate properly in the inquiry, and others, such as Freda Briggs, have expressed concerns. These are not people to be taken lightly. These are not people out for a political pointscoring exercise. These are people who were clearly not properly consulted, who were not afforded their voice in the democratic process, and who certainly failed within the administrative and bureaucratic processes of the minister and the department that not only saw these incidents occur but also put this community through an extensive level of pain and angst that was just not necessary.

There is a long way to go to redress what happened with this incident. It is not lost on me that the perpetrator of the particular crime was indeed brought to justice, and I commend all involved in that process, but there is a long way to go before community faith in this government is restored after the handling of this process. With that, the Greens will be supporting this select committee.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (17:13): I would like to speak today very briefly on behalf of Dignity for Disability in support of the Hon. Mr Robert Brokenshire's motion to establish a select committee of the Legislative Council into the Debelle inquiry. I hope it is well known that I am not a supporter of pointless inquiries or political stunts, and this committee is neither of those things: it is not pointless and it is not a stunt.

I am sure I am not telling anyone anything new when I say that child abuse is an extremely serious issue, to say the least. The long-term impacts on the victims, their families and the wider community cannot and must not be underestimated or dismissed. I believe that child abuse is made doubly worse (if that is even possible) when it occurs within our own government-run and funded schools, out-of-school-hours care and other related institutions—places where families hope they can entrust the care of their children. In these cases, that trust was broken and it did not stop there, of course.

The response to these abuses by the minister's office and the Department for Education and Child Development was marked by incompetence and scandalous inaction. We need to restore faith in a system that is currently incredibly damaged due to too many cases of child abuse and too much hiding, but I am sure that no-one in this chamber would disagree that one is too many.

The Debelle inquiry looked into some very specific issues and made some good recommendations that I understand are being acted upon. However, there remain significant concerns about record management in this state, and whether this could happen again, and about an alarming culture of incompetence and cover-up within the Department for Education and Child Development. Dignity for Disability has a proud record of working to highlight the abuse of many vulnerable groups within our society, and we will continue that proud record by supporting this motion today. I commend the motion to the chamber.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (17:15): It might surprise members that I have thought long and hard about this and, after reflection, have decided to support the motion for a select committee moved by the Hon. Mr Brokenshire. I support the comments made by some other members, and in particular comments that have been made by my colleague the Hon. Mr Wade.

In considering our position on this issue, I reflect on the attitude of the Premier in relation to a select committee being established; it is quite clear that for some reason he is literally petrified at the prospect. We have seen various responses from the Premier over the last couple of weeks: bluff and bluster, intimidation, and threats. In recent weeks, we have seen a carpet bombing of defamation suits against journalists, and members of parliament; I am not sure whether or not it has involved members of other organisations. Clearly, he and others are intent on trying to close down criticism of him and his actions.

As the Hon. Mr Wade indicated, only this week we saw his last attempt to try to head off the inquiry with the establishment of the Moss inquiry in relation to the State Records Act. As the Hon. Mr Wade very eloquently pointed out, that was as a result of the overwhelming evidence that had been established by the opposition—and indeed some others—that there were clear deficiencies in terms of adherence by the government, ministers and advisers to the requirements of the State Records Act.

I think the Premier's position is clear, that he does not want to see the establishment of this committee. I have to say that in defence of the Premier's position today, the relatively brief speech by the Hon. Mr Maher was the most limp-wristed, underwhelming attempt to defend the Premier I have ever heard in my time in parliament. If I were relying on the Hon. Mr Maher to defend me in relation to the prospect of an inquiry, if I were the Premier I would be seriously underwhelmed in terms of his contribution.

In essence, one can summarise his position on the basis that, first, this was going to be an expensive inquiry. Well, at $12.50 a meeting for members of parliament, I can assure the Hon. Mr Maher that it would be considerably less than whatever it cost to commission the royal commissioner Mr Debelle to conduct that inquiry, so I do not think that was a convincing argument that this was going to be an expensive exercise or inquiry. The other issue he canvassed was a challenge that members should outline what was not covered by the Debelle inquiry, what new evidence there was, and I propose to address some of those issues, in particular. I believe that the Hon. Mr Wade has addressed part of that in his contribution as well.

