<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>House of Assembly</name>
  <date date="2016-09-20" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>53</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>2</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>House of Assembly</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="6725" />
  <endPage num="6825" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Child Protection</name>
      <text id="2016092062dc6855490140e580001048">
        <heading>Child Protection</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="4338" kind="question">
        <name>Mr MARSHALL</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Dunstan</electorate>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Leader of the Opposition</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <questions>
          <question date="2016-09-20">
            <name>Child Protection</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2016-09-20T14:41:10" />
        <text id="2016092062dc6855490140e580001049">
          <timeStamp time="2016-09-20T14:41:10" />
          <by role="member" id="4338">Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:41):</by>  Supplementary: can the Attorney-General clarify to the house the government's feelings towards the specific recommendation in the report regarding the secure therapeutic care facility, as recommended in this royal commission report and also in commissioner Mullighan's report?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="4622" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. S.E. CLOSE</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Port Adelaide</electorate>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Education and Child Development</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Higher Education and Skills</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <questions>
          <question date="2016-09-20">
            <name>Child Protection</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2016-09-20T14:41:34" />
        <text id="2016092062dc6855490140e580001050">
          <timeStamp time="2016-09-20T14:41:34" />
          <by role="member" id="4622">The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Minister for Education and Child Development, Minister for Higher Education and Skills) (14:41):</by>  I am glad to discuss this. It is an extremely complex decision to make, to create a secure facility where you are essentially locking up a child who hasn't done anything wrong. It is not like putting them in a juvenile justice institution; it is about containing them because of concerns about their own safety.</text>
        <text id="2016092062dc6855490140e580001051">I realise it was a recommendation that has been made in a previous royal commission. With the reaction, particularly led by the then guardian, the government decided not to pursue that. Her sense was that it was too dangerous for the welfare of the kids involved and she was very firmly against that recommendation. As with all of the other recommendations that we have not yet accepted, we are currently in a process of consulting with the community on those recommendations, and in particular those advocates for children under the care and protection of the minister.</text>
        <page num="6773" />
        <text id="2016092062dc6855490140e580001052">I will be interested to see whether they feel that the safeguards that sit around that facility will be sufficient. If you read the Nyland report carefully, in the body of the report she does acknowledge the reasons for this being a difficult recommendation to come to terms with. I have an open mind about it. I have come across a couple of cases where I have felt that it might have been useful to have such a facility, but I can see why the guardian was concerned about it previously. We will allow this process of consultation to run its course.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>