Bills

Child Development and Wellbeing Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 19 June 2014.)

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (11:03): I rise to speak on the Child Development and Wellbeing Bill 2014 and advise that I will be the lead speaker. Firstly, I would like to commend the government for introducing the bill to appoint a commissioner. I am, however, extremely disappointed that, since the 2003 Layton report which recommended the children’s commissioner, it has taken 11 years for the government to take action. Our children are our future and they deserve the best start in life they can get.

I see that a commissioner will assist in ensuring this occurs, and all children, including the state’s most disadvantaged children, should be taken care of with a children’s commissioner. The Liberal Party took to the 2014 election a policy for protecting our children that included a commissioner, and we believe that a commissioner should be the voice of all children and young people in the state.

It should promote the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in all areas of community life, monitor the decisions of government and non-government agencies in terms of their inclusiveness in considering the rights and interests of children and young people, conduct ongoing research and provide suggestions to government about ways to strengthen the rights of children and young people in South Australia, ensure that all agencies of government that deal with children are implementing and following best practice policies on child protection matters, be provided with full with investigative powers, be a truly independent statutory officer, produce an annual report and be fully accountable to the parliament. Unfortunately, the Labor Party's bill falls quite short in many of these areas, and we feel the need to amend this bill in order to make it palatable to all the stakeholders and to what we believe is required for the protection of our children.

The Liberals have taken the lead on this issue, taking this policy to the 2014 election that included an independent commissioner for children and young people and for that commissioner to have investigative powers. The Hon. Stephen Wade has successfully taken our policy through the other house and, if this government is serious about wanting a children's commissioner and protecting our most vulnerable, it will support our policy through this house and not simply play politics with such a serious matter. We acknowledge the seriousness of protecting our children and will seek to work with government to amend its bill in line with stakeholder feedback to ensure the commissioner is independent and equipped with investigative powers.

The requirement for a children's commissioner in our state has been identified in numerous reports commissioned by this government, including the Layton report way back in 2003. Further reports, such as the Mullighan inquiries, the select committee on Families SA and the Debelle inquiry, have shown the requirement for change and the diabolical state of Families SA. I truly wonder how many children and their families' lives could have been changed if the government had not failed to act 11 years ago. If it had implemented the recommendation that it acknowledged and agreed on, how many children would have been spared the harm that we have witnessed through our papers over the last several months?

They commissioned the report; they agreed to the report and they failed to act. The government has failed these children. The failings of this department and its failure to even investigate have been highlighted as recently as today on the front page of the paper. It is most definitely time action was taken in this respect. I would like to read some of the comments from stakeholders who have spent a lot of time going through the government's bill and amended bill and put down what they think is very important. Here are some of the concerns of the Law Society of South Australia. Their summary is:

(a) The role as defined lacks independence—

This is referring to the government bill—

from Government, and the resources required to guarantee that independence. To be effective, the Commissioner must be independent, and this should be expressly provided for in s 13 of the Bill...

Under the Bill, the role of the Commissioner has no powers to advocate for children and young people on either an individual or systemic level by investigation on its own initiative, and no power to actively intervene or compel information from others. This leaves the Commissioner with little to no power or authority. This will render the role ineffective.

The Law Society goes on to state that under the government's bill:

...the role of the Commissioner is limited to functions such as 'monitor the way the State Authorities investigate or otherwise deal with complaints..', and to 'monitor trends and complaints'. The Commissioner should have the power to conduct inquiries or reviews into matters involving breaches of children's rights. This is an integral function of the role. It enhances the Commissioner's power to influence action by State Authorities and hold them to account. In its current form, the Commissioner will have no such power.

The Law Society also notes:

...the revised Bill gives a new power to the Minister to exempt a person or body from giving information to the Commissioner under s 19(4). This will have little impact on changing the culture of the Department for Education and is unlikely to encourage the disclosure of information.

The method of appointing the commissioner has also not changed, and accordingly the Law Society has concerns regarding the appointment not being transparent.

The Bill does not require the Commissioner to provide an annual report. This does nothing to enhance the accountability and transparency of the Commissioner.

The Youth Affairs Council of South Australia sent through their recommendations and a summary of their key points in October 2013. Their main concerns with the government's bill include:

To facilitate the independence of the Commissioner, we believe the role of oversight, leadership and coordination underpinned by the best interests of children and young people across the state best sits with a Commissioner for Children and Young People and not with a Child Development Council

For the role of the Commissioner to effectively advocate for all children and young people across the state, the role needs to be completely independent of government and government influence

YACSA seeks further information regarding the use of child development alliances and believes that the recruitment process and eligibility criteria needs to be more prescriptive and articulated in the legislation to ensure they are independent and representative, include young people and their existence does not malign but works with the networks and organisations already working within this space

YACSA maintains that the development of any alliances should be initiated by the Commissioner and not the Minister

YACSA seeks further information on how the Commissioner and proposed Child Development Council will be funded, and;

YACSA also suggest that legislative requirement should be regular meaningful consultation with children and young people which is formalised, measurable and reported on in publicly available annual reports.

Feedback from Save the Children states:

The Commissioner should be provided with the power to undertake special inquiries and report on findings of such inquiries. This power could be modelled on Part 4 of the Commissioner for Children and Young People's Act 1998 (NSW) (the NSW Act), with special inquiries to be initiated either on their own motion of the Commissioner or following the direction of the Minister.

I also read from a submission from Grandparents for Grandchildren SA Inc.:

Grandparents for Grandchildren consider that South Australian families in this type of crisis would be best served by an independent Commissioner for Children and Young People.

At present, South Australia has access to the newly-created Commonwealth Commissioner for Children and Young People—but the Commissioner does not deal with individual cases where an appeal could be heard.

