CHILDREN'S PROTECTION (NOTIFICATION) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr PISONI (Unley) (18:09): Just picking up from where I was before the Auditor-General's Report, I was reading from the SAASSO (South Australian Association of State School Organisations) Sex Abuse Timeline that was put together by Danyse Soester. It goes on to say, for 2 November:

Parents formally told about sexual assault in their school. Former justice Bruce Debelle appointed to investigate.

Weatherill says, 'all critical incidents are always notified to the Minister', but not this one.

Education department says it did notify Minister's office in December, 2010–Deputy Chief Executive Jan Andrews emailed Mr. Weatherill's Chief of Staff, Simon Blewett and advisor Jadynne Harvey.

On 3 November:

Jay Weatherill defends Mr Blewett's decision not to tell him about the rape. He claims 'an impossible standard' for minister's office to check all advice from agencies.

Weatherill says counselling is now available to school.

Scouts SA confirms they knew of paedophile's conviction earlier in the year.

On 5 November:

Opposition does not accept Jay Weatherill was not told about the sexual assault in 2010.

Jay Weatherill says that OSHC staff [that is, the out of school hours care staff] are employed by Governing Councils—

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Point of order: I fail to see how an article printed in a magazine is relevant to legislation that is before us today.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the point of order is correct. I find it hard to relate this to the bill. The member knows that he has to speak to the bill before us.

Mr PISONI: I am speaking to the bill, and the bill came about because of the actions I am referring to in this report.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think you are drawing a very long bow.

Mr PISONI: Well, if you want to shut me up about it, that is up to you. It continues:

Jay Weatherill says that OSHC—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I do. I have asked, as a result of the point of order, for you to move on and to speak about the bill, please.

Mr PISONI: I am speaking about the bill, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not think you are.

Mr PISONI: I am speaking about the bill. If you read the minister's second reading speech, she said it came about because of recommendations from the Debelle inquiry, and the Debelle inquiry was a direct result of questions that were asked in this house on 30 October 2010. What I am reading into Hansard is a time line of other events that have occurred since that raising of the issue in the parliament and other related issues, including the Debelle inquiry. I have mentioned Mr Debelle in this material right now.

The minister might not want to hear this, but this is what has happened. This is history; this is why we are here today, and people reading this Hansard in 50 years' time will want to know why it was that there were changes to the Child Protection Act that reduced the obligation of mandatory notification. I am making sure that they can understand it by giving those who are reading this Hansard the ability to understand the whole history of where we are today and why we are where we are today, that is, beginning to implement the recommendations of the Debelle inquiry that were a direct result of the rape of a 7 year old in a western suburbs school where parents were not told.

This chronology is a good explanation of what happened, why parents were not told, why the department was so wrong, and why the government was so wrong in not telling parents. This chronology goes on to explain to the reader that, first of all, minister Portolesi said that police said that parents were not to be told. We have since found out that that was incorrect. This chronology goes on to explain that the Premier at the time said that staff at OSHC were the responsibility of governing councils and not the responsibility of the department, whereas minister Portolesi went on to say—

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Point of order: is the member for Unley reading from an article or is he providing a chronology of events? My perspective is that there is no relevance in relation to reading an article from a magazine in relation to this particular legislation.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have already ruled in favour of the point of order. I would ask the shadow minister to move on and make sure that he is speaking about the bill.

Mr PISONI: Are you ruling, sir, that people cannot use written notes?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: What I am ruling is that you have got to speak to the bill. I am certainly not saying you cannot use written notes, but what I am saying is you have got to speak to the bill.

Mr PISONI: There are reasons why this bill is here, sir, and I am explaining why that bill is here.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: That is fine, but do not read someone else's article.

Mr PISONI: If the minister refers to Hansard she will see that I am merely referring to the article after your objections because I am a cooperative person, unlike you, minister.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Let's not slang across the chamber.

Mr PISONI: The chronology goes on to explain that the governing council said that it was misled about its rights and obligations by the education department, and that was that it was not allowed to tell the parents. The chronology also goes on to say that the Premier was wrong when he claimed that it was a decision of the governing council that parents would not be told that their children were in the care of a paedophile rapist. That is what the Premier said and this article goes on to say that the Premier was also wrong in making that claim.

