<!--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="2016-12-01" />
  <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="8261" />
  <endPage num="8356" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Child Protection</name>
      <text id="20161201c8808d089e3d4167b0000653">
        <heading>Child Protection</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="1804" kind="question">
        <name>Ms CHAPMAN</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Bragg</electorate>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Deputy Leader of the Opposition</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <questions>
          <question date="2016-12-01">
            <name>Child Protection</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2016-12-01T14:52:22" />
        <text id="20161201c8808d089e3d4167b0000654">
          <timeStamp time="2016-12-01T14:52:22" />
          <by role="member" id="1804">Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:52):</by>  My question is to the Minister for Education and Child Development. Whom does the government propose to consult with to 'continue to explore whether there is a need and support for the consolidated secure therapeutic model of care', given that both the Mullighan and Nyland reports have consulted widely and have both recommended that we need a secure facility?</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="2016-12-01">
            <name>Child Protection</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2016-12-01T14:52:54" />
        <text id="20161201c8808d089e3d4167b0000655">
          <timeStamp time="2016-12-01T14:52:54" />
          <by role="member" id="4622">The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Minister for Education and Child Development, Minister for Higher Education and Skills) (14:52):</by>  The recommendation previously made under the Layton report that there be a therapeutic model of care which involves a secure area, which means that the young person would be unable to leave at will, was not supported previously on the basis that the then Guardian for Children and Young People was not supportive of that model of care. She was concerned that it would be used in a way that was not ultimately beneficial to children and to young people whose liberty would be unduly restricted.</text>
        <page num="8302" />
        <text id="20161201c8808d089e3d4167b0000656">Subsequently, Justice Nyland has had another look at the question and has suggested that we ought to further explore it. The people we will be consulting in order to determine how to do this in the best way possible will, of course, be the now guardian and it will also be through the advocacy voices for children who have been in care or who remain in care at present. We will also be working with the health department, particularly for the management of mental health and drug issues, so that we will be able to have a model that is most beneficial for the young person. I believe we will also reach out to juvenile justice as part of that work. Once that work has been completed we will be in a position to determine how to go forward.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>