BishopAccountability.org
 
 

WA Premier Condemns Labor, Independent over Sex Abuse Legislation Debate

By Andrew O'Connor
ABC News
October 14, 2016

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-14/colin-barnett-abuse-legislation-debate/7932960

PHOTO: Mr Barnett said Thursday's outburst showed a lack of respect to abuse victims. (ABC News: Andrew O'Connor)

The WA Premier has accused Labor and a former Cabinet colleague of degrading debate on a bill to remove time limits on sexual abuse victims seeking compensation.

The private members bill was introduced by Liberal MP Graham Jacobs last year and was brought on for debate in the Legislative Assembly late yesterday.

But with sexual assault victims in the public gallery, debate was adjourned after acrimonious exchanges between shadow attorney-general John Quigley and Premier Colin Barnett.

The Premier was also targeted by former Cabinet colleague Rob Johnson.

"I think it showed a complete lack of respect to those victims of child abuse," Mr Barnett told reporters on Friday.

"They deserved that issue to get a fair and proper and thoughtful and compassionate hearing.

"There was no sign of that at all in the comments and approach of John Quigley and Rob Johnson."

Mr Quigley criticised Attorney-General Michael Mischin's unwillingness to waive the six year statute of limitations for victims abused in the state-run St Andrew's school hostel in Katanning in the 1980s and 1990s.

"The Attorney-General's position locks these victims out of the legal system because they did not commence their action within six years," he told Parliament.

"(He) is victimising Western Australian children."

The Premier responded, calling Mr Quigley's comment "absolutely disgraceful".

Former Liberal police minister turned independent Rob Johnson urged the Premier to expedite passage of the bill.

But when the Liberal Leader of the House, John Day, moved to adjourn debate, Mr Johnson stormed out of the Legislative Assembly calling the Premier a "disgraceful turd".

That outburst resulted in his suspension from Parliament.

"I think to use language like that in a public forum of the West Australian Parliament was very poor form," Mr Barnett said.

"In good faith, we brought on Graham Jacob's bill. It was going to be just start the debate so people could express their view and the Labor Party and Rob Johnson chose not to do that."

Hostile debate a distraction, says bill's author

The Premier said he supported the intent of the bill, but believed it was a complex area of law which needed close and careful consideration.

The proposed legislation aims to widen the scope for victims of sexual abuse to seek damages, by removing the current six year statute of limitations.

The Premier said with sexual assault victims watching from the public gallery, the bill deserved more considered debate from Labor and Mr Johnson.

"All they simply did was to attack the Government when we were, I think, doing the fair and proper and compassionate thing in bringing this on," he said.

Abuse victim Kirsty Pratt watched events unfold in the Parliament gallery, and told ABC radio she felt the Government had used "underhanded tactics" to delay debate.

"I don't hold a lot of hope, given what I witness, I don't hold a lot of hope that under this Government, we will effect this change," she told ABC 720 Mornings on Friday.

Speaking on Fairfax Radio, Liberal MP Graham Jacobs described Thursday's hostile debate as a distraction.

"The bill to remove the statute of limitations, everybody agrees with. I think it's an important matter we need to address as a Government, as a community," he said.

Dr Jacobs said a number of technical issues in the bill had been addressed by amendments, but he was no longer sure the Government supported the bill.

"The Attorney-General does not agree with this. He believes it's going to lead to a flood of retrospective claims that is going to break the bank," he said.

Mr Barnett said there were complex legal issues involved in making the changes, and some apparent omissions in the bill itself.

"The bill would seem to be addressing children who are in government institutions," he said.

"What about those that were run by the churches? The Salvation Army? Where do they stand? They are legitimate issues."

But he said he supported the intent of the bill and what Dr Jacobs was seeking to achieve.

 

 

 

 

 




.

 
 

Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.