Child Protection

In reply to Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (6 May 2015).

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Minister for Education and Child Development, Minister for the Public Sector): I have been advised:

The recommendations made by State Coroner, Mr Mark Johns, were all thoroughly investigated and addressed; however, not all of the options were implemented for a number of reasons.

The following is an overview of each recommendation:

The Coroner was of the view that the appropriate Court for dealing with prosecution for non-attendance under section 76 of the Education Act 1972 should be with the Children's Court, not the Magistrates Court, as is the case currently.

The Coroner's findings identified that it may be possible for chronic non-attendance matters to be heard by the Youth Court.

The Coroner was of the view that the Youth Court was more familiar with child development and child welfare issues, and was thus in a better position to make decisions that supported the best interests of children.

After consideration of this recommendation after the report's release, it was not acted on further as it was determined that the Youth Court was not appropriate for the following reasons:

The Youth Court's criminal jurisdiction deals with offences alleged to have been committed by youths (people under the age of 18 years), not offences committed by parents (section 76 of the Education Act 1972 applies to parents). The Youth Court also hears child protection matters.

Amendments would be required to the Youth Court Act 1993 and the Education Act 1972, for matters such as the prosecution of parents for the non-attendance of their children to be conferred to the Youth Court.

Recently the Attorney-General, the Hon John Rau, confirmed that he does not consider the Youth Court to be the most appropriate forum for prosecuting parents in relation to school non-attendance.

The Attorney-General also stated that, as far as he is aware in other jurisdictions, prosecutions of parents for truancy does not occur in the equivalent of the Youth Court.

Mr Johns also recommended that prosecutions should be brought where there is a reasonable prospect of success based on legal advice.

The practice of referring potential prosecution cases for legal advice to determine whether they have the requisite evidence threshold was already in place at the time of the findings by the Coroner. As a result of the Coroner's recommendations, this process was more clearly documented to support all personnel involved in the process.

A 90-day Change SA project has since investigated opportunities for strengthening existing policies and practices in relation to non-attendance. This includes legislative, regulatory and structural change options regarding prosecution of non-attendance. A departmental working group is currently considering the technical and practical issues of these options.

Prosecution of parents for the non-attendance of their children is always considered as a last resort. This is to be used when other interventions have been unsuccessful and the action is seen to be in the best interest of the child.

Mr Johns also recommended a closer working relationship between the then Department of Education and Children's Services and Families SA in relation to school attendance.

This has been implemented.

As a result of the Coroner's recommendations a coordinated, collaborative, interagency process was developed with the explicit intent to address those situations where 'a child may be at high risk of harm and where there is no current knowledge of the child's well-being'. This process includes a customised notification procedure to the Child Abuse Report Line (CARL) and mandates a joint response by the education and child protection arms of the Department. The process is also supported by the Department for Health and Ageing.

The creation of the Department for Education and Child Development has also provided ongoing opportunities to work more closely with families and identify underlying issues that may be impacting on a student's ability to attend school.

In relation to the further question regarding whether schools are now reporting long-term absences and truancies to Families SA and whether this is undertaken by way of the Child Abuse Report Line, further to the process just described, I have been advised that schools do report long-term absences to the Families SA Child Abuse Report Line. This is one of a range of obligations schools must consider when following up matters of non-attendance. The Department recognises the enrolment and attendance of a child at school are protective factors through which it can support and promote a child's educational achievement and make regular assessments of their health and wellbeing.