In addition S.A. has the Council for the Care of Children (SACCC), (which the State intends to abolish under the New Child Development Legislation), but this organisation also cannot hear an appeal against any decision taken by Families S.A., or the court. In fact in their submission to the Commonwealth Senate on the matter of a Commonwealth Commissioner, the SACCC clearly state that they can't do the work of a Commissioner…South Australia also has the Health & Community Services Complaints Commissioner (hcscc) and included in its brief are disability services, child protection services and counselling services. However, the Commission cannot deal with individual complaints or complaints about housing (which Grandparents for Grandchildren has found to be a huge problem), food problems, employment issues or court decisions, the latter of which is frequently an area of great concern to our clients…Australians who go through the court process and had a decision made against them have, under our legal system, the right to appeal that decision. However, no such appeal is available to parents, grandparents, or other kin, or even older children, who are unhappy with a decision handed down under the present system.

Pursuant to this, it is the case that in the Youth Court, a judge is not able to direct Families S.A. to place a child with Grandparents, they can only recommend the department do so.

The Office of Guardianship has a limited role, but excludes children/others not under the direct care of the Minister and does not deal with individual cases. The Office also comes under Families S.A. purview and so would not be an independent avenue for appeal against a decision made by Families S.A….Grandparents for Grandchildren applauds any moves by the S.A. Government to improve the wellbeing of children, and the new Child Development Legislation may well do that in the area of government policies. However, the proposed legislation does not allow for anyone who disagrees with decisions taken by the government through Families S.A. or who cannot challenge a court decision due to lack of finance or other restrictions, any avenue of appeal, such as an Independent Commissioner for Children and Young People would provide. Until that happens the new Child Development Legislation will remain inadequate….Unfortunately the new Child Development Legislation, while admirable in its goals, will still fall far short of what is needed at the 'coal face' without an overarching, independent, Commissioner for Children and Young People.

To also read the words of John White, President of the SA Law Society:

What is the commissioner really going to do? If South Australia wants an effective advocate for children, and not just another department, it is time to look at the fundamentals of an independent commission. It is critical that the commissioner be independent of government. This ought to be beyond argument…The method of appointment must be transparent…it is essential that legislation clearly sets out the commissioner’s functions and duties, status, powers and method of appointment.

The minister may say that, since the Layton report, the Child Death and Serious Injury Review Committee has been established—and it certainly has. However, this committee has limited powers to investigate, it cannot interview, it can only use existing documentation, it reports directly to the minister, it is exempt from FOI, and the child has to die or be seriously injured before it could take up the case.

The minister has also established the Guardian for Children and Young People. However, as mentioned by Grandparents for Grandchildren, that only applies to children in care. We need a commissioner who has the power to intervene, to investigate, to penalise and to be properly resourced, who is independent of government and who can truly get to the bottom of all the issues that are going on in child protection.

In closing, it is still quite shocking that, on the front page of today’s paper, the report says that of the 7,800 child protection reports classified as tier 2, 3,264 of them were never dealt with and that the CAR Line is still up to around a 17-minute wait. I truly hope that the correct introduction of a commissioner with powers can get to the bottom of what is going on in Families SA and can improve the system.

I was recently in New York and met with their equivalent department. They have no more than a two-minute wait on their report line. Their policy is that all reports must be investigated within 24 hours, and that is either in person by turning up at the house or by a phone call to see what has happened, and that extends out to no more than 48 hours. We do have a lot to do in this area and I am keen to work with the minister to make sure our children are safe and we do make improvements in this area. However, whilst we do applaud the bill being brought in, the commissioner must have investigative powers and they must be transparent in their appointment and they must be separate from government.

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (11:17): It is beyond question that the development, wellbeing and support of children and young people is the highest and most pressing responsibility for all of us in this place and, indeed, for the entirety of our broader South Australian community. It is an issue that I have no doubt is at the forefront of all of our minds at this time and always. We know there can be no more important thing for the future of South Australia than to, as a community, look after our children and young people and to see every one of our children and young people be nurtured, treated with compassion and respect, be safe, and be supported to reach their full potential.

We can only achieve this by working together with compassion and kindness, by using our best possible collective thinking, by rigorously putting the needs of our children and young people first, and by educating, empowering and protecting our children. I know from experience that it is the strength, thought and kindness of a broader community that helps to shape the trust that a child has in the broader family that is our community.

A commissioner for children and young people is a key aspect of our Child Development and Wellbeing Bill 2014 introduced to underpin our government’s efforts to support the development and wellbeing of all South Australian children and young people. Through its introduction we can enshrine in law our collective intentions to define the importance of children, young people and their families, as well as their significance in shaping our state’s future.

Our bill enshrines in legislation a planned and proactive approach to children and young people’s development. It is focused on outcomes, with an outcomes framework for children and young people underpinned by performance indicators to guide and measure statewide outcomes for our youngest South Australians, as well as a child development council to support and advise the commissioner. The council and the outcomes framework hold all state and local government agencies to account by requiring them to demonstrate how they are working to improve outcomes for children and young people and how their work is making a difference.

Rightly, and incredibly importantly, these provisions make the wellbeing and development of children all our business. They ensure we proactively seize every opportunity we can to improve the lives of children and young people. Our bill is shaped by one of the largest consultations in our state's history, with more than 79 community forums, 156 written submissions, and targeted stakeholder and community feedback on the functions of the commissioner through two further rounds of consultation.

This consultation overwhelmingly supported the outcomes framework and the Child Development Council. Through consultation, stakeholders soundly conveyed the message that they want a community approach to the development and wellbeing of children and young people. They want efforts and resources focused on results, which are supported by research, measurement and data, able to be accessed by many.

This community approach to child wellbeing and development is consistent with latest research and supported by the widely respected neuroscientist, the late Clyde Hertzman; previous Thinker in Residence and child development expert, the late Professor Fraser Mustard; and by economist and Nobel Laureate, Professor James Heckman. International evidence-based work confirms that prevention and harm minimisation are crucially important and cannot be overlooked if considering children's overall health, safety, education and wellbeing.

To establish a commissioner vested only with investigative powers, as the opposition bill does, is a shortfall of the role and does our children and community a great disservice. Our bill empowers the commissioner to support a proactive whole of community approach to keeping children safe and healthy. In contrast, the opposition bill directs all of its resources towards a narrow focus on investigation and punitive measures rather than proactive accountability. It fails to acknowledge that child protection is, indeed, everyone's business.

The opposition has massively underfunded its commissioner, with only $644,000 in their pre-election costings, when we know that the Queensland model, including investigative powers, which, it must be noted, they have since dropped, cost more than $40 million, with 230 full-time staff, 165 casual staff, and 49 contractors.

Keeping children safe from harm is not only about providing support when harm has occurred: education and prevention are crucial. Safety is, of course, of fundamental importance and embedded in the bill as well as three recent amendments to the Children's Protection Act 1993. Importantly, our bill grants the commissioner an authoritative voice to oversee an integrated approach by agencies and partners working together with families and investigating matters affecting children.

Our bill requires the cooperation of state and local governments to ensure the impact of policies on children and young people are considered and that they and their families are consulted. It provides a mechanism to support our efforts in creating a child friendly state under the UNICEF Child Friendly Cities framework. South Australia is proudly the only state to sign a memorandum of understanding with UNICEF Australia to develop initiatives that improve, monitor and measure outcomes for children, young people and their families.

The opposition bill, charging the commissioner with full investigative powers for individual cases without an outcomes-based proactive function, fails to promote improvement of agencies working in partnership with children and young people. It also risks duplicating and undermining the functions and expertise of other bodies, including the very important functions of SA Police. By comparison, the model in our bill of systemic inquiry is consistent with every other Australian jurisdiction. Reviews of functions over the past two years resulted in no Australian jurisdiction including full investigative powers for commissioners for children and young people as of 1 July 2014.

In summary, our bill will establish an independent commissioner for children and young people to be an advocate for children and young people and to investigate systemic issues; establish a child development council with responsibility to develop an outcomes framework for children and young people, which will incorporate a charter for children and young people; reinforce existing duties to children and young people; and require all governments, including local government agencies, to cooperate to achieve better outcomes for children and young people.

The bill will provide a mechanism for all sectors of our community to collectively impact and integrate policies, planning and support to help improve outcomes for South Australian children and young people. Every one of our South Australian families and, indeed, the whole of South Australia, can only benefit when we create such mechanisms which are fundamentally focused on and underpinned by fairness and the best possible outcomes for children.

The 2003 Layton report recommended that a children's commissioner include the functions of advocacy, promotion, public information and research, and develop screening processes for work with children and young persons. Importantly, our bill includes all these aspects recommended with the exception of screening processes which have been strengthened through the Children's Protection Act 1993.

In recommendation 1 of her report Justice Layton clearly stated that the children's commissioner model include the best features of the commissions in Queensland and New South Wales. It specifically does not include the function of deciding complaints and grievances. All jurisdictions in Australia have either removed or planned to remove investigative powers from the role of commissioners or commissions. Our bill includes the establishment of a child development council with child safety being one aspect of focus.

The commissioner will attend and have a say at council meetings but not vote on decisions. The commissioner will be able to influence decisions yet retain his or her independence. Our bill sets out functions for the minister in promoting quality services, working with the commissioner and coordinating all important partnerships. The opposition's bill does not include functions of the minister. Our bill requires an outcomes framework for children and young people which will include that charter. This will support results based, cross-sector delivery of outcomes and community input. As mentioned, the outcomes framework is not included anywhere in the opposition's bill.

It is through education, empowerment and prevention with an outcomes focus that together we will make a difference on this issue which is close to all our hearts and, indeed, goes to the core of our functions as a South Australian community.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:27): I rise to speak on the Child Development and Wellbeing Bill introduced by the minister for education and children's services. I think that is her title.

Mr Gardner interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Child development, I am sorry. A contribution has been made by the member for Adelaide, the opposition's newly appointed representative for child protection, and I thank her for her diligent work in considering this matter. I join with her in thanking the government for bringing forward a bill which, at the very least, includes a recognition of the need to have a commissioner for children in this state.

It may be over a decade after strong recommendations by Robyn Layton QC, who provided the report for the state's plan for child protection back in 2003 but, nevertheless, it is here, and I thank the minister for bringing it to the attention of this parliament and at least making some commitment, albeit relatively small, to funding for it. I also wish to acknowledge the member for Adelaide's work in her tireless attention to consulting the stakeholders and becoming familiar with and briefed on the enormous task that we have to provide South Australians with protection for our children.

I start by saying that the government's bill proposes the establishment of a new council and an outcomes framework for children and young people, and in statutory form we are to have a new council. Can I just go back to 2002. In 2002, upon the election of the Rann Labor government, then ministers were proactive in ensuring that we immediately had some contemporary reports on the situation in relation to child protection. They acted promptly.

I can recall that in those early days minister Key was involved in ensuring that we had recognition for this important task. They got off to a good start and we had some important reports dealing with children in care, particularly those in state care, and the establishment by the government of ultimately the two inquiries by Mr Ted Mullighan QC, the late justice, who is well known to members here in the parliament. It was a good start.

We also continued during that time to have a department of families and community services. It has come in different formats; we have had several ministers, probably half a dozen in that time. We have had enormous changes in format. I can recall the now Premier, former minister, advocating for the importance of having a separate department for families and child protection and the importance of severing that role from the then department of human services back in 2002.

The previous Liberal government had, under minister Brown, amalgamated services in relation to housing, child protection, community welfare and health and hospital services in a major department. That was the structure they had endorsed. The then minister, now Premier, was strong in his voice to say that there should be an independent focus and attention given to a separate department on this. I for one did actually think that was not a bad idea, that they keep that separate, because we clearly had some challenges and there were ever-increasing demands.

The government's insistence on taking out individual service providers for children under the guardianship of the minister and taking it back into some central control model meant that clearly the government were going to take on an extra role—in the end, not very effectively, sadly; nevertheless there was a strong advocacy for that. So, I was surprised, like many others in this house I am sure, when under a more recent government, the now Premier Weatherill himself decided that he was going to amalgamate education and child protection and child development. Child development, yes, but having the whole of child protection under the same umbrella was totally inconsistent with what he told us a number of years before as being necessary, dedicated and independent.

