WA minister to be quizzed over his handling of child sex victim

Don Punch, now WA Disability Services Minister, allegedly agreed in the late 1980s and early ’90s to a plan to return a child to relatives who had been accused of sexually abusing him and who then allegedly went on to molest him again.

WA Labor MP Don Punch. Picture: Colin Murty

Don Punch, who is now Western Australia’s Disability Services Minister, allegedly agreed in the late 1980s and early ’90s to a plan to return a child to relatives who had previously been accused of sexually abusing him and who then allegedly went on to molest him again.

Mr Punch, who is also WA’s State Development Minister, was in senior roles with the Department for Community Services in WA’s southwest when a series of decisions were made about the ­future of a vulnerable boy who was a ward of the state.

That boy, Dion Barber, is now suing the department for compensation, arguing that the department showed a “contumel­ious disregard” for his rights and interests with a series of decisions that placed him back in harm’s way.

Mr Punch has been named in Mr Barber’s statement of claim and will be called as a witness in Mr Barber’s compensation case, which will begin in the WA District Court on Tuesday.

The minister looks likely to be questioned about a series of findings and decisions that led to Mr Barber being placed back into the care of individuals who had been accused of sexually abusing the boy or other children, and who then allegedly went on to abuse him again.

According to the statement of claim, Mr Punch became aware of Mr Barber’s circumstances not long after his mother first contacted the department in 1988 to report that her partner had sexually abused the boy, who was just eight years old at the time.

Social workers were convinced of the merits of the boy’s complaints, and the Children’s Court in December that year made a finding of fact accepting the veracity of the sexual abuse and rejecting the stepfather’s denials.

However, according to the statement of claim, Mr Punch and another senior social worker made a decision in late December 1988 that reunification of Mr Barber with his family was “the most appropriate long-term goal”.

Within four months of Mr Punch reaching that conclusion, Mr Barber was returned to the care of his mother and the stepfather who had allegedly abused him.

Mr Barber says the sexual abuse by his stepfather resumed within a day of his return to their care.

He has detailed the extensive sexual abuse he experienced and witnessed during the weeks back in that home, including physical assaults he suffered if he tried to resist the sexual advances.

After less than a month of his being there, Mr Barber’s mother contacted the department to advise them the abuse had restarted.

The statement also details how the department at various times allowed Mr Barber to live with both his maternal grandparents and his biological father, both of whom had various allegations of wrongdoing against them.

In March 1990, the department determined that it was appropriate for Mr Barber to live with his father, Kenneth Barber, despite the latter’s history of ­assault and domestic violence and alleged physical abuse against Mr Barber.

Mr Barber went on to experience what he described as extensive sexual abuse at the hands of his father over the course of several months.

In November 1990, a social worker wrote to Mr Punch expressing concerns about allowing Kenneth to obtain full guardianship of Mr Barber. The next day a senior colleague of Mr Punch swore an affidavit supporting Kenneth’s custody and guardianship application.

The department also allowed Mr Barber to come into regular contact with his maternal grandparents, despite his mother having previously complained that her father had sexually abused her.

Mr Barber says he was touched and molested by both his mat­ernal grandparents and repeatedly exposed to sexual activity and sexualised behaviours.

Mr Barber’s grandfather and stepfather would go on to spend time in prison over unrelated child sex offences. His father later took his own life.

Mr Punch’s link to Mr Barber’s case comes less than two months before the next WA election. He holds the seat of Bunbury, a bellwether electorate that has almost always been held by the party of government.

In 2018, the Labor government opened the door to a long line of sex abuse compensation claims when it lifted the statute of limitations on such actions.

Mr Barber is seeking aggravated damages, not just for decisions made by the department that placed him back into the hands of individuals who had known child abuse allegations against them but also for their response to the legal action itself.

The statement of claim notes that while the WA government has purported to be model litigant that deals with historical child sex offences in a fair and compassionate manner, its conduct in its response to the case to date had been “highhanded, malicious, insulting and oppressive”.

Mr Punch’s office was ­approached for comment.