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 SANDERSON House of Assembly Adelaide Child Protection Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (14:42): My question is also to the Minister for Education and Child Development. Why did it require a District Court judge to order a comprehensive report into the latest failure of Families SA to protect a child from shocking abuse, despite 17 tier 2 notifications that the child was in danger of abuse? Tier 2 is defined as where a child or young person is assessed at being of at risk of harm and an investigation is required within three to 10 days. The Hon. S.E. CLOSE House of Assembly Port Adelaide Minister for Education and Child Development Minister for the Public Sector Child Protection The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Minister for Education and Child Development, Minister for the Public Sector) (14:43): As I explained yesterday, I'm not going to canvass the details of an individual case, and particularly not one that is before the courts at present. Ms Chapman House of Assembly Ms Chapman: You don't have to name anybody. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The deputy leader is warned a second and final time. Mr Goldsworthy interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The member for Kavel is called to order. The Hon. S.E. CLOSE House of Assembly The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I would point out that it is always risky to rely entirely on a media report when constructing a view about what has happened— Mr Pisoni interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The member for Unley is warned a second and final time. The Hon. S.E. CLOSE House of Assembly The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: —as a general proposition. However, if I strip away the question which is focused on a particular case that is before the courts, I am quite happy, if I can hear myself think— Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order, sir. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: What is the point of order, deputy leader? Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Ms CHAPMAN: The minister is suggesting this matter is sub judice. This woman has pleaded guilty. It has been dealt with. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: There is some merit in that point of order, but I imagine it would remain sub judice until sentencing was completed. The minister. The Hon. S.E. CLOSE House of Assembly The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I did not claim that sub judice was the reason that I would not be commenting on individual cases. I said yesterday I will not be canvassing individual cases in this place. Mr Tarzia interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Is the member for Hartley interjecting or talking to himself? Mr TARZIA House of Assembly Mr TARZIA: I was interjecting, sir. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: You were interjecting. In that case, you are warned a second time. The Hon. S.E. CLOSE House of Assembly The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: However, rather than simply sitting down and refusing to respond more generally, I am happy to canvass the discussion about tier 2 notifications and the system more generally, which I think is it at the heart of the member's question, and I know that she has a genuine interest in the functioning of the child protection system. It is the case that we have notifications at a tier 2 level that are not pursued. We have in the last year increased the investigation of notifications by 22 per cent, nearly 23 per cent. We saw an 11 per cent increase in notifications at that time. This year, we are tracking towards having 60,000 phone calls to the CARL line and we take away or remove a little over 300 children a year. So what we have is a system that has a trigger for phone calls that is not commensurate in any way with the number of children who are taken away, and in the huge amount of work that is required to be done by the Families SA agency in between those two figures. Every state in Australia struggles to investigate all the notifications, and there are multiple reasons for that. There are always reasons, both in other states and here, where a family is already involved with a part of government—Families SA or even another part of government—or where there is a legal case that is taking place where it is no longer appropriate to regard that as a notification to be followed up by Families SA people. When I say that, in no way should I imply that everything works perfectly in the child protection system in South Australia. Indeed, the fact that the government has appointed a Minister for Child Protection Reform and the fact that we have a royal commission in place at the moment is evidence of our very sincere desire to improve the system. That is what I am focused on: how we can improve our system, bearing in mind that there are two truths about child protection, as I have been coming to terms with this portfolio and this responsibility. One is that no error is able to be tolerated, because we are talking about a child's life and a child's future, but at the same time we are dealing with humans. We are dealing with humans who are making judgements and also the human beings who are the parents or the carers of the children and, whenever you are dealing with humans, error is inevitable. What you are confronted with are those twin realities in trying to manage a system that is growing by the year. I am certainly— The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Alas, the member's time has expired. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Supplementary, member for Adelaide, and the member for Heysen is warned a second and final time.