On this side of the house, our policy remains that it is a very major problem in this state and that it does require the dedicated attention of a minister. It is no reflection specifically on the current minister undertaking a different role, but education is also a very important service for delivery in this state, and we on this side of the house take the view that it is necessary that we keep it separate. Today here, the government have decided that they are going to have a new council and that they are going to have an outcomes-based framework.

I do not know what has been happening in the last 13 years. An 'outcomes-based framework' might be a glorified way of telling us: what have we done to ensure that children are actually being protected? What are the improvements? What reduction has there been in the number of children into guardianship, etc? You can have ticks in boxes for these framework outcomes, but the reality is that we have had a government department, amalgamated or otherwise, for the entire 12½ years I have been here and many decades before, but under this government we have had a department which has had a direct charter to deal with the protection of children.

I just remind members of the house that the objects of the current Children's Protection Act 1993, which covers the entire period of this government, states this:

The objects of this Act are—

(a) to ensure that all children are safe from harm; and

(b) to ensure as far as practicable that all children are cared for in a way that allows them to reach their full potential; and

(c) to promote caring attitudes and responses towards children among all sections of the community—

with further detail on that—

(d) to recognise the family as the primary means of providing for the nurture, care and protection of children—

with further detail on that. It sets out the fundamental principles. There is nothing new in this.

We do expect every year in the annual report the now Department for Education and Child Development (and its predecessors which have covered child protection) to account to the parliament about what they have been doing, how they have spent the money and how they have improved the cause for children, including the protection of children. Those objectives are there: they are clear in black and white. That is an obligation that needs to be met.

You can create a framework which is outcomes-based and has all the different detail, but in addition to this we have had reports of various entities who are charged with a role, including public advocates and psychiatrists involved in the department. We have had heads of department who are obliged, under law, to come to this parliament and tell us about what is happening in respect of a number of things in this state, including the protection of children.

We have had millions of recommendations. I say 'millions' in the sense that every year we read report after report by entities who have a concern about children. We have read Coroner's reports, we have read medical reports, we have read ministerial statements, and they all remind us of the importance of this area.

When the government came in, they did these reports, and after those reports they established the Child Death and Serious Injury Review Committee. We have their annual report, again giving us recommendations about how we might better protect children and how we might improve systemic failure and the like, across to issues such as how we might ensure that, separate from abuse or neglect of children, we deal with things such as swimming pool fences to protect children from drowning and the like—wider parameters than I suppose we colloquially understand as child abuse or neglect.

We have also had the appointment of the Guardian for Children and Young People. Ms Simmons has had this role and she has, of course, given us annual reports as well. She has given us a litany of recommendations as to how this situation might be improved for children. Very interestingly, the report of Mr Mullighan from the first inquiry he did recommended that there be changes to the Children's Protection Act to ensure that the Guardian for Children and Young People, who has a direct obligation to table a report in the parliament here, should be protected. He went so far as to say that we needed to protect her from ministerial interference in the preparation of her report so that there would be a full and frank disclosure to the parliament of what she found in relation to the protection role she had as a Guardian for Children and Young People, in addition to the minister who, of course, has the legal guardianship of the children.

We have had a lot of reports, we have had committees established, and the government's decision to set up another council, to set up the outcomes-based framework, frankly is window-dressing. I am not here to oppose it. I think it is just going to take resources away from what we should be doing, that is, getting back to the key fundamental recommendation of Robyn Layton QC back in 2003—to establish a commissioner for children who has some power to investigate, who has some power to require the delivery of documents, who has some power to require evidence to be tendered before him or her, who has the protection to ensure that there will be compliance, as a commissioner should have if they are genuinely independent in both their appointment and their role, and to ensure that offences are introduced for people who do not comply.

We have myriad commissioners, and we are about to have another one for Kangaroo Island if the government gets its way in further debate in this house. We have commissioners for the police across to victims of crime. We have commissioners for everything. Perhaps other than the commissioner for corruption, which of course is one of the more newly-appointed commissioners, I cannot think of any more important role to have the most power and the most independence than one involving our children.

If the minister's words are to be believed in her opening statement about the state's and the government's commitment to children then, for goodness' sake, this is the very commissioner, leaving all the others aside, who ought to have the highest priority and, in my view, sufficient powers to actually do their job to ensure that we do have some action and that we do get outcomes and not just another bureaucracy or, as has been described in the media, a 'toothless tiger'. That is the model the government is presenting to us for consideration today, and I wholly reject it as being adequate.

I am very pleased that, under the umbrella of the recommendations proposed and passed in another place by the Hon. Stephen Wade, the member for Adelaide has foreshadowed that the model be strengthened and that it actually have some effect. We will go into the detail of the importance of those amendments but, in essence, they will be to make provision for the appointment role to be more independent, for there to be provision for investigation of complaints and to deal with systemic review, and also to have offences imposed for those who do not comply with the commissioner's obligation.

What is incredible is that I read a bill the other day dealing with the Kangaroo Island commissioner, and even that has offences; up to $10,000 for failing to comply with a commissioner’s request for the provision of information is foreshadowed, yet we do not have anywhere near the strength required. The Liberal Party foreshadows that we will introduce offences to provide for that, and also, most importantly, that investigators be selected and appointed through a process for the commissioner to be able to undertake their task. If it is good enough for the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption to have investigators, surely it is good enough for the children of our state to have their commissioner vested with the power and responsibility to be able to undertake their role.

Can I also say that not only lawyers and other agencies that have been referred to by the member for Adelaide have outlined the deficiencies but also recently the Australian Medical Association. They, like police and welfare agencies and a number of other people in our community, including nurses and doctors and obviously people who work in our education department—anyone who works with children—understand the significance of this. The Medical Association has also made a very significant statement about the importance of their support and endorsement for the investigative powers of a commissioner. They truly understand that it is important for the commissioner to have the ability to monitor the decisions of government and non-government agencies and make recommendations in a manner independent of government influence, and they make this point very clear in their presentation.

