Debelle report on 7:30SA
20/09/2013
7.30SA 20/9/2013 Inquiry into Debelle report: full interview transcript To view full interview go to:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-20/new-inquiry-into-child-abuse/4972608
ROYAL
Premier, thanks for your time.
PREMIER
Good to be with you.
ROYAL
Why won’t you appear before this committee?
PREMIER
Well it’s a transparent political smear and I’m interested in child protection, not the politics of child protection.
ROYAL
There are unanswered questions though out of the Debelle inquiry – these people might be about child protection rather than smearing you.
PREMIER
The central issues in the Debelle inquiry were resolved, and that’s the reason we actually have Royal Commissions. Royal Commissions are important institutions.
ROYAL
Can we come back to why you won’t appear? A number of people – everyone but your side voted for this, do you think Kelly Vincent from Dignity for Disability is interested in smearing you? Do you think John Darley is interested in smearing you?
PREMIER
There may be some people that have an interest in proper matters but the motive force for this is the Liberal party. We’re six months out from a state election and you only need to look at the contributions that were made by Mister Lucas in the Upper House in calling for the establishment of this matter – he made remarks that he couldn’t have made outside of Parliament because if he’d made them outside of Parliament he would’ve exposed himself to a massive defamation action, so that’s what this is about and I think that the cruel hoax that the Liberal party are playing on other people that actually do want to do something serious about child protection is that they are using their genuine concerns as a cover for their transparently political attack on me and my senior ministers, so let’s be really clear about what it’s about – it’s about the very thing that Mister Lucas was seeking to advance, that is a smear about me and my character and seeking to get at our Government by using child protection for political purposes.
ROYAL
Your character has been completely vouched for by Justice Debelle, you’ve got nothing to fear.
PREMIER
Well, no, that’s not the purpose of the inquiry, you see. The purpose of the inquiry is to allow Mister Lucas and all those …
ROYAL
The purpose of the inquiry is to look at things that weren’t considered by Justice Debelle. We’ll come back to that in a moment. Can I ask you another question?
PREMIER
Mm.
ROYAL
If you had known on December 2nd, if you had been told, would you have acted differently?
PREMIER
Well what Mister Debelle said is that we were entitled to rely upon the information that we received from the Education Department.
ROYAL
That is a separate question.
PREMIER
No it’s not actually. It’s actually quite an important question, because what’s lost in all of this is what precisely my office was told. And what they were told is that something awful had happened at a school, a person had been arrested and that parents were being informed. Now, as it happened, parents weren’t being informed but at the time we were entitled to rely upon it.
ROYAL
Justice Debelle found that you and your staff were entitled to believe that the Department was acting correctly. It didn’t. What he also found was that your staff were not entitled to not tell you – they had an obligation to tell you. He was really clear about that.
PREMIER
He was.
ROYAL
If you had been told, would you have acted differently?
PREMIER
The purpose that he said that I should have been told was to ensure that I wasn’t embarrassed say that if somebody has asked me about this in a …
ROYAL
… last line of defence for those people down there – is that correct? In terms of ensuring a good outcome, the Minister’s the last line of defence.
PREMIER
Of course, I have obligations to protect children and that is my responsibility and that responsibility extends to putting in place the processes, the systems in place, to make sure that children are kept safe in our schools and indeed everywhere in our state and I take that obligation incredibly seriously.
ROYAL
Indeed, and you were robbed of the opportunity to do that and those parents were robbed of the opportunity to have your intervention because your staff failed in their obligations to inform you …
PREMIER
No …
ROYAL
… and Justice Debelle finds that inexplicable.
PREMIER
No.
ROYAL
That’s exactly what he said.
PREMIER
No, what he says is even if I had have been told, even if I had have been told, I would’ve also just as my staff did, entitled to assume that matters were being handled properly because we were told they were being handled properly. And he makes, he adopts the view that was put to him by my Chief of Staff – that is, this is a very large organisation with expertise dealing with sensitive matters and we were entitled to accept that they were conducting themselves properly, which they weren’t …and that is a very significant matter.
ROYAL
The opportunity was there for you to have acted differently. Are you saying that you wouldn’t have?
PREMIER
No – who knows what would have happened. It depends on what is the nature of the information I was presented.
ROYAL
That is precisely the point because the nature, or the lack of information that you were presented with robbed you and robbed those parents of that opportunity. Now, Justice Debelle gives you a glowing character reference – he says you are a witness of truth, you were not informed, you did not know – but he went on to say less rosy about your defence of your staff in terms of why they didn’t tell you. He says your explanation is inadequate and it misses the point.
PREMIER
Hmm.
ROYAL
That’s worth exploring, surely?
PREMIER
I accept all of the findings of Mister Debelle and I accept responsibility for them. I’ve counselled my staff about these matters and they are important matters and I accept that and I’ve put in place processes to make sure that these things won’t happen in the future but let’s be really clear about what was actually found here. What was found here is that people within the Department did not behave appropriately and those people are facing disciplinary action and those are matters that are being dealt with.
ROYAL
And you were robbed of your ability as the Minister, the port of last resort in a democracy, to oversee that to perhaps lead to a different outcome. That’s a fact.
PREMIER
Well, I think what needs to be put against that is what Mister Debelle found – that even if I’d received that information I would have been entitled to assume, just as my staff did that the matter was being handled appropriately. What he said is that I should have been informed in case there were circumstances where I may have been confronted with this matter and been embarrassed and frankly my embarrassment or otherwise I think is a relatively minor matter as against the significance of the issues that are at stake here. So, I think if one looks at precisely what was found there is no doubt that the most significant failings actually occurred at the level of the Department where improper advice was transmitted to parents about what they could and couldn’t tell reporters or the community.
ROYAL
There’s no doubt about that – the Department failed in a spectacular fashion. Why did you staff not tell you? You’ve said you’ve counselled them. I presume part of that was you sitting them down and asking them why didn’t you tell me?
PREMIER
They gave the information to the Royal Commissioner which he accepted.
ROYAL
But what did they tell you – you as their leader, the person who sets the standards of expectation, of behaviour, the flow of information. What did they tell you about why they hadn’t told you?
PREMIER
Precisely the same thing that they told the Royal Commissioner – that is that matters of this sort that involve police matters are matters that would be entirely inappropriate for them to intervene in – so when they’re being told, when they’re being told that a matter is being handled appropriately by a Department they don’t intervene and double check that it has been …
ROYAL
The point is why they didn’t tell you and you …
PREMIER
… they were being told it was being handled appropriately.
ROYAL
Two other Education Ministers have said that this hit a level, you included, where the Minister should have been informed. You should have been informed. You should have been told.
PREMIER
We should have been given a very substantial briefing about exactly what was happening at this school, especially when things started to go awry. As far as we could tell within the office the matter was being handled appropriately …
ROYAL
Well you couldn’t tell because you didn’t know.
PREMIER
My advisors were being told that matter was being handled appropriately.
ROYAL
Well they were told once, they didn’t get any other advice since then.
PREMIER
Exactly …
ROYAL
So there was no-one going over …
PREMIER
No, but Mister Debelle finds that they were entitled to assume that the matter was being handled appropriately because they were initially told all of the steps that one would’ve expected to be taken were being taken.
ROYAL
And he also finds that they were not entitled not to tell you. They failed their duty. Why did they do that? Could you tell us why? What did they tell you?
PREMIER
Because as far as they could tell the matter was being handled appropriately.
ROYAL
They are separate things…
PREMIER
I don’t accept that …
ROYAL
… they are entitled to assume that the Department is handling it properly, they are not entitled not to tell you. They’re separate things. That does not explain that – why didn’t they tell you?
PREMIER
Because they thought the matter was being handled appropriately and so there was no cause to raise the matter. If for instance they’d been told this is all going awry, a dispute has arisen at the level of the school about communication with parents that would have been cause to escalate that. You see, there are many things that go on within a ministerial office. We spend a lot of our time dealing with things that are going awry. We tend not to spend as much time dealing with things we’re told are going according to plan. And so in terms of the resources they have to apply themselves over an agency that has 28,000 employees who you would expect to be dealing with these matters a relatively small ministerial office tends to only supervise those things that end up becoming matters of dispute.