I hasten to say, in relation to a number of the comments that I will make, that I am not making any specific criticism of Mr Debelle; he did indicate, on a number of occasions during his inquiry, that there were certain issues beyond his purview. However, in this case I refer to the evidence that was turned up by my colleague the member for Unley in his assiduous pursuit of truth through freedom of information and contact with members of the community, in particular parents and others, email exchanges which identified another ministerial staffer who was aware of the particular incident, and I refer in particular to Ms Kate Baldock, who I understand was a media adviser to minister Portolesi.

This series of email exchanges, which are dated early November 2012, makes it quite clear. One of the emails from the then CEO of the department to one of the media people within the department, Mr Peter Adams—someone many of us would know from media circles—and copied to a whole range of other people, says:

Thanks, Peter. Very helpful. I note that Kate Baldock was aware on 14 February but it seems that we did not prepare a briefing for the MECD—

the Minister for Education and Child Development. Then there are a series of other email exchanges which go back indicating that Ms Baldock was copied in to a number of emails, which confirms that certainly as of 14 February the media adviser to minister Portolesi was aware of the information in relation to the rape in the north-western suburbs school.

The importance of this is that we have on the record minister Portolesi indicating that she claims she was not made aware of the incident until March 2012. That is, this particular ministerial adviser was supposedly aware in February but evidently, if we are to believe the story, did not inform either her minister then (minister Portolesi) or, indeed, the former minister and the then Premier, Premier Weatherill.

As we know—and I will not go over the detail—there are already a number of examples in relation to Mr Blewett and Mr Harvey where evidence has been canvassed publicly and considered by Justice Debelle regarding them having knowledge of the incident and supposedly not advising the then minister, minister Weatherill.

I suspect that my view of all of this is similar to the view of most South Australians; that is, we find it extraordinarily hard to believe the story we are being asked to believe: that we have the rape of a child in a school in the north-western suburbs and that a series of ministerial advisers, paid princely sums by taxpayers to provide advice to their ministers, at various stages became aware of this particular rape and they did not advise either minister Weatherill or minister Portolesi or, indeed, anybody. That is the story we are being asked to believe. As I said, I suspect that my view is similar to that of most South Australians: we find it extraordinarily hard to believe that that is the situation.

In relation to new issues, there is no evidence that Ms Baldock was called to give evidence to the Debelle inquiry. It has not been considered by the Debelle inquiry. Again, that is no criticism of Justice Debelle. If he was not aware of this particular email exchange then there would be no reason for him to call Ms Baldock before the inquiry to give evidence in relation to it. That is, did Ms Baldock advise the Premier? Did Ms Baldock advise the then minister? Did Ms Baldock discuss it with other media advisers? The way the media advisory system works with this government is that there is general discussion about major issues of the day in terms of how they are to be spun and what is the particular attitude the government is to adopt in relation to controversial issues of the day.

As to big issues or controversial issues, it is not uncommon for them to be discussed with other media advisers, other ministerial advisers, other political advisers in terms of how the government should handle it should it become an issue in the public arena. So, if I can offer a personal view, and it would be up to the committee to decide, it would be to seek to call evidence from Ms Baldock to establish exactly what she knew, when and what actions (if any) did she take in relation to the circumstances. That is one very new issue that needs to be considered.

I want to refer also to claims made today, as I understand it, by the Premier in response to questions that were put in another place. He actually did not answer the question. The question was entirely different, but he obviously decided he wanted to say this and put it on the public record, so it was not really in response to a specific question. He said:

This question proceeds from the fundamental misreading of the Debelle report. There was one computer in this whole equation that was never wiped, and it happened to be my computer. So, all this furphy that is being spread around about wiped computers and that somehow that was done for some nefarious purpose, the very computer that one might have thought might be at the centre of this thing—

then there is a series of interjections—

is a computer that I had in my former role and carried with me through to the education department.

I point out to members one of the statements by Mr Debelle in his report at paragraph 406:

Searches were also made of computers used by Mr Weatherill when Minister for Education. As already noted, his desktop computer had been subjected to the DBAN process.

That is the wiping process. I continue the quote:

Mr Blundell could not find anything relating to the email of 2 December 2010 on that computer. Mr Blundell also searched a laptop computer that had been retained by Mr Weatherill for his personal use. It was a computer that enabled Mr Weatherill to read emails but not to store them. Mr Blundell searched that computer. It contained no relevant information. Mr Blundell also searched two DVDs that contained information provided by Telstra in an attempt to restore emails of a particular date. That process did not recover the email of 2 December 2010.

What Mr Debelle is highlighting there is that the Premier had at least two computers because there are two referred to there; one was his desktop computer and one was his laptop computer. Mr Debelle makes it quite clear that his desktop computer had been subject to the wiping process or the DBAN process. I think this committee should look at the statement from Mr Debelle and the statement made by the Premier where he says a 'fundamental misreading of the Debelle report' and that 'there was one computer in this whole equation that was never wiped'.

Certainly, the committee has the capacity to invite the Premier to give evidence to the committee where he can explain his particular statement to the house and how the committee should interpret that statement compared to paragraph 406 of the Debelle report. In saying that the Premier can be invited, I do note that some ministers and the Premier's office have been running around saying it is unprecedented for ministers to give evidence to a committee. I put on the public record that there have been occasions in our parliamentary history when ministers have willingly attended before Legislative Council select committees to give evidence.

Former minister Lynn Arnold appeared before the marine land select committee in the 1980s to give evidence, as did his erstwhile loyal sidekick at the time and chief of staff, Mr Kevin Foley; and former minister 'Bud' Roy Abbott, who was minister for forests, gave evidence before the South Australian timber corporation select committee in the 1980s as well. They were not compelled to attend but they accepted the very generous invitation from the Legislative Council select committees to give evidence and put their point of view.

I subscribe to the view that it has not been the position of Legislative Council select committees to attempt to require the attendance of ministers in another place to attend before the committees. That is certainly the convention, and I acknowledge that and am not arguing against that particular convention. It can be the decision for individual ministers as to whether or not they willingly comply, but it is certainly not correct, as some of the government spin doctors have been putting, to say that it is unprecedented for a minister to give evidence before select committees.

I certainly suspect there might have been one or two other examples but, suffice to say, I am certainly aware of at least the couple of examples that have been given. Again, I cannot pre-judge the committee if it is established in what it might do, but it may well be that the committee, by majority, might want to extend an invitation to the Premier, and indeed the ministers, to see whether or not they would like to put their point of view to the committee.

The next issue I want to address is one that has become quite important, that is, the issue of the missing email trail from Mr Simon Blewett. Again, to cut a long story short, we all know that Mr Blewett received information and advice and four minutes after he received it he forwarded it to someone (he cannot remember who it was), and who might have received it has been the subject of much speculation.

Can I say that the two most likely recipients of the email fall into two categories. One is it could potentially be, obviously, minister Weatherill. Mr Blewett was his chief of staff at the time and he is being advised of a rape of a child in a school within the portfolio. It is not too far from the minister's own electorate. Again, it would appear logical that that might be forwarded to his minister. Or, it could be referred to some other minister, although it is highly problematic as to why it would be forwarded to another minister.

The other broad category of person that it might have been forwarded to is another ministerial staffer, in particular, perhaps, a media adviser: that is, the chief of staff receives the email and then decides that it needs to be forwarded to somebody else in terms of sharing this particular information. One of the potentially logical persons that it might have been forwarded to might have been another media adviser or a more senior political adviser, perhaps, in another office somewhere else.

Whichever of those categories of persons it was forwarded to, it is an important issue. Clearly, it will be much more significant if it was forwarded to then minister Weatherill but, if it was forwarded to another ministerial adviser or somebody else, it is also a very important issue. So, finding to whom this particular email was forwarded is an important issue that has still not been resolved by the Debelle inquiry. It is entirely possible that, if it was forwarded to somebody else—person unknown—that that person has also shared it with other people as well. It may well be that there are more and more people, as yet unidentified, who were aware of the incident and that particular email advice because it was shared with other people subsequent to Mr Blewett's forwarding it to somebody else four minutes later.

The proposition I put to the committee is that establishing who has received it (and it is not just if it went to minister Weatherill, but whoever received it—clearly someone did) is an important issue for this committee to establish. I spoke briefly when I had only a five-minute opportunity in a matters of importance debate some time ago on the issue of trying to find missing emails. I referred to evidence to the Cole royal commission from the Director of the Operations Security Section of the Information Community Technology Branch at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

I introduced that comment briefly, and I will quote at greater length on this occasion, to indicate that the advice given to me from a former senior federal minister, based on this evidence and on his knowledge of the Cole royal commission, was that in many cases where people believe emails have been deleted, when, as it was put to me, the spooks in the commonwealth department get hold of the information they can retrieve a lot of things that people believe have been deleted. The advice given to me was: don't think that if you've deleted or wiped something that that is necessarily the end of the story. The evidence of the Cole royal commission is proof positive that that is not always the end of the story.

I will quote part of pages 1 and 2 of the statutory declaration by Mr Denis Whitford, given to the Cole royal commission, as follows:

The absence of a specific email back-up system on the unclassified system.

4. The department does not, and so far as I am aware has never, had a policy requiring the electronic archiving of all emails on the Department's unclassified email system. It has no system for that purpose. However, in August 2005, the Department introduced a system which facilitated the electronic tagging for retention of emails of enduring value. An Administrative Circular was also issued advising that, from the introduction of the electronic tagging facility it was mandatory to tag such emails. Notwithstanding the introduction of electronic tagging emails in August 2005, it has been the Department's policy for many years and it remains the Department's policy that, if an officer judges an email to have enduring value, it is to be printed and filed in hard copy.

5. Before August 2005, such electronic systems as the department had for backing up emails on the unclassified email system were limited to the purpose of short-term system recovery in the event of, for example, a server crash. These backup systems employ electro-magnetic tapes ("tapes"). Essentially when a back-up is made the information that is on the email system at that time is copied to a tape, and the tape is then stored and kept until the next backup tape is made. In practice this means that backup tapes could be, and sometimes were, overwritten within forty-eight hours.

6. The backup systems are not designed to permit emails to be archived or retrieved.

7. However—

and this is the critical bit—

with sufficient time and resources, the backup systems can be used to reconstruct historical email files where those files have been captured on the backup tape.

8. It is upon this task that the OSS has been engaged in an attempt to find and provide emails within the classes sought on behalf of the inquiry.

Then the statutory declaration goes on to say:

9. Such email records as can be reconstructed from the backup systems will never be complete.

It then explains in detail why they cannot be complete. I will not quote the rest of that statutory declaration, but, suffice to say, as that particular forensic expert indicated, and I quote again, 'However, with sufficient time and resources, the backup systems can be used to reconstruct historical email files where those files have been captured on the backup tape.'

Further to that, in terms of this missing email, the opposition has received advice from a small number of forensic IT experts, all of whom have a good working knowledge of the South Australian government system, the South Australian Government Electronic Messaging Service (SAGEMS). One particular forensic IT expert who has provided advice to the opposition has had considerable experience of SAGEMS and has also been used by SAPOL on a number of occasions to assist in this sort of forensic IT area.

In addressing this person's advice, can I put aside the question I addressed in the Cole royal commission contribution I made. Can I put aside the question of whether or not the email still exists, or whether or not it can be reconstructed. I put aside that question for the moment. What this forensic IT expert says is that even if the email does not exist, even if it cannot be reconstructed—and the forensic IT expert does have a view on that and suspects that perhaps they do not exist any more; I put that, to be fair, on the record—even if you put that to the side, under SAGEMS a traffic log of all emails still exists, and that traffic log is held by Telstra.

This forensic IT expert says that this traffic log, even if the email does not exist, still exists and indicates to whom the email was sent and from whom the email was sent. It indicates the subject line of the email, and it indicates the date and time of the sending and receipt of the email. Even if the email no longer exists, within SAGEMS, held by Telstra, there is a traffic log which indicates to whom the email was sent and all that other information.

This forensic IT expert says further that there are two separate traffic logs (and that is just a layperson's description of what it is): the first one is the emails sent to addresses external to SAGEMS, and this is known as the SMTP log; the second log is emails sent internally within SAGEMS, and that is known as the LMS log. There are two separate logs: the SMTP log and the LMS log, which are held by Telstra and which will indicate all the detail in relation to whom the email was sent and the other detail I indicated before.

The Debelle inquiry, or at least the report, indicates that an investigation or questions asked of Telstra in relation to these traffic logs were not considered by the Debelle inquiry. They looked at computers and said that the former minister's computer had been wiped. They looked at Ms Hurrell's computer and could not find any record that she had received the email. There was this consideration of or looking at respective computers. They looked at DVDs, in terms of backups and stuff like that, and could not find any record of the actual email, but there is no indication that an exploration of the traffic logs, as highlighted to the opposition by this forensic IT expert, has been investigated.

It would appear on the surface—and we can only work on the basis of the report—that important questions were not asked of Telstra by the IT experts relied upon by Mr Debelle. As I said, this cannot be any criticism of Mr Debelle because he is not the forensic IT expert. He was relying on a couple of people he named in terms of this forensic IT work. It would appear, and the advice given to us is, if I can summarise it, that the right questions were not asked.