They also endorse the fact that the ability of the commissioner to provide suggestions to governments based on their research of best practice is also positive. But it is also an expectation that, if they are truly going to do their job, they must represent all children and young people of the state and promote the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

If you are going to achieve these things you actually have to give a commissioner the tools to be effective in their role, not just give a fancy name to a government appointee who will very much have their wings clipped. Please do not waste the money. We say to the government: if you are serious about this, if you are genuine in your desire to ensure that these children are protected and that we do not have on an almost monthly basis a media statement in relation to the unhappy circumstances of children in this state, then we must deal with this and we must give the commissioner those powers.

Can I also say that when the now Premier was the minister for families and communities, I actually sought in relation to one of these dreadful cases, the house of horrors case, a disclosure of the communications between the then minister (minister Weatherill as he was) and the department regarding the investigations of that matter. We know that Mr Debelle QC has subsequently dealt with another matter in relation to communications between the relevant players in an education department matter, and we are about to have former Justice Nyland undertake her role in respect of a specific case. All of these are important.

The government talks about transparency, about being accountable, about having a genuine outcomes-based result in the development of this legislation, but all it does at the end of this bill is just add in the new commissioner that is proposed to form another veil of secrecy as an exemption under the Freedom of Information Act.

When we took on this question of getting the documents, this is what essentially happened, in short. We applied for the documents under freedom of information. The department rejected the information being made available, that is, the information from the Child Death and Serious Injury Review Committee, some of that material, in particular the recommendations to the then minister. The Ombudsman heard submissions and made a determination that that information should be available, that it was in the public interest under freedom of information law. However, the matter went to the District Court because the government immediately appealed against that decision and sought to have it overturned; they went off to the District Court to have a determination to again protect.

The sections in relation to the act which provide for the Child Death and Serious Injury Review Committee and their protection they defined within the act as protected; in fact, they made the comment during the course of those proceedings that there would need to be a change here in this parliament if we were going to remedy it. So I was very disappointed when I flicked to the end of the bill that has been introduced in this parliament—

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The member for Bragg did not quite finish her story about the process of trying to access that information in relation to the Child Death and Serious Injury Review Committee. She actually lost the court case.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: No, you didn't.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am—

An honourable member: Chuck her out!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me! There is no point of order. I ask the deputy leader to continue her remarks.

Ms CHAPMAN: For the benefit of the minister I will repeat what I said. That is, when the matter came before the District Court the court determined that the provisions in the act did protect that material and, accordingly, that was not made available. Just in case the minister missed that, I want it to be absolutely clear. She did not understand it or had not read the judgement, I do not know. However, the reality is that it needed to be remedied by this parliament. That was clear. So I was bitterly disappointed when bill arrived. What did I find? They added another group into the protection of being exempt under the criminal information law to protect, rather than the other way round.

That is another area of freedom of information, in addition to what the Ombudsman more recently provided in one of his reports about the scandalous interference by ministers and other personnel in relation to freedom of information officers. Let me say that we will have a showdown on this freedom of information one day. We will have it, and we will have it because of the importance of protecting children in this state. We will make sure that this government is accountable. They can keep covering themselves in protection, can keep hiding behind the umbrella of secrecy, and our children will continue to die, continue to be seriously injured, continue to be shamefully neglected. This government will have that on their head.

An honourable member: Shame.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Torrens, are you standing up?

Ms WORTLEY (Torrens) (11:47): I support the government's Child Development and Wellbeing Bill. In particular, I would like to emphasise the importance of a commissioner with appropriate powers to affect systemic change and promote the interests of children and young people. It has been a position that I have both advocated for and supported, and I hope members opposite will put aside their differences and play a constructive role in helping us to establish this very important position.

The functions of the commissioner, proposed by the government, will include the authority to investigate systemic issues in a proactive way in order to identify where improvements can be made and showcase best practice. Despite what some members are expressing, our bill does not specifically exclude interviewing or looking into individual cases in the context of identifying systemic issues. Indeed, the model proposed in this bill of systemic inquiry is consistent with all other jurisdictions.

Reviews of functions over the past two years resulted in no Australian jurisdiction including full investigative powers for commissioners for children and young people as of 1 July this year. These include recent reviews in New South Wales, Western Australia, Victoria, the Northern Territory and Queensland. The exclusion of full individual investigatory functions is also consistent with the recommendations of the South Australia review of child protection by Robyn Layton QC.

Although the commissioner is able to consider circumstances from individual cases in inquiry into systemic issues, the role is not intended as a body for complaints but would seek to ensure that children, young people and families understand their rights and the available dispute resolution options, including how to contact responsible officers of state authorities.

In situations where children and young people contact the commissioner directly, the role will include providing information and referring matters to the appropriate state authority. If a matter involving state authorities has not been satisfactorily resolved, the commissioner may provide advocacy support for children and young people to seek further action. This function will in fact support families to receive satisfactory resolution where this has not occurred in the first instance, as well as ensuring continuous improvements to processes or systems through the commissioner's monitoring and inquiry function to ensure better responses for families in similar situations.

The government bill establishes appropriate checks and balances for all parties, including the commissioner, ensuring improvements in systems, services and policies at all levels within government. This advocacy for effective policies and continuous improvement aims to ensure best possible outcomes. The commissioner can identify practices that contribute to unsatisfactory resolutions, leading to improvements in the way agencies respond to issues concerning children and young people. Our commissioner model will work with rather than duplicate the functions of bodies such as the Guardian for Children and Young People, South Australia Police, the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner, the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption and the Ombudsman.