ROYAL
Four people found out about this at different points in time, two we know for sure were in your office. One Commissioner Debelle couldn’t find the identity of that person and later on at the end of this case an advisor in Grace Portolesi’s office becomes aware of this. Four people, two different times, same mistake – they don’t tell the Minister. That’s a pattern.
PREMIER
No, I don’t accept that …
ROYAL
How do you explain four different people …
PREMIER
… we’re talking very different matters. You’re talking about media advisors almost two years after the event that are copied into a particular police matter that’s being handled in a particular way. That’s not material to the decisions that were made right at the beginning to advise parents or not. They are completely different matters.
ROYAL
Sure, and I understand that. But I guess the point that I’m getting at is, there is – how do we put this simply – this is so screamingly obvious and you I think at one point in time used terms similar to that in terms of the Department letting you know, screamingly obvious – a school employee abuses a child on school grounds. If that doesn’t become a matter where you’re automatically notified, what does?
PREMIER
What happens within agencies, within police departments, within child protection departments, school departments – bad things happen. Now they handled in the ordinary course by our relevant paid professional public servants. They have well organised policies and processes for dealing with those matters.
ROYAL
Why isn’t that a situation where there’s no negotiation where the Minister must know because I take it you would have preferred to know rather than not know, wouldn’t you?
PREMIER
Of course, but I expect to be told about those matters that require my attention. If there are things that are being handled appropriately according to protocols it would be a very unusual matter for a political office to interfere in what is essentially a police matter. But when there is …
ROYAL
[Unclear] I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be rude, but this isn’t about interfering with police, this is about why they didn’t tell you, giving you the full opportunity to act against a backdrop of something that really is obvious. I guess you would want to know now. If you had your time over again you’d want to be told would you not?
PREMIER
Of course. Look, as soon as I became aware that with the Education Department there were issue which weren’t being escalated to the Ministerial office which occurred about another matter that occurred sometime after this we put in place protocols to ensure that the Minister’s office were told about these matters and of course more information is better than less information for a Minister so that they can grapple with all of the relevant issues. But let’s make no mistake about this – this is an attempt by the Opposition to have a re-run of the Royal Commission so that they can smear people around me and by reference me and you don’t need to go any further than the Hansard from the Upper House when Mister Lucas was saying things that he would not repeat outside of Parliament because he’d know that he could not because he would be sued for defamation so let’s be very clear about what the over-arching purpose of this. Sure they want to talk about ancilliary matters so that they can get to the point of being able to make their smear six months out from the state election.
ROYAL
Did Kate Baldock, who found about this in February, tell her Minister Grace Portolesi before March?
PREMIER
I don’t know, and it is irrelevant to the matters that were found by the Royal Commission. What the Royal Commission found about all of the involvement of Ms Baldock and also …
ROYAL
The Royal Commissioner didn’t interview Ms Baldock.
PREMIER
He had material which was relevant to the matters that are being discussed at the moment and what he found is that there was no criticism of both the Minister at the time, the next Minister after I held the portfolio, or of any of her advisors. He had the material that is being touted around by the Opposition at the moment and he reached the conclusion that there was no criticism of either the Minister or any of her staff. That is a finding that he made and so there can be no benefit or no purpose in seeking to drag advisors before a select committee other than a political purpose.
ROYAL
They can be compelled though can’t they?
PREMIER
Well, I understand that they can but it is just a transparently political purpose. What gives the game away in in the Upper House is that the witnesses that they’re seeking to call are politicians and advisors. If they were interested in matters of child protection they would be interrogating those people that could make some positive contributions to improve the child protection systems in South Australia. And can I say something about the child protection system in South Australia – when I came into Government back in 2002 along with my colleagues, within three weeks of coming into office we instituted the Layton inquiry into child protection because we found a dysfunctional child protection system. We had this extraordinary situation where our child protection system was ridiculously under-resourced, about $60 million per annum. It’s now $180 million per annum, we tripled the amount of resources going into our child protection system.
ROYAL
And yet clearly in your office people failed to tell you.
PREMIER
I instituted, when I was in the role of Child Protection Minister, a response to the Layton inquiry …
ROYAL
But clearly, people still don’t get it, and in your own office they don’t get it. Can I ask you …
PREMIER
I want to make this point because it’s very important.
ROYAL
This might clear things up, perhaps. Did you at any point in time clearly articulate to your staff that this sort of scenario exactly meets the standards where you need to be told?
PREMIER
Of course there were expectations that I should be told about this sort of thing.
ROYAL
What I asked, did you clearly articulate to your staff at any point in time that the type of situation that unfolded at this school meets the standard where, no ifs, no buts, you get told. Did you ever clearly articulate that expectation?
PREMIER
Absolutely, absolutely. And when it became clear before any of this emerged in another case when my office wasn’t told, a bullying case that concerned a northern suburbs school when we weren’t told about important matters …
ROYAL
I’m asking you about your staff. You’re saying, your political advisors, you clearly articulated that this type of situation was the type of situation they needed to tell you about. Now they didn’t tell you about it, and you’re not sacking them. What does somebody have to do in your office to get dismissed?
PREMIER
Let’s put this in context – what they didn’t tell me about was something which was happening appropriately. That’s what they were told – they were being told matters were being handled appropriately. It was my judgement that that mistake, having regard to all of their other meritorious service, did not justify dismissal. Was it a mistake? Of course it was. Did it require censure and reprimand? Yes. Were they reprimanded? Yes.
ROYAL
But it was not a mistake that you contributed to by failing to clearly articulate your expectations?
PREMIER
No, they knew that these are matters which should have been brought to my attention and I think that should have been absolutely because of an earlier matter where this was really I suppose raised. Another matter, an unrelated matter.
ROYAL
A rhetorical question, I suppose. You wouldn’t count this as one of your finest moments would you?
PREMIER
That’s what I want to talk about. I want to talk about the record of achievement not only of this Government but of myself in relation to child protection. We found a child protection system which was dysfunctional when we came into office. Within three weeks we commissioned the Layton review. I’ve tripled the number of resources going into child protection. I instituted the Mullighan inquiry into child sexual abuse which shined a light on child sexual abuse in this state – a model which was so successful it’s now being copied by the Federal Government in their Royal Commission and we have done more in this state to shine a light on the evil of child sexual abuse than any Government that has come before us or any Government in this nation.
ROYAL
And now arguably through your handling of this matter you’ve had a Royal Commission which hasn’t politically put it to bed, you have an inquiry in the Upper House that you don’t have control of, your characterisation of it is politically motivated, and you face an election soon. Your ability to talk about those things clearly is hampered.
PREMIER
No, I don’t accept that. We instituted the Debelle Royal Commission. It was described by the Opposition as unnecessary. It’s made 43 important recommendations on which we have acted and the reason we put in place a Royal Commission is because the community was entitled to be satisfied in a reliable way about what happened. That’s why we have Royal Commissions. Royal Commissions are important public institutions, they’re put in place so the community can have confidence about their findings. What we have is an Opposition that wants to cast doubt on those findings for purely political purposes. So what they’re doing is they’re elevating their own political interests above the important public interest in public confidence in important institutions like the Royal Commission. Now I think they will be rightly criticised for that error of judgement and I am proud to say that we have put child protection at the front and centre of everything that we have done since the early days of coming into office in 2002. Does that mean that awful things may not still occur? Of course they will. Will we do everything we possibly can to try and avoid that and prevent it? Yes we will.
ROYAL
Do your colleagues share that confidence … in other words are your colleagues satisfied with how you’ve handled this?
PREMIER
Absolutely. They understand that we have done everything we possibly can to protect our most vulnerable citizens, our children, the policy measures that we’ve put in place, and they understand that awful things do go on.
ROYAL
No-one’s got buyer’s regret though in terms of putting you into this job, in terms of you handling this?
PREMIER
I have absolutely no doubt that I have the full confidence of my colleagues.
ROYAL
Premier, it’s been a pleasure. Thanks very much for your time.
