House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Children's Protection (Notification) Amendment Bill CHILDREN'S PROTECTION (NOTIFICATION) AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion). Mr GARDNER House of Assembly Morialta Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (15:49): It is good to be able to resume, as I left off my contribution on this matter just before the lunch break. From recollection, I believe I was just explaining the outline of what the bill does. The advice provided by Justice Debelle in his report was, of course, in relation to the Child Abuse Report Line—that where the person who is mandatory reporter becomes aware of the circumstances that would require them to mandatorily report as a result of being notified by someone who was also a mandatory reporter or who has already made a report, or by a police officer, then it is in fact an unnecessary burden on the system and an unnecessary requirement of that person, that mandatory reporter, to make the report. This is an important reform not just because of the situation identified in the Debelle report, that a similar situation would relieve the requirement of the principal, as it was in that case, to make a report, but because the Child Abuse Report Line is significantly burdened by an extraordinary number of calls. This is having an effect, in my view—from the discussions I have had with people who are mandatory reporters, and I think it is in the Debelle report as well—on the way in which people are making reports. When there is at peak times a 45-minute wait to get through to make the report, that is a significant burden on somebody in their day when they have limited time for recess or lunch—if they cannot get through, they have to make the call again after school—and those peak times, significantly, have created a problem in this area. However, while school is on, I heard suggestions in estimates that the waiting time can be very short. The overall picture, though, is that over the last five years the waiting times, and the average waiting times and the average peak waiting times, have extended and extended. In other speeches in this house, I have spoken about the evidence provided by the government that points to that extension. One would hope that if four or five mandatory reporters become aware of the same incident that needs to be reported, this legislation will mean that they do not all have to make the report, and that, in addition to the other measures the government is undertaking, should hopefully assist in making the Child Abuse Report Line more functional. I hope that the minister will take the opportunity in her second reading response to perhaps update the house on how those other measures are going because improvements to the CARL mean that people can leave a message and then be called back automatically at a time when the line is free. With the eCARL system (the electronic CARL), we are told that thousands of regular mandatory regular reporters will be trained in the system so that they can make an electronic internet notification, rather than have to call the report line. In estimates this year, the minister provided advice that that would all be in place by the end of this year. I have not checked with the shadow minister recently as to whether he has received any advice on how this improvement is going, but I can tell the house that the advice the minister gave me this year was almost exactly the same word for word as the advice the previous minister gave in estimates last year—and last year it was due by the end of last year. This year, we were advised that these improvements were due by the end of this year, so I hope that the minister will take that opportunity to advise us on that eCARL improvement. Reports of child abuse are a very serious matter, and it is important that the systems in place are able to adequately consider the matter being reported and then deal with it appropriately. When so many reports are coming in, it sometimes seems as though there is a triage taking place, where some of the reports do not get the attention that they potentially deserve, and then there are awful unintended consequences of that work that can take place. We wholeheartedly support this legislation, and I think it will make a contribution. It came out of the Debelle report and, of course, the circumstances around that have been gone over at some length, and we are still trying to get to the bottom of some of the matters in relation to that. However, on the matter of the legislation at hand, I am pleased to be supporting this bill. Mr PISONI House of Assembly Unley Mr PISONI (Unley) (15:54): I indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition on this bill. As my colleague the member for Morialta has already indicated, we are supporting the bill but take note, of course, that it is the lowest hanging fruit available to the minister when it comes to parliamentary or legislative reform of the 43 recommendations Mr Debelle put forward in chapter 16 of his report on his royal commission into just what happened at that western suburbs school, starting from December 2010 through to when parents were eventually told because a brave mother came forward and told her story and enabled the opposition to ask questions in the parliament. Of course, we recall that at that time the then education minister (the member for Hartley) was adamant that police had told the department that parents were not told because it would frustrate the police investigation. That, of course, has been proven wrong in Mr Debelle's inquiry, yet I have not seen the minister come in to correct the record since the findings of the Debelle inquiry were tabled in the parliament. I will take this opportunity to recognise the work that SAASSO (South Australian Association of State School Organisations) has done. SAASSO is an organisation we supported last time we were in office because we have a strong belief that parents play an important role in their children's education. SAASSO is a parent body that represents those very governing councils that sit in all our schools here in South Australia. The role, of course, of those governing councils is to assist in the governance of the school, and they work very closely with school principals. I have to congratulate them on a couple of the articles they wrote for their monthly magazine, the School Post. I refer to the article written by Danyse Soester in the term 2, 2013 edition, where she was able to put a time line together as to what had actually happened. For those who have not been involved in this sorry saga at the intimate level at which members of parliament have been involved and the department has been involved, it does simplify the case. I will read it into Hansard for others, who may not have access to the magazine, to be able to refer to. It has an introduction, which says: In October 2012 the media carried a story that parents of a western suburbs school had reported that a paedophile had been running their school's OSHC [that is, out of school hours care] and had raped a young girl in 2010 and that it had been kept secret from the school parent community. In the weeks and months that followed, SAASSO witnessed an outpouring of anger from parents, unprecedented in the last decade. In response to all those questions and how, when and why, here is the timeline, so far. It starts on 30 October: ...Minister Grace Portolesi confirms the crime and tells parliament it was kept from parents on advice from police. SAPOL denies Portolesi's claim. Police say they told the school's principal to consult with the education department to decide how to advise the school community. On 31 October: Ms. Portolesi denies misleading parliament. Portolesi states she had no knowledge of any other cases where parents weren't told. Also states that department policy does not require parents be told. Ms. Portolesi admits that she knew of rape in March 2012. It's revealed that following parent complaints, the State Ombudsman is investigating the case. Premier Weatherill says parents should be told of any allegations. Then it refers to 1 November 2012: Parents reveal they were told the OSHC Director had 'quit because of ill-health'. Professor Freda Briggs reveals the school's Governing Council had approached her a year earlier because they were unhappy parents hadn't been told. 'They claimed that an administrator from the department had banned them from telling other parents....' Ms. Portolesi says she doesn't know if the department pressured the school to keep the abuse secret. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned.