House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Child Protection Child Protection Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Bragg Deputy Leader of the Opposition Child Protection Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:36): My question is to the Premier. Did the Premier, after his statement was given to the parliament in December 2005, take any action at all to inform his then department of the expectation of provision of information in the annual reports? The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly Cheltenham Premier Child Protection The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier) (14:36): Let's just explore this red herring. If you remember— Members interjecting: The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Well, let's just go through it. Let's go through it all. Members interjecting: The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: What was that again? Members interjecting: The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I was the person that fronted up and actually told everybody about my policy. I don't sneak around and run away; I actually tell people what I do. Members interjecting: The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Mr Speaker, as has been already noted in the public discourse about this section, the question of drug testing of parents and the reference to them to treatment was the subject of quite a heated debate at time during the course of the 2005 amendments. At that time, it was urged upon the government by crossbenchers, with the support of the opposition, that every parent should be referred to mandatory drug treatment. We resisted that at the time, and indeed the compromise that emerged between the houses was that there would be an assessment that would be made, rather than mandatory treatment. It was also mentioned at the time that the relevant section that was incorporated into the act—I think it was noted by the relevant minister in the upper house that was representing the government at the time that it would be unlikely that that section would have much work to do, if at all. There was another section of the act which was broad enough in its scope to permit the assessments of parents about a whole range of their parental capabilities, including drug assessment. So, it was made very clear at the outset— Mr Pisoni interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Unley. The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That is the sense in which I say this is a red herring: it was made very clear at the outset that assessments in a broader sense were always going to be undertaken under this subplacitum of the relevant section of the act. I understand that, in the Coroner's report, contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition said, it was noted that Mr Xenophon had sought an undertaking, but he could not find any reference in the Hansard to whether the undertaking had been given. Ms Chapman House of Assembly Ms Chapman: We found it. The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I assume it was given, but nevertheless that is not what was contained in the Coroner's report. It is worth remembering, Mr Speaker, as a matter of— Mr Marshall House of Assembly Mr Marshall: But did you make it? The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Well, I don't know. Through your deputy leader, you have just said that you found it in the Hansard; I presume it's there. But, the important thing to remember here is when undertakings of that nature are given in the parliament, as is the case with legislation of this sort, we were working directly with departmental officials. So, departmental officials were not only with us and provided us advice about providing that undertaking, they were in the house when the undertaking was actually given, and heard the undertaking. So, the notion that we didn't communicate this to departmental representatives is fanciful. They were involved in advising us to provide the undertaking, or otherwise, and presumably, because it's asserted we did provide the undertaking, it would have been done in their knowledge and on their advice and then they would have heard it said in the house. It is said, I understand, and I understand it has been reported to the house that there have been no particular references in various annual reports to the use of section 20(2) of the Children's Protection Act in this respect. I am sure we will make some inquiries about this, but without having made those inquiries it is pretty obvious why, and that is because it has very little work to do and is subsumed entirely by another section of the act.