Children and Young People (Safety) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 August 2018.)

Ms STINSON (Badcoe) (19:48): I rise to speak on the Children and Young People (Safety) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, and I advise that I will be not only the lead speaker for the opposition but, I believe, the only speaker. While the opposition agrees with many of the proposed changes to the Children and Young People (Safety) Act, I flag that we will be making an amendment in the upper house to move some specific powers, which were intended to go into the regulations, into the act.

I have been kindly briefed on those specific provisions by the minister's department and staff. They relate to the intention to provide an exemption for providing a reunification report to the Youth Court in the specific circumstances of the emergency removal of a child. I take the minister on her word that she and her office will be available to answer some further questions that I have on that, but I take this opportunity to flag that we intend to move at least that one amendment in the upper house. Depending on responses that we receive from the minister's office and department, we may move further amendments in relation to parts of the bill that relate to the intention to create regulations.

In relation to the Children and Young People (Safety) Act, we have seen both the state and federal inquiries and royal commissions into historical institutional child abuse. The findings of those inquiries and commissions make for absolutely horrifying and heart-wrenching reading, and they highlight the ongoing harm and negative effects on a person's development and wellbeing. We have seen that these effects are long lasting and, in some cases, intergenerational.

The Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017 was the direct result of the recommendations made by the Child Protection Systems Royal Commission, undertaken by commissioner Margaret Nyland. We thank her for all the work that she did. The act marked the creation of a whole new child protection legislative framework.

Commissioner Nyland made 260-odd recommendations to the government. When the former attorney-general gave his second reading speech on the original bill, he noted that those recommendations were incorporated into the bill; he even specified them. I will not read out what they are, even though I have a list here of every single recommendation incorporated into that act.

This act was just one of a number of acts required to bring in this legislative change to address child abuse and neglect. The principal purpose of the changes to the legislative framework is made clear in the act, which is that the safety of children and young people is at the centre of the decisions made to protect them from harm. It is a sad fact that no matter the safeguards that are in place, we cannot guarantee that children and young people will be safe from harm at all times. However, this act goes a long way in ensuring the required legislative framework is in place to minimise the risk of harm to children in South Australia.

The then attorney-general—and we thank him for his work—consulted widely during a public consultation following the draft bill being tabled during the previous parliament. He then carefully considered the vast amount of feedback that was received and noted that the feedback provided an 'invaluable insight into areas of concern for all involved or who have an interest in child protection in South Australia'. The then attorney not only considered the feedback but made important changes to that legislation based on that feedback to ensure that the safety of children and young people was paramount.

As I mentioned, the act, even with the short passage of time, unfortunately requires a few amendments to address unforeseen shortcomings and misalignments with other corresponding acts. Labor certainly will not stand in the way of what might be referred to as rats and mice changes. However, where improvements can be made, we will raise those issues and seek to remedy any oversights or improve the bill and the act wherever we possibly can.

As a principle, we will also insist on matters that should rightly be in the act, rather than in the regulations. I know that this was the practice of the now government when it was in opposition and we will be adopting that approach as well.

The bill was tabled just prior to the winter break, which afforded me the opportunity to consult with quite a range of relevant stakeholders and organisations including Uniting Communities, SACOSS, Child and Family Focus SA, the AMA, and the Law Society of South Australia. They wish to see the amendment that I will be putting forward in the upper house, and I have furnished the minister with a copy of that. In fact, it has been tabled in the parliament today.

It is the belief of those organisations—and I am sure everyone would agree that they are integral to the child protection system—that the act should stipulate that following an emergency removal the Department for Child Protection would be required to file a reunification report as soon as practicable. Of course, we acknowledge that, in the case of emergencies, that is not always possible within the three to five days that is stipulated for a court order. They, like me, believe that this is a very specific circumstance that is envisaged at this stage through the regulations, but, like me, they would like to see that incorporated into the act.

The Children and Young People (Safety) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill will continue Labor's work towards ensuring that South Australia has the strongest possible child protection laws. I commend the minister for bringing forward these important changes. Certainly, the amendments that I have flagged and will now seek to progress in the upper house, while not major, seek to clarify the situation and make it plain to all parties the process that will be adopted to avoid any unforeseen circumstances or overreach.

I have put forward this quite limited and precise amendment in order to facilitate the clear and unambiguous operation of the act. I hope to have the support of the government in that effort for the benefit and, of course, the safety of children who most need the state's protection. I commend the bill as it is to the house but note that we intend to make those amendments in the upper house. I also take this opportunity to thank both the minister's staff and the Department for Child Protection for the briefings they have provided to me and the work they have done on this important act.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON (Adelaide—Minister for Child Protection) (19:56): I would like to first thank the member for Badcoe for her words and for her cooperation and understanding of the need that we have to get the bill through the house quickly, ready for 22 October for its full enactment. As noted, these changes really are rats and mice. It is drafting errors, improvements or transitional changes that are required for the bill to be workable and to protect our children in the way it was intended.

I note that there are changes that other stakeholders are keen to put forward. In opposition, I fought very hard for several changes, and I have resisted the temptation at this point to bring them forward because I understand the importance of getting the bill through by 22 October. I am also very aware that the strength of a bill is really only in the understanding of the front-line staff and the people who actually work with the bill. We have had about a year of training—or at least nine months of training—Department for Child Protection staff on the bill as it stands, so to add any extra amendments, whether they be my amendments or the amendments of external parties, just adds to the possibility of errors being made in this short time period.

I have made a commitment to all stakeholders and to the opposition. Let us have 12 months from 22 October during which time the staff and the department can work with this legislation. We can see how it runs and whether there are any errors or whether improvements can be made. I absolutely would like to have the best bill possible for the safety of our children. If there are better ways to do that, I will have no issue with making those changes as required.

Regarding the member for Badcoe's particular amendment that was presented today, I indicated to her that I do not have any particular opposition to it; however, between houses there will be time for the CE and the department to double-check whether there would be any complications. I believe that the regulations in full will be ready in the next few days. My department has indicated that they will brief you fully on those regulations as well, in case there are further changes or amendments that need to go through.

I think that on this occasion the member for Badcoe and I are at one that this is all about the safety of children in our state. It is about making sure the legislation that was drafted by the former government can be enacted and in the best way possible, so I thank her for her understanding and work in between the houses. I would also like to thank my staff, who have stayed late tonight and worked on this bill and also held all the briefings. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. R. SANDERSON (Adelaide—Minister for Child Protection) (20:00): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.