Page 2027 - Week 07 - Thursday, 17 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
To get in here and use that sort of a question to raise that stupid and grubby point about reducing the age of consent really does not do Mr Cornwell credit. I would, however, in relation to the age of consent, explain to Mr Cornwell what the law is in the ACT, which is precisely what the platform of the Labor Party refers to; that is, acts of sexual involvement between young people are not criminal offences in the ACT. That is what the Labor Party platform refers to. Where there is a two-year age difference, or less than two years, it is not a criminal offence for a 13-year-old and a 14-year-old to engage in heterosexual activity.
Mr Cornwell: We are not talking about 13- and 14-year-olds.
MR CONNOLLY: You are talking about allegations about a young person and an adult. Welfare is across this case; it has been involved in this case. There are very complex family relationships here, very nasty allegations on all sides. I am not going to air that dirty linen in this place. You pick an individual welfare case and make sweeping allegations, stupid statements, about pro-incest bias in the welfare authorities, denigrating welfare authorities. I would expect that every member of this Assembly - well, perhaps every member but you - would expect child welfare authorities to take allegations of sexual assault of children very seriously. To talk about the pro-incest bias of welfare authorities, suggesting that they are overzealous in being wary and prosecuting child sexual assaults, panders to the worst sort of biases out there in the community against the welfare sector. It does the Liberal Party no credit to have this sort of performance in the Assembly.
Madam Speaker, welfare was involved in that case. The facts of that case are not as stated in the particular newspaper report. I spoke to the journalist concerned, but I said to him, "You would understand that I cannot go into details of individual matters with you". Indeed, the journalist did understand that and did not expect me to do that. Nor will I do that in a public forum here. But, if Mr Cornwell is genuinely concerned about that case, I can arrange for an officer to brief him about it, as much as I have been briefed about it.
MR CORNWELL: I ask a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. I now quote from the Canberra Times article one of the people concerned in this: "I would advise no-one to touch welfare with a 40-foot pole. They didn't provide a service to the family". Would you like to comment further, Minister?
MR CONNOLLY: That may be the view of one individual. You refer to the circumstances about why welfare was wary of individuals. I am not going to go further into it. People can make allegations about welfare. I am satisfied that welfare handled that case properly. If Mr Cornwell is concerned about that case or other cases, I would urge him to raise them with my office. We will look at the individual circumstances and brief him. To come in here and run that sort of question, as I say, panders to that bias out there in the community about welfare and sexual assault matters. I expect my welfare officers to take any allegation of sexual assault of children extremely seriously. I know that a lot of people get annoyed about that; but that is the case, and it will be the case so long as I am responsible for the department.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .