Page 475 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 24 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
ADJOURNMENT
Motion (by Mr Berry) proposed:
That the Assembly do now adjourn.
Child Abuse
MR STEVENSON (5.07): In Australia there have been a disquieting number of alleged cases of misconduct by government community welfare departments. Most people have heard unsettling things about the so-called Children of God case involving a large number of children taken from their parents in an early morning raid for reasons that were later seen by a magistrate not to be adequate. One wonders how many other such cases there have been.
There was one case in Sydney involving a Sydney man with which I had some involvement. Mr Andy Soames's son was sexually abused by a number of women at a women's refuge centre when at the age of two he was residing there in the custody of his mother. This abuse continued for four years until, after a horrendous saga, the father won custody. By this time the boy, Sammy, had suffered permanent physical damage due to the failure of the government welfare people involved to exercise their duty of care properly. Although affidavits from five independent witnesses were available the authorities, it seems, preferred to be advised by their staff who had defamed Mr Soames shamelessly and had denigrated his notices to the court on a number of occasions. I hear someone say, "Oh dear". There is a 44-page document titled "Paradoxically Australia". I suggest that if members want to read about this case, which would seem unbelievable, they contact me and I will be happy to make it available to them.
During these four years Mr Soames was defamed again and again. There were allegations spread that he was placing bombs in solicitors' offices. He made, during that time, over 5,000 phone calls and over 2,500 personal visits to try to gain justice. Prior to hearing about this case and meeting Mr Soames I had considered that I was persistent; but I realise, in the light of true persistence, that I may not have anywhere near that same degree of persistence. At one time Mr Soames doorknocked almost an entire suburb, looking for a particular Minister he felt may be able to help him. These are the lengths he went to. He went to churches; he went to police, to solicitors, to civil liberty agencies, to law reform organisations, to the courts, to politicians - you name it.
It is not a funny case at all; it is an absolute tragedy. I have compelling evidence that certain officers, under the direction of their superiors, refused to respond to subpoenas to appear in court and/or perjured themselves and concealed the identity of one of the child's assailants. Taking action for legal redress subsequently has proved extremely difficult for Mr Soames in that legal aid grants are resisted when one wants to sue the government. It seems to me to be now a common practice that the Legal Aid Commission specifies which barrister may give them an opinion on the merits of a case. The danger here is that mutual interest may interfere with proper advice. The commission may have an interest in conserving its funds by denying grants generally, and barristers who want more briefs from the government may feel under some pressure to make negative adjudications.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .