❓ Question regarding the SafeCare program and its potential to expose sexually abused children to further harm, and whether the Minister agrees with the program director's statement that SafeCare is independent of the law. The Minister defends the program, highlighting its importance in treating perpetrators and its bipartisan support.
AnsweredQoN 261Legislative Assembly
Asked
12 May 2004
Member
Portfolio
Community Development, Women’s
Interests, Seniors and Youth
QuestionView source ↗
It is Law Week in Western Australia, and its theme was outlined in The West Australian on Monday as follows - No one is above the law - not lawyers, nor the media, nor the Government. It offends our sense of justice if people can flout the law and get away with it . . . (1) Why is the minister’s Government continuing to allow the program SafeCare, which exposes sexually abused children to further sexual molestation by their offenders and undermines the criminal justice system, to exist? (2) Does the minister agree with the comments of SafeCare program director, Christabel Chamarette, who said on Channel Nine on Friday that SafeCare is independent of the law? Ms S.M. McHALE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) I thank the member for Nedlands for her question. She has been peddling her dissatisfaction with SafeCare for quite a number of months. She cannot get her head around the complexity of sexual abuse and the complexity of the behaviour of perpetrators. I am not in the business of closing down a service just because a member of the Opposition cannot get her head around the complexity of perpetrators. I saw the article in The Australian today. Once again the Opposition has put its support for mandatory reporting on the public record, and is somehow linking SafeCare to its policy position. That is its right. However, is it not interesting that when in government it refused to support mandatory reporting and had nothing to do with it? People can say whatever they like in opposition, but in government it is a different matter. SafeCare has been funded by both Governments since about 1990. Ms S.E. Walker: In what form? Ms S.M. McHALE: For the service that the member is talking about. The Liberal Government funded SafeCare and had no problems with it. The Labor Government has funded the work around perpetrators and their families, and has had no problem with that. However, the member for Nedlands has a problem with it because she cannot get her head around the complexities. It is important to understand that with child sexual abuse and the treatment of perpetrators, a range of services are needed. The services for perpetrators are very limited. This is one service that is attracting national interest. The importance of this service is that it grew out of a recognition by clients that they would come forward and seek treatment a lot earlier if they would not automatically be subject to proceedings in a criminal court. The families did not want to raise the matter because of the fear of losing the perpetrator from the family. This is the reality that we are dealing with. Therefore, I ask the question: is it not better to have a service which everybody other than the member for Nedlands thinks is serving a purpose and which allows perpetrators to come forward and seek treatment, rather than allowing them to continue to abuse the kids in their families behind closed doors? That is the important message. This service has been reviewed, and I understand that it has just received federal funding for another review. I am not in the business of closing a service because the member for Nedlands does not like it and cannot get her head around it. That is the important matter.
It offends our sense of justice if people can flout the law and get away with it . . .
(2) Does the minister agree with the comments of SafeCare program director, Christabel Chamarette, who said on Channel Nine on Friday that SafeCare is independent of the law? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1)-(2) I thank the member for Nedlands for her question. She has been peddling her dissatisfaction with SafeCare for quite a number of months. She cannot get her head around the complexity of sexual abuse and the complexity of the behaviour of perpetrators. I am not in the business of closing down a service just because a member of the Opposition cannot get her head around the complexity of perpetrators. I saw the article in The Australian today. Once again the Opposition has put its support for mandatory reporting on the public record, and is somehow linking SafeCare to its policy position. That is its right. However, is it not interesting that when in government it refused to support mandatory reporting and had nothing to do with it? People can say whatever they like in opposition, but in government it is a different matter. SafeCare has been funded by both Governments since about 1990. Ms S.E. Walker: In what form? Ms S.M. McHALE: For the service that the member is talking about. The Liberal Government funded SafeCare and had no problems with it. The Labor Government has funded the work around perpetrators and their families, and has had no problem with that. However, the member for Nedlands has a problem with it because she cannot get her head around the complexities. It is important to understand that with child sexual abuse and the treatment of perpetrators, a range of services are needed. The services for perpetrators are very limited. This is one service that is attracting national interest. The importance of this service is that it grew out of a recognition by clients that they would come forward and seek treatment a lot earlier if they would not automatically be subject to proceedings in a criminal court. The families did not want to raise the matter because of the fear of losing the perpetrator from the family. This is the reality that we are dealing with. Therefore, I ask the question: is it not better to have a service which everybody other than the member for Nedlands thinks is serving a purpose and which allows perpetrators to come forward and seek treatment, rather than allowing them to continue to abuse the kids in their families behind closed doors? That is the important message. This service has been reviewed, and I understand that it has just received federal funding for another review. I am not in the business of closing a service because the member for Nedlands does not like it and cannot get her head around it. That is the important matter.
Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1)-(2) I thank the member for Nedlands for her question. She has been peddling her dissatisfaction with SafeCare for quite a number of months. She cannot get her head around the complexity of sexual abuse and the complexity of the behaviour of perpetrators. I am not in the business of closing down a service just because a member of the Opposition cannot get her head around the complexity of perpetrators. I saw the article in The Australian today. Once again the Opposition has put its support for mandatory reporting on the public record, and is somehow linking SafeCare to its policy position. That is its right. However, is it not interesting that when in government it refused to support mandatory reporting and had nothing to do with it? People can say whatever they like in opposition, but in government it is a different matter. SafeCare has been funded by both Governments since about 1990. Ms S.E. Walker: In what form? Ms S.M. McHALE: For the service that the member is talking about. The Liberal Government funded SafeCare and had no problems with it. The Labor Government has funded the work around perpetrators and their families, and has had no problem with that. However, the member for Nedlands has a problem with it because she cannot get her head around the complexities. It is important to understand that with child sexual abuse and the treatment of perpetrators, a range of services are needed. The services for perpetrators are very limited. This is one service that is attracting national interest. The importance of this service is that it grew out of a recognition by clients that they would come forward and seek treatment a lot earlier if they would not automatically be subject to proceedings in a criminal court. The families did not want to raise the matter because of the fear of losing the perpetrator from the family. This is the reality that we are dealing with. Therefore, I ask the question: is it not better to have a service which everybody other than the member for Nedlands thinks is serving a purpose and which allows perpetrators to come forward and seek treatment, rather than allowing them to continue to abuse the kids in their families behind closed doors? That is the important message. This service has been reviewed, and I understand that it has just received federal funding for another review. I am not in the business of closing a service because the member for Nedlands does not like it and cannot get her head around it. That is the important matter.
(1)-(2) I thank the member for Nedlands for her question. She has been peddling her dissatisfaction with SafeCare for quite a number of months. She cannot get her head around the complexity of sexual abuse and the complexity of the behaviour of perpetrators. I am not in the business of closing down a service just because a member of the Opposition cannot get her head around the complexity of perpetrators. I saw the article in The Australian today. Once again the Opposition has put its support for mandatory reporting on the public record, and is somehow linking SafeCare to its policy position. That is its right. However, is it not interesting that when in government it refused to support mandatory reporting and had nothing to do with it? People can say whatever they like in opposition, but in government it is a different matter. SafeCare has been funded by both Governments since about 1990. Ms S.E. Walker: In what form? Ms S.M. McHALE: For the service that the member is talking about. The Liberal Government funded SafeCare and had no problems with it. The Labor Government has funded the work around perpetrators and their families, and has had no problem with that. However, the member for Nedlands has a problem with it because she cannot get her head around the complexities. It is important to understand that with child sexual abuse and the treatment of perpetrators, a range of services are needed. The services for perpetrators are very limited. This is one service that is attracting national interest. The importance of this service is that it grew out of a recognition by clients that they would come forward and seek treatment a lot earlier if they would not automatically be subject to proceedings in a criminal court. The families did not want to raise the matter because of the fear of losing the perpetrator from the family. This is the reality that we are dealing with. Therefore, I ask the question: is it not better to have a service which everybody other than the member for Nedlands thinks is serving a purpose and which allows perpetrators to come forward and seek treatment, rather than allowing them to continue to abuse the kids in their families behind closed doors? That is the important message. This service has been reviewed, and I understand that it has just received federal funding for another review. I am not in the business of closing a service because the member for Nedlands does not like it and cannot get her head around it. That is the important matter.
SafeCare has been funded by both Governments since about 1990.
Ms S.M. McHALE: For the service that the member is talking about. The Liberal Government funded SafeCare and had no problems with it. The Labor Government has funded the work around perpetrators and their families, and has had no problem with that. However, the member for Nedlands has a problem with it because she cannot get her head around the complexities. It is important to understand that with child sexual abuse and the treatment of perpetrators, a range of services are needed. The services for perpetrators are very limited. This is one service that is attracting national interest. The importance of this service is that it grew out of a recognition by clients that they would come forward and seek treatment a lot earlier if they would not automatically be subject to proceedings in a criminal court. The families did not want to raise the matter because of the fear of losing the perpetrator from the family. This is the reality that we are dealing with. Therefore, I ask the question: is it not better to have a service which everybody other than the member for Nedlands thinks is serving a purpose and which allows perpetrators to come forward and seek treatment, rather than allowing them to continue to abuse the kids in their families behind closed doors? That is the important message. This service has been reviewed, and I understand that it has just received federal funding for another review. I am not in the business of closing a service because the member for Nedlands does not like it and cannot get her head around it. That is the important matter.
It is important to understand that with child sexual abuse and the treatment of perpetrators, a range of services are needed. The services for perpetrators are very limited. This is one service that is attracting national interest. The importance of this service is that it grew out of a recognition by clients that they would come forward and seek treatment a lot earlier if they would not automatically be subject to proceedings in a criminal court. The families did not want to raise the matter because of the fear of losing the perpetrator from the family. This is the reality that we are dealing with. Therefore, I ask the question: is it not better to have a service which everybody other than the member for Nedlands thinks is serving a purpose and which allows perpetrators to come forward and seek treatment, rather than allowing them to continue to abuse the kids in their families behind closed doors? That is the important message. This service has been reviewed, and I understand that it has just received federal funding for another review. I am not in the business of closing a service because the member for Nedlands does not like it and cannot get her head around it. That is the important matter.
Therefore, I ask the question: is it not better to have a service which everybody other than the member for Nedlands thinks is serving a purpose and which allows perpetrators to come forward and seek treatment, rather than allowing them to continue to abuse the kids in their families behind closed doors? That is the important message. This service has been reviewed, and I understand that it has just received federal funding for another review. I am not in the business of closing a service because the member for Nedlands does not like it and cannot get her head around it. That is the important matter.
It offends our sense of justice if people can flout the law and get away with it . . .
(2) Does the minister agree with the comments of SafeCare program director, Christabel Chamarette, who said on Channel Nine on Friday that SafeCare is independent of the law? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1)-(2) I thank the member for Nedlands for her question. She has been peddling her dissatisfaction with SafeCare for quite a number of months. She cannot get her head around the complexity of sexual abuse and the complexity of the behaviour of perpetrators. I am not in the business of closing down a service just because a member of the Opposition cannot get her head around the complexity of perpetrators. I saw the article in The Australian today. Once again the Opposition has put its support for mandatory reporting on the public record, and is somehow linking SafeCare to its policy position. That is its right. However, is it not interesting that when in government it refused to support mandatory reporting and had nothing to do with it? People can say whatever they like in opposition, but in government it is a different matter. SafeCare has been funded by both Governments since about 1990. Ms S.E. Walker: In what form? Ms S.M. McHALE: For the service that the member is talking about. The Liberal Government funded SafeCare and had no problems with it. The Labor Government has funded the work around perpetrators and their families, and has had no problem with that. However, the member for Nedlands has a problem with it because she cannot get her head around the complexities. It is important to understand that with child sexual abuse and the treatment of perpetrators, a range of services are needed. The services for perpetrators are very limited. This is one service that is attracting national interest. The importance of this service is that it grew out of a recognition by clients that they would come forward and seek treatment a lot earlier if they would not automatically be subject to proceedings in a criminal court. The families did not want to raise the matter because of the fear of losing the perpetrator from the family. This is the reality that we are dealing with. Therefore, I ask the question: is it not better to have a service which everybody other than the member for Nedlands thinks is serving a purpose and which allows perpetrators to come forward and seek treatment, rather than allowing them to continue to abuse the kids in their families behind closed doors? That is the important message. This service has been reviewed, and I understand that it has just received federal funding for another review. I am not in the business of closing a service because the member for Nedlands does not like it and cannot get her head around it. That is the important matter.
Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1)-(2) I thank the member for Nedlands for her question. She has been peddling her dissatisfaction with SafeCare for quite a number of months. She cannot get her head around the complexity of sexual abuse and the complexity of the behaviour of perpetrators. I am not in the business of closing down a service just because a member of the Opposition cannot get her head around the complexity of perpetrators. I saw the article in The Australian today. Once again the Opposition has put its support for mandatory reporting on the public record, and is somehow linking SafeCare to its policy position. That is its right. However, is it not interesting that when in government it refused to support mandatory reporting and had nothing to do with it? People can say whatever they like in opposition, but in government it is a different matter. SafeCare has been funded by both Governments since about 1990. Ms S.E. Walker: In what form? Ms S.M. McHALE: For the service that the member is talking about. The Liberal Government funded SafeCare and had no problems with it. The Labor Government has funded the work around perpetrators and their families, and has had no problem with that. However, the member for Nedlands has a problem with it because she cannot get her head around the complexities. It is important to understand that with child sexual abuse and the treatment of perpetrators, a range of services are needed. The services for perpetrators are very limited. This is one service that is attracting national interest. The importance of this service is that it grew out of a recognition by clients that they would come forward and seek treatment a lot earlier if they would not automatically be subject to proceedings in a criminal court. The families did not want to raise the matter because of the fear of losing the perpetrator from the family. This is the reality that we are dealing with. Therefore, I ask the question: is it not better to have a service which everybody other than the member for Nedlands thinks is serving a purpose and which allows perpetrators to come forward and seek treatment, rather than allowing them to continue to abuse the kids in their families behind closed doors? That is the important message. This service has been reviewed, and I understand that it has just received federal funding for another review. I am not in the business of closing a service because the member for Nedlands does not like it and cannot get her head around it. That is the important matter.
(1)-(2) I thank the member for Nedlands for her question. She has been peddling her dissatisfaction with SafeCare for quite a number of months. She cannot get her head around the complexity of sexual abuse and the complexity of the behaviour of perpetrators. I am not in the business of closing down a service just because a member of the Opposition cannot get her head around the complexity of perpetrators. I saw the article in The Australian today. Once again the Opposition has put its support for mandatory reporting on the public record, and is somehow linking SafeCare to its policy position. That is its right. However, is it not interesting that when in government it refused to support mandatory reporting and had nothing to do with it? People can say whatever they like in opposition, but in government it is a different matter. SafeCare has been funded by both Governments since about 1990. Ms S.E. Walker: In what form? Ms S.M. McHALE: For the service that the member is talking about. The Liberal Government funded SafeCare and had no problems with it. The Labor Government has funded the work around perpetrators and their families, and has had no problem with that. However, the member for Nedlands has a problem with it because she cannot get her head around the complexities. It is important to understand that with child sexual abuse and the treatment of perpetrators, a range of services are needed. The services for perpetrators are very limited. This is one service that is attracting national interest. The importance of this service is that it grew out of a recognition by clients that they would come forward and seek treatment a lot earlier if they would not automatically be subject to proceedings in a criminal court. The families did not want to raise the matter because of the fear of losing the perpetrator from the family. This is the reality that we are dealing with. Therefore, I ask the question: is it not better to have a service which everybody other than the member for Nedlands thinks is serving a purpose and which allows perpetrators to come forward and seek treatment, rather than allowing them to continue to abuse the kids in their families behind closed doors? That is the important message. This service has been reviewed, and I understand that it has just received federal funding for another review. I am not in the business of closing a service because the member for Nedlands does not like it and cannot get her head around it. That is the important matter.
SafeCare has been funded by both Governments since about 1990.
Ms S.M. McHALE: For the service that the member is talking about. The Liberal Government funded SafeCare and had no problems with it. The Labor Government has funded the work around perpetrators and their families, and has had no problem with that. However, the member for Nedlands has a problem with it because she cannot get her head around the complexities. It is important to understand that with child sexual abuse and the treatment of perpetrators, a range of services are needed. The services for perpetrators are very limited. This is one service that is attracting national interest. The importance of this service is that it grew out of a recognition by clients that they would come forward and seek treatment a lot earlier if they would not automatically be subject to proceedings in a criminal court. The families did not want to raise the matter because of the fear of losing the perpetrator from the family. This is the reality that we are dealing with. Therefore, I ask the question: is it not better to have a service which everybody other than the member for Nedlands thinks is serving a purpose and which allows perpetrators to come forward and seek treatment, rather than allowing them to continue to abuse the kids in their families behind closed doors? That is the important message. This service has been reviewed, and I understand that it has just received federal funding for another review. I am not in the business of closing a service because the member for Nedlands does not like it and cannot get her head around it. That is the important matter.
It is important to understand that with child sexual abuse and the treatment of perpetrators, a range of services are needed. The services for perpetrators are very limited. This is one service that is attracting national interest. The importance of this service is that it grew out of a recognition by clients that they would come forward and seek treatment a lot earlier if they would not automatically be subject to proceedings in a criminal court. The families did not want to raise the matter because of the fear of losing the perpetrator from the family. This is the reality that we are dealing with. Therefore, I ask the question: is it not better to have a service which everybody other than the member for Nedlands thinks is serving a purpose and which allows perpetrators to come forward and seek treatment, rather than allowing them to continue to abuse the kids in their families behind closed doors? That is the important message. This service has been reviewed, and I understand that it has just received federal funding for another review. I am not in the business of closing a service because the member for Nedlands does not like it and cannot get her head around it. That is the important matter.
Therefore, I ask the question: is it not better to have a service which everybody other than the member for Nedlands thinks is serving a purpose and which allows perpetrators to come forward and seek treatment, rather than allowing them to continue to abuse the kids in their families behind closed doors? That is the important message. This service has been reviewed, and I understand that it has just received federal funding for another review. I am not in the business of closing a service because the member for Nedlands does not like it and cannot get her head around it. That is the important matter.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.