We are here today making changes to the Children's Protection Act through amendments, and the amendments were recommended among 43 recommendations by Mr Debelle. They were recommended at No. 27 and No. 28 of Mr Debelle's recommendations. The challenge for the minister in her reply, of course, is to update the house as to where the department is going or how the progress is on the 43 other recommendations that Mr Debelle has made, in particular, the recommendations that refer to governing councils.

I know that at recommendation 23, Mr Debelle recommended that provisions be made to establish a fund from which governing councils can draw funding to enable a governing council to obtain independent legal advice when that governing council is in dispute with the department and that the decision—whether it is necessary or appropriate for governing council to obtain funding—be made by the person who holds the office of Crown Solicitor.

I raise that in particular because at the moment we know that Rose Park Primary School is in the courts with the education department trying to determine just whose responsibility it is to employ out-of-school hours care staff; whether it is the responsibility of the Department of Education or whether, as claimed by the Premier and by the department, the responsibility lies with the governing council.

The extraordinary event that happened last week at that hearing, of course, was that the Crown Solicitor's office was more interested in technical legalities or technical get out of gaol free cards, if you like, on making this decision, calling for the matter to be dismissed and that the governing council pay all costs. I would argue that that is not in the spirit of the recommendations that Mr Debelle made, particularly those recommendations concerning governing council.

In concluding, of course the opposition supports the amendments that present themselves here today. We know that it was the opposition's relentless campaign of holding this government accountable for its poor performance on child protection, for the poor performance of the education department and not only the way that it reports and handles child protection issues in schools but also the failure—from the dozens of examples that have come to the media and the opposition—and lack of support and lack of empathy for the victims and their families that have brought this issue into the public domain since it was first raised in 30 October 2012.

There is no doubt that for many of those people who came forward (many of these situations where historical, of course; they happened two or three years earlier) it was the interest from the community, the response from the community, that gave those people the courage to come forward and to take the department on, to take the bureaucracy on, to take on the bullying that they had experienced, and the lack of support that they experienced. As family members and community members they simply wanted nothing more than a safe environment for their children.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (18:21): I rise also to talk to the Children's Protection (Notification) Amendment Bill. This bill is to amend the Children Protection Act 1993 to enact the recommended legislative amendments which were set out in the Royal Commission 2012-2013 Report of Independent Education Inquiry prepared by the Hon. Bruce Debelle AO QC. I note that the amendments proposed in this bill address recommendations 26 and 27 of Justice Debelle's report and will enhance the current mandatory notification provisions in section 11 of the Children's Protection Act 1993.

I will not repeat too much of the relevant history of how we got to this stage, but it has been a terrible sequence of events that has got us to this stage. It is a department cloaked in secrecy, with ministers who will not reveal what is going on with our children at school. As a father of two young children—one in year 4 and one in year 7—the protection of children and how they are treated at school means a lot to me. It is not just my kids but all the children who attend our schools throughout the state. I am quoting directly from the Debelle Independent Education Inquiry from the section about law reform—recommendation 26. It is recommended that:

...section 11 of the Children's Protection Act 1993 be amended by adding a new subsection 4(a) to read as follows:

It shall be an defence to a charge under subsection (1) to prove that the knowledge of the facts that gave rise to the suspicion was gained only from a police officer acting in the course of his duty.

Paragraph 674, in relation to this recommendation, states:

These considerations draw attention to the question whether section 11 of the Children’s Protection Act should be amended. The consequences for a teacher who fails to make the mandatory notification are serious. The teacher will be liable to a fine of $10,000. Teachers should not be subject to the risk of a substantial penalty if they fail to make a mandatory notification in circumstances where they are doing no more than passing on to CARL what police already know. There are sound reasons why it is desirable to amend section 11 to relieve a person from the duty to notify CARL where that person learns of allegations of abuse or neglect from police in the course of a police investigation and that person knows that police have already notified CARL or that the alleged offender has been arrested and charged. Such an amendment would have the consequence that police would remain subject to the existing obligation to notify CARL.

This is still quoting from the commissioner:

I recommend, therefore, that section 11 be amended by adding a new subsection 4(a) to read as follows:

It shall be a defence to a charge under subsection (1) to prove that the knowledge of facts that gave rise to the suspicion was gained only from a police officer acting in the course of his duty.

The obligation upon police to notify CARL should continue to exist.

Still quoting from the Debelle report, recommendation 27 states:

It is recommended that consideration be given to the question whether it is appropriate to relieve a teacher of the obligation to notify the Child Abuse Report Line pursuant to section 11 of the Children's Protection Act when the only knowledge that that teacher has of possible abuse or neglect of a child has been obtained from another teacher who has already notified the Child Abuse Report Line. That recommendation could be effected by an amendment to section 11 of the Children's Protection Act along the lines of the following:

This section does not require a teacher in an educational institution (including a kindergarten) to make a notification where that teacher's knowledge of the fact that gave rise to the suspicion was gained from another teacher in that educational institution and that other teacher had already made a notification under this section.

Paragraph 675, in regard to this recommendation, states:

Consideration should also be given to the question whether it is appropriate to relieve a teacher of the obligation to notify CARL when the only knowledge that that teacher has of possible abuse or neglect of a child has been obtained from another teacher who has already notified CARL. An amendment could be made along the lines of the following:

This section does not require a teacher in an educational institution (including a kindergarten) to make a notification where that teacher's knowledge of the fact that gave rise to the suspicion was gained from another teacher in that educational institution and that other teacher had already made a notification under this section.

I note that a lot of time and bureaucracy is taken up in the education department. I also note that some of the policies in relation to the health and welfare of our students do not seem to be enacted very well.

In relation to child protection matters, I want to reflect on a policy announcement made by the Premier Weatherill, the member for Cheltenham, in regard to putting more money ($2 million) into our schools for fitness programs. The $2 million funding the Premier has committed is to start implementing the Healthy and Strong Children policy over four years. Part of the policy the Premier has put out is to double to 82 the number of schools taking part in the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden program, with a grant of $439,000. That is fantastic, but the problem is that schools such as the Coomandook Area School are screaming out to me about how they are going to pay their water bill. In fact, in the last Coomandook school newsletter states:

Assets and Grounds Committee are working with...[the Principal] and...[the Groundsman] to review and improve our water system and usage—

which incorporates a massive water recycling program of millions of litres that are caught from the town of Coomandook and pumped up to the school—

as our...[Department of Education] budget is inadequate to cover costs. Although our usage has reduced over recent years, our costs have tripled. The committee is looking to reduce watering in areas around the school which are not used by students and...[reducing] watering on some areas of the oval.

Well, so much for the Premier's great policy announcement of getting out kids out and getting them fit and into sports. I know what happens at Coomandook. I am not sure whether or not it is linked to the child protection policies of the school—I think that it is partly because of that—but our children are not allowed to play on one half of the oval. So, that will be easy: we just will not water half of the oval. The kids cannot even go out there and play cricket. They cannot use the cricket pitch because you can field on only one side! It is just ridiculous. And this would be happening all across the state.

What the minister, the Premier and the education department need to do is work with our schools and work with our kids so that they can supply the appropriate education, the appropriate protection methods, so that instead of just feeding a bloated bureaucracy which is left to its own devices, we could actually get some real outcomes for our kids. I just want to talk about the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden. It is a fantastic idea.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Point of order. The member for Hammond has had a fair go at doing his little bit for his electorate, but the gardens actually have nothing to do with the legislation before us.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I rule in favour of the point of order. The member is straying and he needs to constrain himself to the bill before us.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I may have digressed. What I would like to say with regard to all issues to do with education, including our children's protection, is that we really need to see in this state a commitment to make sure that not only are our kids protected in the school environment but that they can get the appropriate education.

Part of that education, I believe, is about health and wellbeing and working in a protected environment. The local school pool at Coomandook, because of maintenance issues, does not look like it is going to be able to open this year. It is just ridiculous when these things should be fixed and should be factored in.

With regard to child protection issues, the member for Unley the shadow minister for the Liberal Party put it very well, putting the chronology of events of what has happened for well over 12 months. It is a disgrace, it is a real disgrace that this has happened. There is the case of a missing email, where no-one seems to know where it went. There is the case of three education ministers, over time, mixed up in this: the former Minister for Education the Premier, the former Minister for Education the member for Hartley Grace Portolesi, and now the current Minister for Education.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Point of order. Is the member for Hammond, by using the term 'mixed up in this', suggesting that we are in some way involved in relation to child abuse that has been inflicted on children?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is the point of order, please?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Well, imputing improper motives. He is reflecting adversely on members of parliament.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will ask the member to continue but, as I have already asked him, to try to confine his remarks to the bill before us, please.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. What I am saying is that these events have happened under the auspices of three separate ministers. In any department, the minister is at the head, they are the ones ultimately responsible. We see that, in many pieces of legislation in this house, in many acts, in many clauses, the minister has the final say and the final discretion. So, that is why ministers of the Crown are the ones finally responsible for how these things are managed and reported.

I am not for once suggesting that any of these ministers are involved in child abuse. I am not saying that at all, if that is what the minister is trying to say. I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that the minister at the time is absolutely responsible. We see, from the recent material that came out in question time today, that it is still happening as recently as April of this year and that there are issues in the system around notification and around protecting our children at school.

I guess my point is, and it does not matter where the children go to school—we have seen issues throughout the urban area and we have seen issues in the country areas on what happens under this system that obviously has not been working. I note that these provisions are in the bill so that people do not get tied up in knots—that is how I see it—in worrying day and night whether a situation has not been reported, but I also note that the default position is that people should still notify the Child Abuse Response Line so that we get that notification.

I appreciate the protection of a defence this will give to people in case, for some reason, they fail to report or they believe it has been adequately reported, whether through another staff member or a police officer. That is how I see the amendments that have been drafted. We support these amendments, and it will be interesting to see what other legislation comes through as a result of the Debelle inquiry.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for Education and Child Development, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (18:35): I thank the member for Hammond for his contribution. I can assure him this government has a very strong commitment to protecting children in our school environment. As of next year, there will not only be criminal history checks of teachers going into our schools but also background screening for all new teachers and something like 15,000 teachers renewing their registration. I would point out to the member for Hammond, if he does not know, that when we took government there were something like 30,000 teachers across the system who had not had so much as a criminal history check.

I want to thank the member for Morialta for his contribution. He raised the issue of recommendation 25 of Mr Debelle's report in relation to electronic notification (online reporting). That was introduced on 1 July this year, and I am advised we have over 4,000 electronic notifiers registered and able to report on line with CARL. That is up from 260. In relation to recommendation 37, we have increased the screening unit staff by 10 people, which is a significant increase.

The member for Unley said I am challenged in relation to providing a report on the progress of Mr Debelle's 43 recommendations—which the government has accepted in their entirety. Twenty-two of the 43 are currently completed, and I am happy to detail those for those opposite if they so wish.

However, I can tell members that recommendations 28 and 29 required legislation that was brought to the house by the Attorney-General and has passed both houses of parliament. That may have slipped people's notice. Recommendations 28 and 29 have already had legislation passed.

Recommendations 26 and 27 are the subject of this particular piece of legislation and, hopefully, this will also be afforded quick passage. We are not dealing with recommendation 28, as was mentioned by the member for Unley. It is unfortunate that he did not quite know what recommendations we were dealing with. It is also disappointing that his contribution, essentially, was to read somebody else's words. The best he could do was read an article. For him to comment that what we are dealing with today is just the low hanging fruit is ridiculous, and he really has to stop stating half truths. We have put in a concerted effort to implement Mr Debelle's recommendations and, in fact, many of them were underway prior to the release of his report.

This legislation, importantly, does not remove the requirement to lodge a mandatory report notification in relation to child abuse but what it does, importantly, is provide a defence for not doing so in certain circumstances. I thank the house for its support and we look forward to two more of Mr Debelle's recommendations being completed.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for Education and Child Development, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (18:39): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

As I have outlined, this is an important piece of legislation. It is, again, an indication of the government's commitments to implementing the Debelle recommendations—an inquiry, importantly, that was established by this government. We have a very strong history of putting child protection at the forefront. We have invested many millions of dollars in increasing child protection here in South Australia. Our focus has been protection of children and not simply grabbing a headline.

Bill read a third time and passed.

At 18:41 the house adjourned until Wednesday 13 November 2013 at 11:00.