If you ask the question, 'Can you retrieve the email?' you might get the response back from Telstra and others, 'No, we can't retrieve the email.' What this forensic IT expert is saying is, 'If that is their answer, was the question asked: where are the traffic logs and who received the email?' which is obviously the critical question. It is not the only critical question because the email might have also had a covering note which would obviously be of interest; however, who received these emails is obviously critical in relation to this issue.

If the committee is established, we will obviously need to take evidence on this issue because we, the opposition, are not in a position to be able to say whether or not the information we have been given is 100 per cent accurate. So, the committee, if it is established, will need to ask these sorts of questions. We in the opposition accept that we can only rely on advice and information we are given.

We have no right to quiz Telstra or, indeed, others in relation to this issue, but there is prima facie substantial evidence that has been given by this person and a couple of others that these questions are the ones we should be asking of Telstra and, indeed, of others in relation to the traffic logs, and it will only be through the establishment of a committee like this that we will have the opportunity to ask the questions.

As I said, without having the advantage of being able to ask the questions and test what we are being told, we are not in a position to, in the end, reach a conclusion as to whether or not the advice we have been given is 100 per cent accurate. I am quite happy to put that on the record and say that that is the advice we have been given by forensic IT people, but in the end it will need to be considered by the committee, if it is established, to see whether or not it is accurate.

Another issue we have been advised of is that the current service agreement with Telstra only requires that they hold onto emails—that is the actual emails not the traffic logs—for a period of 30 days. Again, I do not know whether or not that is correct, but certainly some people associated with former governments have a view that that has changed and that the old service agreements with Telstra did not have that restriction. Again, I do not know whether that is correct.

This was not my area of expertise when in government, and I do not know whether the Labor government since 2002 changed that to 30 days or whether, in the dying years of the Liberal government in the late 1990s, that service agreement was changed. One of the forensic IT people thinks it has been changed in recent years to 30 days but, again, the committee needs to consider those sorts of questions; there is nobody in this chamber who can actually answer them. The Debelle inquiry does not consider any of those issues, or there is no evidence that they have considered those particular issues, and those questions have not been pursued. I think they are all questions that need to be addressed.

Finally, in relation to this missing email, I refer to part of the Debelle inquiry report and note, for example, that Mr Debelle notes that a lot of people have very poor recollections of what actually happened in late 2010, including the former minister, Mr Blewett and Mr Harvey. Certainly, there is some reference in Mr Debelle's inquiry—which I did find a bit curious—that Ms Bronwyn Hurrell indicated that she had no recollection of being sent the email from Mr Blewett. Her computer was searched and there was no record of it there, so she could not recall receiving it. They searched her computer, which had not been wiped, and there was no record of it and that was her evidence. What I find curious is that Mr Debelle comments and says:

Whilst I accept Ms Hurrell's evidence she has no recollection of receiving the email, her memory may be at fault.

He then goes on to say

She is not the only person who has no recollection of the events of 2 December 2010. The fact that the email is not on her computer establishes nothing as she might have deleted it.

When one looks at the evidence of a number of other people, they also could not recall the events of 2 December, but I do not find any commentary from Mr Debelle there which says that their memories might have been at fault. However, that is what he comments in relation to Ms Bronwyn Hurrell and certainly, in relation to where they did search a computer and they could not find it, there is not any commentary saying, 'Well, the fact that it is not on a computer establishes nothing; she might have deleted it,' or, 'They might have deleted it.'

I do find it curious that there is that commentary in relation to one particular officer in the evidence and not the same commentary in relation to a number of others. Some of that sort of detail, I think, is curious and it is perhaps possible for the committee to consider some of those issues as well, within its broad terms of reference. For all of those reasons, I strongly support the establishment of this committee.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (17:50): I rise also to support this motion for a select committee inquiry by the Legislative Council. I commend the Hon. Robert Brokenshire and I support all the comments of my colleagues in here today. I would just like to remind people in here, and especially the government, that for 7½ years I have been pointing out that the process of investigating and pursuing child abuse allegations was deeply flawed, that the recording and keeping of evidence and documents was questionable, and I have put forward pieces of legislation to try to fill those gaps. I have been told that there is no evidence that there is anything wrong with the system really and it is all, according to the government, sweet and travelling very nicely, thank you very much.

I go back to a SARC inquiry that I sat on about almost exactly the issue that the Debelle inquiry was looking into. That was a matter to do the Mount Gambier school and a teacher who was accused of interfering with up to 24 children. Two years later the parents were trying to find an avenue whereby they could get some sort of justice for their children. While I sat on that inquiry there were people from the union who came in to give evidence about the carry-on. It was very obvious in that particular inquiry that the union rep's main concern was protecting the reputation of the teacher involved.

From that time on, I believe there has been a stain on this government. I have raised cases before in here where child abuse cases have been dismissed, have been just swept under the carpet. It seems that it is some sort of a secret that is sacrosanct in this state. So it is not any surprise that I hear the government stating yet again that a select committee of the Legislative Council be established is nothing more than a political stunt, because they did the same in 2008 when I called for an inquiry into Families SA over the handling of child protection issues.

We had the same thing with a number of other issues and the latest, I might add—which was mainly about record keeping, information being passed around to the appropriate authorities—was that of Kirbee O'Grady, and that was just before the winter break. Nobody can claim that we have not heard time and time again in this place that there are gaps in the system, in the record keeping. We have heard Professor Freda Briggs make statements in inquiries that in fact records are tampered with (which I thought was a federal offence) but even in relation to the report containing Freda Briggs' evidence—the inquiry that the government chose to boycott because it was nothing more than a political stunt, of course, in their mind—nothing has ever been done about any of that. So I am pleased that this Legislative Council now sees fit to pursue this further.

It is not a political stunt, from my perspective; I am not supporting this because it is a political stunt. I do not get off on chasing the media about these issues, I do not get off on playing politics with issues as serious as child protection. I am supporting this because I am sick and tired of being on my feet in this place trying to get something done about the crappy systems that we have in place that do more harm than good to our children, especially to our abused children, and their families.

You have no idea, when you sit there and say that this is all just a political stunt, of the effect, on a parent of having a child abused by someone of trust, and of having to fight every inch of the way for some sort of justice for that child, of trying to hold your family together; even, as a parent, of trying to hold down a job and continue to function while you try to deal with the pain of your child. I know this firsthand. The fear where that child is going to be in maybe five, six or seven years' time; will they see it through their teenage years, will they ever be able to get on with their life? Many times the answer is no, and I know that firsthand as well.

I commend the Hon. Robert Brokenshire for bringing this motion forward, and I commend every member in this chamber who has supported it. I support every comment that has been made, and I hope the government can grow up enough to see that when nothing changes—as I have said many times—nothing changes. It is time for this to change.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (17:57): For the reasons already stated by other honourable members, I will certainly be supporting this motion.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (17:57): I will be brief in my summing up remarks. I had pages of summing up that I would have put forward but, given the importance of this motion and the fact that all my colleagues have spoken, I would just like to put on record my thanks to my colleagues who have spoken, for and against. I note that, other than government members, they have been unanimous in supporting this, and it has been unanimous because we are duty bound to ensure that we protect the children of this state.

There are more questions that have been raised as a result of the Debelle inquiry, and there are questions around the records and the fact that records should—in my opinion and from my knowledge as a former minister—have been kept that have to be answered, and in terms of why they were not kept, that need to be investigated.

However, I leave the chamber with this one thought. Adelaide is named after Queen Adelaide, who is on the record as actually saying, when she was the queen of England, that the one legacy she wanted to leave as queen of England was to ensure that vulnerable children were protected from child sexual abuse. That is the history of Queen Adelaide.

I am not convinced that we are doing the best we can in this state to protect our children from sexual abuse, or from any abuse for that matter. The parents and the constituents of this state expect us, as the parliament and as the government, to do everything in our power to ensure that children are protected. I am not convinced, thus far, that we are doing that, and therefore I commend the establishment of this select committee for the right reasons; not for the allegations of it being a political circus or anything like that, but for the right reasons of getting the proper models, proper implementation and processes, etc., in place for the future wellbeing of the children of our state.

Amendment carried; motion as amended carried.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (17:59): I move:

That the select committee consist of the Hon. Russell Wortley, the Hon. Robert Lucas, the Hon. Stephen Wade, the Hon. Kyam Maher and the mover.

Motion carried.

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

That the select committee have power to send for persons, papers and records and to adjourn from place to place and to report on 27 November 2013.

Motion carried.

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