HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2021-05-06 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Statutes Amendment (Recommendations of Independent Inquiry into Child Protection) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 April 2021.)

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (16:41): I rise as the lead speaker for the opposition to support the amendments to the Statutes Amendment (Recommendations of Independent Inquiry into Child Protection) Bill. Labor welcomes any measures that will better protect children and young people from neglect, violence and sexual abuse. In fact, Labor had itself drafted two similar amendments based on the recommendations of retired judge Paul Rice's scathing review of the failures of this government and its child protection minister.

I would like to take this moment to thank the member for Reynell, Katrine Hildyard, in the other place for her pursuit and dedication to holding the government and the minister to account on these recommendations.

Given the government's amendments cover off on Labor's proposed measures, we have chosen to support the government's position. As per Mr Rice's recommendations, the maximum penalty for a breach of written directions will be increased from three years to four for a first contravention. Mr Rice also recommended that a person arrested for the breach of a written direction be a prescribed applicant for the purpose of the Bail Act 1985.

What happened to the two 13-year-old girls in care who were abused by paedophiles, which led to the Rice review, is utterly shocking. Further, that the minister responsible for keeping children in state care safe had absolutely no idea that this had even occurred until the paedophiles were convicted and she was contacted by the media, not once but twice, is beyond comprehension.

Mr Rice found that the minister, the member for Adelaide, the Hon. Rachel Sanderson, failed to inform the department that she wanted to know about the serious sexual abuse of children under guardianship. Instead of taking responsibility and formally probing for answers, the minister has had more responsibilities taken from her.

In 2019, significant functions focusing on early intervention and prevention were stripped from the responsibility of Minister Sanderson and allocated to the Department of Human Services. In the wake of this damning review, the minister has had the responsibility for critical incident reporting taken from her and given to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

The Guardian for Children and Young People warned the government in her last annual report that children in residential care continue to be targeted by paedophiles. Despite this, Minister Sanderson has not agreed to the guardian's request for a community visitor scheme for children in residential care, which would provide them with an extra layer of protection and support.

Increases in missing person reports is another heartbreaking example of a child protection system under extreme stress that is not keeping kids safe. We have also learnt recently that workers in residential care homes are so understaffed that they are unable to fulfil their responsibilities under a memorandum of understanding with SAPOL to help look for children who go missing from care. This is just unacceptable. Children in care should be able to thrive, and this means being safe, cared for and having someone know where they are.

Ministers are at the decision-making table to be a voice for the South Australians they have been sworn in to protect. Mistakes can happen, but this was not a mistake; it was a proven failing. I am all for community engagement, but it beggars belief that the Minister for Child Protection was out in her electorate only hours after finding out through the media that a second young girl was abused in state care. Was this not the time to be with your department to formally question and ask and put steps in process so that this could not happen again? Instead, the minister, the member for Adelaide, was out in her electorate, taking happy snaps. This is a sad example of a minister putting their personal interests before the interests of children in state care.

The Marshall government must lift its game on child protection. They need a strong voice that will listen, act and deliver. The South Australian community must be assured that everything possible is being done to ensure this never happens again.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (16:46): I rise to speak on behalf of SA-Best on the Statutes Amendment (Recommendations of Independent Inquiry into Child Protection) Bill 2021 and to indicate our support for the bill. As we know, the bill seeks to implement two very sensible recommendations for change, stemming from Paul Rice QC's independent inquiry into the Department for Child Protection. Of course, that review was commissioned by the Attorney-General, following the sentencing of two paedophiles late last year. Both were convicted of sexual offences against teenage girls under the guardianship of the chief executive.

I might just pause here to point out that, despite guardianship shifting from the chief executive under the relatively new Children and Young People (Safety) Act, the minister continues to be responsible to parliament for the administration and supervision of the department. The buck still stops with the minister, as it should. It became apparent, following the sentencing of both offenders, that the minister had no prior knowledge of these extremely serious incidents. How on earth she was not told or why she did not ensure she was adequately informed on the first occasion is troubling, to say the least. Even more troubling, given the intense media spotlight following the first case, is that it again happened under her watch three months later. For the second time, the minister found out when we all did.

These were extremely serious incidents. One of the teenage victims became pregnant as a result of the offending and the other was already pregnant. There were red flags everywhere. The review considered the gaps in internal operating procedures and protocols, especially when it came to information sharing, that culminated in these two disturbing incidents occurring. The recommendations relating to those gaps are not under our consideration for the purposes of this bill. It is the circumstances of the second case that have largely prompted the amendments before us.

Briefly, Philip McIntosh was about 20 years old when he met the already pregnant teenage victim living in a placement, and an unlawful sexual relationship followed. The victim was 28 weeks pregnant when she moved in with McIntosh and his partner. At the time, he was abusing drugs and alcohol and was the subject of a domestic violence intervention order in relation to his partner. He also had unmanaged mental health issues.

The four-year-old child he had with his partner had already been removed by the department. It was an extremely dangerous situation. The department found it difficult to forcibly remove the victim from the situation she was in, and she continually absconded from her placement in favour of residing with her abuser. As we all know, a 13 or 14 year old cannot lawfully consent to a sexual relationship with a 20-year-old man.

McIntosh was served by the CE with two written directions pursuant to section 86 of the act. The first directed him not to harbour or conceal, or attempt to harbour or conceal, or assist any other person to harbour or conceal the victim. Two months later, he was also issued with a direction to not communicate or attempt to communicate with a minor. The written directions clearly had little effect. He was arrested but released on bail after five days in custody, only to resume contact with the victim once again. The threat of a 12-month maximum penalty was clearly no deterrent at all.

As Rice considered in making the recommendation to increase the penalty, a written direction is similar to an intervention order but, in contrast, the maximum penalty for breaching an intervention order is two years' imprisonment. The current 12-month penalty for breaching a written direction is on par with careless driving or interfering with the vehicle identification plate. It should certainly attract a more serious penalty than those comparatively minor offences and I believe this bill goes some way to addressing that by proposing three years for a first contravention and four years for second and subsequent contraventions.

I think it is also really important at this stage to highlight that this is by no means the first time these sorts of instances have occurred. As many of us in this place would know well, this has occurred and we have been advised that this is occurring historically in this jurisdiction and has continued to occur without any appropriate action in some instances.

In 2017, Mr John Ternezis’s fight for justice for his daughter, who was trapped and became the victim of a perpetrator from the age of 14, was finally vindicated by the District Court after a long 17-year battle. For all of those 17 years, Mr Ternezis fought for his daughter who, as I said, was in an illegal sexual relationship from age 14 with a much older male predator who gave her drugs and who ultimately fathered her child.

He was twice her age and, at the time, authorities across the board failed to intervene. All this happened while she was a ward of the state. It was only following findings of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse that the perpetrator, Andrew Charles Smith, was charged with one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. I remember Mr Ternezis well. I remember when he visited our offices at the time and his frustration at not getting any action. I remember the attempts that were made to help him and I remember at every turn the answer was always, 'There is nothing for us to do.'

It was very difficult because you had a very frustrated father in front of you and every effort that he and others made seemed to be in vain. He failed to convince the former FAYS authorities to act. He failed to convince successive welfare ministers, including Dean Brown, Jay Weatherill, Jennifer Rankine, the former Premier Mike Rann, and two state ombudsmen, to act and to investigate the handling of his daughter's case as a state ward and her relationship with her perpetrator. Mr Ternezis failed to convince them all, even though welfare authorities were aware of prior convictions that this man had concerning another minor. He failed to convince the Office for Public Integrity. He took knock after knock after knock but, thankfully, he did not give up.

When news first broke of these pregnancies, the first thing that I thought of was Mr Ternezis. Our combined failures to help him get justice for his daughter has and always will stay with me. I am pleased that after 17 long years it finally resulted in vindication for him and his daughter and their family. But I am disappointed that at every step of the way we failed them.

I am also horrified that in preceding years the same sorts of instances—the precise same sorts of instances as those highlighted for so long by Mr Ternezis—were able to continue again and again, and to go unaccounted for, and for ministers to shield themselves of any responsibility or accountability in relation to those cases.

They have let it continue unchecked for a very long time. This is not something that arose last year. It is not something that arose this year. It is something that we know historically has been taking place for a very long time, and we know it has been going unaddressed by our authorities for a very long time.

In February of this year, it was revealed that there were five minors in state care who were pregnant. It was revealed that the Department for Child Protection conceded that it did not even keep records of the number of pregnancies involving minors under the guardianship of the state. It did so knowing full well of many other cases involving sexual offending against minors. That, to me, simply beggars belief. I think Mr Ternezis's case goes to the very heart of what we are doing here and is illustrative of our failures to act over a very long period of time.

The second recommendation adopted in this bill is the inclusion of a person arrested for breaching a written direction as a prescribed applicant under the Bail Act. Whereas ordinarily bail is presumed in the absence of compelling reasons, in the future an offender like McIntosh or Smith will not easily be given the opportunity to reoffend in the community. A person who breaches a written direction will need to establish special circumstances to justify his or her release on bail, and that is a very welcome step.

Reversing the onus against the presumption of bail is another very useful tool in the toolkit, providing an additional layer of protection for vulnerable children. I think we all know that children under guardianship are uniquely vulnerable. They depend on us to get it right, and for too long we have got it absolutely wrong. The Rice review has highlighted some of the deficiencies within the department, including what is known as 'child protection fatigue'. It is certainly indicative of a desensitised department when children become pregnant while in state care and they are not red flagged to the minister, whatever the reason.

We will certainly have more to say about the Department for Child Protection when we consider the children and young people amendment bill coming our way. With those words today, and until the committee stage of the debate, I indicate our wholehearted support for the bill before us.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (16:57): I thank honourable members for their contributions to the second reading and for their indications of support for the legislation.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (16:59): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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