Those opposite would have us believe that when they were in government they had some fantastic families department. What they had was a mega department. It was unwieldy. When we got into government we took their department, and some others, and made it the department of families and communities and that included: housing, ageing, disability and families sa. We then had another look at it and moved it into Families SA, with education. We did this to ensure that from birth through to 18 years the focus was on the wellbeing of children. The outcomes framework is about the wellbeing of children, so that the decisions that all agencies had at the forefront of their minds, and I cannot say it enough times, was the wellbeing of children—all children.

As a result of taking into consideration the feedback of the community and a wide range of stakeholders, the government has shaped this legislation to offer greater support for children, young people and their families. As law, this bill will be an investment in our children and our youth. It is, therefore, an investment in our whole society. When we look after the health and wellbeing of our young we improve the health and wellbeing of our state as a whole. As a parent and a former teacher I know firsthand the vital importance of the first few years of a child's life when it comes to their future development, and their ability to be productive and lead fulfilling lives.

This government cares about our children. Since being elected in 2002, we have nearly doubled the funding for our public schools on a per student basis. Initiatives of this Labor government have seen more children stay at school longer to complete their education. The government has set up children's centres around the state, bringing together preschool, allied health programs, occasional care and other community services in one location. We have increased funding for our child protection system from around $90 million in 2002 to $325 million in 2014. We understand that there is still more to be done. We always strive to do better and this is one considerable step toward achieving that goal.

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (11:54): The government bill has many shortfalls and my support is conditional on a number of amendments being made, including but not limited to the following: firstly, independence. We have heard about the independence of the commissioner and what it should have. The independence of the commissioner, clearly, should be addressed in the legislation. Secondly, the functions of the commissioner must be expanded to include further enhancement of investigative powers. We also would stress the removal of the Child Development Council and the explicit requirement to prepare an annual report for parliament, which I will delve into.

As previously advised in 2003, the Hon. Robyn Layton recommended that the Labor government appoint a commissioner for children and young people in her report, the state plan for child protection. We have also heard about the Labor government's discussion paper in 2012. Neither the discussion paper nor the draft bill released in July 2013 actually provided for a commissioner. We think this is a clear failure. Quite esteemed bodies, such as the AMA, as I will go on to talk about, do want a commissioner.

We have heard that the consultation response was so strongly in favour of a commissioner that a revised bill was released in October 2013 that did provide for a commissioner in addition to the council and the networks, and here we are today, from 14 June when the Labor government introduced the amended version of the 2013 bill, with the Child Development and Wellbeing Bill. While the current bill is largely the same as the 2013 bill, a number of concerns have been addressed in this place, and the bill still falls short in terms of the role and functions of the commissioner, as well as their independence.

If you want a model bill, compare this bill with the Hon. Stephen Wade's bill in the other place, the Commissioner for Children and Young People Bill, and it is evident where the superior bill is: it is in the other place. The Liberal bill addresses the majority of the points raised during the consultation on the government bill, but there are a number of shortfalls in the government bill. I would like to talk to the house about the consultation with major stakeholders that has occurred and how the bill fails to address those concerns.

I will start with the independence of the commissioner. We have seen time and time again that this government has a problem with independence. Do you know why this government has a problem with independence, Deputy Speaker? Because when something is independent you cannot control it. We see here again that we are at the mercy of the government. Let me tell you, the people of South Australia would like an independent commissioner. The government bill omits key information regarding the independence of the commissioner.

I quote from a letter of 1 August 2014 from the Australian Medical Association where they say, 'We have emphasised that the commissioner should have independent powers and a duty to report to the parliament.' Furthermore, I refer to a media release from the Law Society of South Australia dated 28 July 2014 in which they also issue extremely harsh criticism, where they say that 'the opposition's bill to establish a children's commissioner is an improvement in that regard'—speaking in regard to independence.

These are two esteemed bodies where we see that independence is such a crucial issue, but it has been ignored by this government. I draw the house's attention to this issue and hope that the government is humble enough to take that into consideration. There is a further requirement that we would like to put forward in regard to annual reporting. The government also has a problem with the concept of responsible government: that it is accountable to the people of South Australia and to the parliament.

It goes without saying that there should be an obligatory reporting requirement here. We would propose an annual report which goes into the detail, in the interests of accountability and responsible government. Let us see what this body comes up with annually in a structured manner or otherwise, but I am yet to see a proper version of that.

This bill fails to address these transparency issues and these independence issues. As I said, my support of this bill is conditional: I will support it only if the independence of the commissioner is clearly addressed, if its functions are expanded to include further enhancement of the investigative powers, if the Child Development Council is removed and if there is an explicit requirement to prepare an annual report (or a similar report) to the people of South Australia, who at the end of the day are paying for this resource and deserve that accountability.

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (12:00): I also support this bill. I would like to emphasise that this bill includes a number of provisions which uphold the independence of the commissioner. Much has been said today about the independence of the commissioner, but this bill does strongly underpin the independence of the commissioner. There are a number of provisions which touch on the independence of the commissioner which ensure that the commissioner has the capacity to operate independently. For instance, the commissioner must provide independent recommendations and reports, which the minister is required to table in parliament within 12 sitting days, and that is an incredibly important provision.

Under clause 19 of the bill, the commissioner can require state authorities to supply any information to enable the commissioner to monitor complaints and systemic issues and to make recommendations, which is a very important provision of this bill. It has been mentioned by the member for Hartley that there is no provision for annual reports, but that is not the case: the commissioner is required to report annually. It is not explicitly stated in the bill, but the requirement is under section 12 of the Public Sector Act 2009. The operation of that particular act ensures that the commissioner will report to the parliament on an annual basis. The bill does not provide the minister or the government with any powers to direct the commissioner, preserving the independence of the role; once again, an important provision.

It is a false perception that, because the opposition bill states these two provisions explicitly, the role it establishes is somehow more independent. It is not the case; in fact, these provisions apply equally in both bills. Importantly, the government's bill provides checks and balances to ensure that the commissioner is able to provide independent advice and recommendations while ensuring that the commissioner is also accountable to the public, under the Public Sector (Honesty and Accountability) Act 1995. The independence provisions of the bill support the greatest accountability in the commissioner's exercise of systemic inquiry functions, and that is something that has been discussed on a number of occasions in the house. Clearly, the commissioner is in a position to carry out systemic inquiries.

