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) (15:18): To explain a bit more clearly, perhaps— The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Well, no, just read the question. Ms SANDERSON House of Assembly Ms SANDERSON: Read the question? If the department is picking up all of the cases— The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Point of order. The Hon. J.M. RANKINE House of Assembly The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Point of order, sir: the member for Adelaide asked a supplementary question. A supplementary question has to be as a result of the answer given by the minister, and the member for Adelaide already had it written out on her piece of paper, typed out, so it cannot possibly be a supplementary question. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The member for Wright will be seated while I rule on her point of order. I do not uphold the point of order for this reason: that the member for Adelaide has brought the proposed question to me and it was noted by her in the form of an explanation to her first question. The member for Adelaide. Ms SANDERSON House of Assembly Ms SANDERSON: Thank you. If the department is picking up all cases under section 20(1), as mentioned that you are not reporting under section 20(2) for the last few years, why did the Chief Executive, Tony Harrison, in his evidence at the inquest into the death of Chloe Valentine (page 122,  paragraph 13.2) say that if they were to make applications under section 20(2) in all such cases there would be a 'dramatic implication for resourcing'? The Hon. S.E. CLOSE House of Assembly Port Adelaide Minister for Education and Child Development Minister for the Public Sector The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Minister for Education and Child Development, Minister for the Public Sector) (15:19): I do not want to revisit partial sections of the exchange between the Coroner and the chief executive. I do not think that is particularly fair, given that we are not providing full context of the discussion, but nonetheless the point that is being made I believe is the question of the use of clause 1 versus clause 2. The truth of it is that Families SA has not been reporting under clause 2 and has not explicitly sought orders under clause 2 previously but, subsequent to the Coroner's recommendations which were accepted by the government, Families SA has commenced a process of protocols whereby it would be able to make sure that where appropriate clause 2 was being used. I anticipate that being reported in the annual report that comes out that covers the period following that decision being made. As I indicated, there are a lot of orders that are made under whichever clause—clause 1 and possibly other clauses—but I do not want to exhaustively go through the different parts of the act. Whether the premise is that all matters are always dealt with I could not be as unambiguous about that. We all know that we are managing very complex circumstances both in the community and within Families SA. We have a royal commission running at the moment which is seeking to assist us in the construction of the child protection system, and I look forward to a report that helps us do that job better.