The government's bill does not stand in isolation but must be considered along with existing legislation, such as the Public Sector (Honesty and Accountability) Act 1995 and the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act 2012. These further support the high standards of conduct expected of the government and the public sector in working in cooperation with the commissioner in ensuring that the independence and the integrity of roles are not compromised.

I also highlight that the moral proposed in this bill of systemic inquiry is consistent with all other Australian jurisdictions. Reviews of functions over the last two years resulted in no Australian jurisdiction including full investigative powers for commissioners for children and young people, as of 1 July 2014. The bill before the parliament reflects the pattern of action that has occurred nationally in other jurisdictions. I think that shows that, collectively, the experience indicates that the direction in which this bill is going is the correct direction.

Ms DIGANCE (Elder) (12:04): I rise to speak in support of the Child Development and Wellbeing Bill, as introduced by the minister. Firstly, I will highlight the merits of this proposed bill and its broad and considered approach, and later I will contrast it to the narrow, and what I would suggest to be draconian, traits proposed in the bill by those opposite originating in the other place. But, to begin, I must clearly state my position on child protection.

From the outset, let me say I am absolutely appalled at harm inflicted upon children at the hands of any perpetrator. For many years of my professional life, I have worked at the coalface, hands on with families with young children, in particular focusing on those families considered at risk. I also spent time on policy, with much of my work centred on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child soon after Australia became a signatory. It is the most widely ratified human rights treaty in the world, which signifies the importance of this instrument.

Those of you familiar with this particular instrument will know that much good work has evolved from it in this state. Some of the core principles of it are: the right of children to survival and development, the right of respect for the best interests of the child as a primary consideration in all decisions relating to children, the right of all children to express their views freely on matters affecting them, and the right of all children to enjoy all the rights of the convention without discrimination of any kind. So we see UNCROC supports the wellbeing of children.

The government's Child Development and Wellbeing Bill strives to strengthen the government’s determination to support the development and wellbeing of children in South Australia. The bill seeks to recognise, by law, the importance of children and young people through seeking to establish an independent commissioner for children and young people to advocate for children and young people and to investigate systemic issues, and to establish a child development council charged with developing an outcomes framework for children and young people, which will incorporate a charter for children and young people. The bill seeks to evoke and enlist cooperation across government agencies, including local government, towards better outcomes for children and young people.

We are all aware that experience is a great teacher. My experience, coupled with qualifications, taught me the value of working with families and their children and community, as opposed to working on them or doing it to them. I want to retell a story, a true story, in which I played a role. It was while I spent my time as a community health nurse at a country location where there were many families of a lower socioeconomic standard, not necessarily by their own doing but by what life had dealt them.

In this group of high-risk clientele were women who were mothers seeking refuge and support from abusive relationships, and there were those with mental health issues and disabilities. With most of these families, although resources were scarce (as they commonly are in rural areas), a multidisciplinary team consisting of the local social worker, the local policeman, the paediatrician and me would work together to ensure the best possible outcomes.

This story is one of many in which I have been involved. A young woman who, from life’s misfortune, saw her as a single mother. She lived alone with a toddler and a newborn baby. For those of you who have experienced parenthood, this comes with its stresses and daily challenges. She had no extended family or direct support. She was not coping and suffered postnatal depression, which was apparent in the disarray and poor hygiene of the children and herself on my first visit. She was a young mother categorised as at risk, and the welfare of her children was at the tipping point, whereby temporary removal of the children was imminent.

However, I saw within this young woman glimpses of how any of us might be in this particular situation: no support, lonely, weighed down by the responsibility of two small children and money worries—juggling food, essential service bills and medicines required for the toddler who battled chronic and recurrent ear infections. I made her a cup a of tea and some toast, I bathed the baby and the toddler, washed the sheets, fed the baby, fed the toddler, did the dishes and mopped the floors and bathrooms. From there, we made a simple plan of what daily tasks needed to be tackled each day.

Over the next few months, with intensive visits and inclusion of community supports, this young mother began to take pride in herself and her small family. With time, not only did she manage the house and children, but she began to take the children to playgroup and then even found herself a few hours of work.

This is a marvellous achievement, and it is a story that shows that working with people in need gives them hope and empowers them to make these changes. In the alternative scenario, she would have lost custody of her children and had to claw her way back from maybe a lower base of disempowerment and low self-esteem and low self-belief, not to mention the damage to those children's early years and the development of attachment and trust. The value of working hand in hand with this young mother saw outcomes of a positive nature. The multidisciplinary team approach was a great intervention, sounding board and safety net.

Why do I tell this story? I tell it as it demonstrates and illustrates the merits of this bill in reinforcing the strength of human spirit to make changes and to strive to be our best. It seeks to improve the way all sectors in the community integrate policies, planning and support to help improve outcomes for children and young people. South Australia can only benefit as a fairer and more productive society when we make such investments in our youngest citizens. Through the model proposed in this bill is the opportunity to build the evidence base to inform where resources will benefit children and young people. Pathways of choice and empowerment of prevention strategies build lifelong skills, as evidence suggests.

With the inclusion of the Child Development Council in this bill (that is not included in the bill proposed by those opposite) comes a strengthening and robustness of the model to drive this vision. Also, a feature is the outcomes framework in improving the development and wellbeing outcomes of children and young people in South Australia. This builds responsibility and accountability at a systemic level for all service providers. Our consultation processes overwhelmingly support a community focus with an outcomes focus.

There are functions for the minister in promoting quality services, working with the commissioner and the council. The government's bill includes advocacy, promotion, public information and research as recommended by the Layton report 2003, while the screening processes have been strengthened through the Children's Protection Act 1993. As government, our goal should be to have children cared for by parents and families. We should not be in the business of unjust judgement and removal of children, but where it is deemed safe we should encourage children to remain within their families and be supported in parenting practices.

While Queensland became the first state to establish an independent statutory body in 1996, recently they have dissolved these functions and distributed them between two newly established statutory bodies and existing departments. All jurisdictions in Australia have either removed or plan to remove investigative powers from the role of commissioners and commissions.

I note that the sponsor of the opposition's bill, Commissioner for Children and Young People Bill 2014, at times makes reference to the Queensland model, so I would suggest he avail himself of these recent changes. We will do well to learn from others' experiences so as not to repeat mistakes, and this is one such case that shows us that the model proposed by those opposite is not the way to go.

The proposed bill for the commissioner of children as introduced by the opposition does not have a wide vision of advocacy, research and a governance structure of multi means. Instead, at the heart of their proposal is a mean-minded punitive system of questionable credibility, open to misuse. I would suggest to those in this house that they be wary of the slippery slope contained within the opposition's bill that would see South Australia flung back in time and lose the spirit of progressiveness that we are so famous for. Instead, look to the future to educate, research, advocate and empower to ensure we are, indeed, a progressive state.

This government bill has a comprehensive broad focus, and I support it.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (12:14): I am pleased to speak on the bill and indicate that I will be supporting amendments in due course to put in place some of the things that the opposition thinks will improve the bill. The bill is well and truly overdue. The minister indicated early in the first half of last year that parliament would see and, in fact, pass legislation of this nature prior to the end of 2013 and, of course, that turned out to be a false promise. We were, however, pleased that on the afternoon of the budget the minister was able to introduce the legislation that we now have the opportunity to debate today. It is 1½ years late by the minister's promise and 10 years late by what the people of South Australia had hoped for, had expected, after the Layton review.

The course of the debate today has suggested that we are as one at least in rhetoric when it comes to ideally preferring that the needs of children be put first, but we would suggest that the measures identified by the opposition will in fact be in the best interests of the children of South Australia, giving a children's commissioner the powers to act as an independent commissioner with teeth, the opportunity to investigate matters without restrictions being placed on the government, as has been supported by the AMA, as has been supported by the Law Society, as has been supported by just about every independent person of expertise in this area who has made submissions during the course of the debate.

When the government comes out and when the Premier says on television that, if the opposition's bill or amendments are preferred by the parliament, by the upper house, there will be no children's commissioner, as he did several weeks ago, that flies in the face of all that has been said in recent times about everything being on the table. When the Premier has said previously that everything is on the table in order to improve the child protection system in South Australia, how can he then say that the opposition's improvements to this government bill are completely unacceptable and cannot even be considered if the upper house of the parliament decides to go down that path?

I hope that in the time the Premier has had over the parliamentary break that the government has matured in its position on this matter and will consider the contributions made during the course of this debate, will consider the contributions made by those outside the parliament in support of the member for Adelaide's amendments, which give effect in fact to the policy difference that has been established since before the election.

I am glad that we have a bill to debate, I hope that it has a speedy passage and I hope the government will support the amendments that we will put forward and that the Child Development and Wellbeing Bill can in fact give effect to a children's commissioner who will have the investigative powers needed to be able to do the work they should be able to do.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for Education and Child Development) (12:17): I thank all members for their contributions. I particularly thank my colleagues on this side, who outlined very clearly some of the very important issues contained in this bill.

This bill is about the wellbeing and development of all South Australian children. It has a very strong focus on that. It is about all agencies, all levels of government, taking into consideration the wellbeing, health and development of all children in South Australia. It is not a substitute for the Child Protection Act. We have done more since we have been in government, I think, than has any other government to provide oversight in relation to the protection of children in this state, certainly a lot more than the previous Liberal government had ever even thought about.

We have established the Guardian for Children and Young People, the Council for the Care of Children, the Child Death and Serious Injury Review Committee, and the community services and health ombudsman. We have had royal commissions: as has been mentioned, the Layton commission, the two Mullighan inquiries, the Debelle inquiry, and now we have Justice Nyland looking at different aspects. All these royal commissions looked at different and important aspects of child protection in this state.

It is a complete nonsense to try to duplicate the processes we have in place. This bill contains the provision to establish a commissioner for children, and we are doing that because of the extensive consultation that we undertook in the development of this bill. I understand that in fact in developing the opposition's counterpart to this, there was no community consultation undertaken.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: You explain to us the community consultation you undertook, not the letters that you got randomly in the mail but the consultation you undertook with the community.

Our commissioner will have enormous independence in the work that will be undertaken, and I think it is worth pointing out that, in fact, the Liberals wanted to have a clause in their bill that allowed the minister to direct the commissioner. That is not in our bill, and I understand that after some pressure they took it out of theirs as well; nevertheless, this is an important piece of legislation.

I understand that we are going into committee now to go through just the first three clauses of this bill. I understand that the opposition has certainly flagged that it has amendments, but no amendments have been provided to the government at this stage, so it is impossible for us to deal with them. I am assuming that they are complex amendments.

The only amendment that has been put before me deals with the Marine Parks (Sanctuary Zones) Amendment Bill so, unfortunately, we will not be able to deal with any complex amendments because they have not been provided at this stage. However, I am happy to do the first three clauses in committee. I was asked to do three.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Yes, it's a simple one.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Clause 3.

Ms SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Sanderson-1]—

Page 4, after line 3 [clause 3(1), definition of State authority]—Insert:

(ba) South Australia Police; or

That amendment inserts South Australia Police as one of the statutory authorities to recognise their importance.

The CHAIR: We have not circulated amendments so—

An honourable member interjecting:

Ms Chapman: Don't be critical of parliamentary counsel.

The CHAIR: Order!

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: I am standing up. If you want to start pointing fingers, we can say why it did not come, so let's not do that. Let's get on with the business in the house. We are at clause 3. They are not distributed. Are we happy to go ahead with clause 3 or not?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I am happy to go ahead with it. The government bill already applies to SAPOL; however, we are happy to accept this amendment because it really makes no difference.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 4 and 5 passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.