Controlled Substances (Youth Treatment Orders) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 August 2019.)

The Hon. R. SANDERSON (Adelaide—Minister for Child Protection) (16:12): I rise to speak today in support of the Controlled Substances (Youth Treatment Orders) Amendment Bill 2018. Across Australia, the abuse of illicit substances has a devastating impact, not only on the user but also their families and the broader community. Drug dependence is a serious and complex issue which can lead to substantial illness, disease, social and family disruptions, workplace issues, violence, crime and, sadly, in some cases, death.

In my portfolio of child protection, drug dependence by parents is one of the three leading causes of children entering care. Often the drug dependency issue is longstanding and the user has not availed themselves of any treatment. In 2016, more than 3.1 million people in Australia reported using an illicit drug. However, drug dependence is not limited to adults. In 2014, more than 23,000 secondary students, aged between 12 and 17 years, participated in the Australian Secondary Students Alcohol and Drug Survey.

The key findings of that report are alarming. Cannabis was the most commonly used illicit substance: 16 per cent of students reported using it, with 7 per cent having done so in the month prior to the survey. The proportion of students using cannabis increased with age, with 3 per cent of students reporting they used ecstasy or MDMA in the previous year and 1 per cent having consumed it in the previous month. While the vast majority of secondary school students had not used amphetamines, it was reported that the lifetime use of them increased with age, from 1 per cent of 12 year olds to 4 per cent of 17 year olds.

Evidence suggests that the teenage years are typically a period of experimentation, regardless of parenting skills and influence. There are many reasons given by teenagers for using illicit drugs, including to change how they feel, peer pressure, as a way to relax or have fun, out of boredom, curiosity or, most relevant to my child protection portfolio, to escape from psychological or physiological pain.

On a practical level, drug use can lead to property and violent offences, where young people use crime as a method of raising the necessary money to support expensive and illegal drug habits. For young people, this can often result in their first contact with the criminal justice system. If this persists, a permanent impact on employment prospects, their social interactions and attitude towards the law can result in continued contact with the criminal justice system as an adult and periods of incarceration.

Other vulnerable young people who are drug dependent are known to engage in sexual behaviours in exchange for drugs, which can negatively impact self-esteem and place them at risk of disease or harm in dangerous situations. Accepting that there is no silver bullet to prevent young people from experimenting with drugs, suggested ways to reduce the possibilities of experimentation include encouraging a healthy approach to life, including regular exercise and sport, fostering close and trusting relationships with the child and modelling appropriate behaviour. All of these I expect for children in care in this state and are matters that I regularly receive briefings on from my chief executive.

For those in our community who do use drugs, it is recognised that treatment for drug dependence is complex. More often than not, overcoming the addiction is not attainable without professional help. In some cases, the withdrawal process can be dangerous and potentially damaging to the user's health and it is for these reasons medical supervision during the detoxification phase is often required. While the availability of treatment options for anyone who has succumbed to the scourge of illicit drugs is important, the bill seeks to strike the balance of early treatment for young people considering both our obligation to care and protect them as well as their rights and autonomy.

In 2015, Mission Australia gave a submission to the National Ice Taskforce stating their opinion that adult treatment facilities are not appropriate and are often not available for young people. They submitted that adult facilities often do not have the supports that young people need to recover, particularly young people with underlying experiences of trauma, and that in some cases can expose young people to more trauma through their contact with older people who are also managing their drug withdrawal. Mission Australia was of the opinion that youth-specific facilities, which deal with young people holistically in a safe, secure and encouraging environment, are much more likely to succeed long term.

The bill speaks to the government's commitment to protecting young people from the scourge of drugs. It is what drug-dependent children need and it is what parents have been asking for. The bill has a therapeutic focus, ensuring that there are protections in place for the young person by ensuring their best interests are paramount in all decision-making. There is community support for this scheme.

In my electorate, from two separate surveys, over 86 per cent of the respondents were supportive of drug treatment for children under 18 and, importantly, the mandatory treatment when ordered by a court. Support for this scheme has also come from Frances Nelson QC, Presiding Member of the Parole Board, who, I suggest, too often sees before the board adults whose drug dependence has led them into a life of crime. A Youth Court judge has also proffered support and considers that the orders considered by the bill will be useful in that jurisdiction.

Any measure to ensure that those young people who find themselves in the grip of drugs can access treatment is a positive measure. The opportunity that this will afford those impacted young people to live healthy, law-abiding lives and to contribute positively to society should be supported. The bill, with its checks and balances, does just that: it gives people the chance to recover, from which the community as a whole benefits. I commend the bill to the house to ensure that South Australia continues its responsibility to keep our children safe.

Mr PATTERSON (Morphett) (16:19): I also take this opportunity to speak today in parliament on the Controlled Substances (Youth Treatment Orders) Amendment Bill 2018. This bill meets an election commitment by this government to provide children and young people with drug dependency problems treatment for up to 12 months, and to enable parents to legally force their children to attend drug treatment programs.

This is a challenging issue for this house, which has to consider the rights of children, and so the amendments that the bill seeks to introduce are an indication of the serious effect that drug dependency has on children and the increasingly addictive and destructive nature of drugs, such as ice, and the long-term damage they can cause to all drug users, especially children. The bill seeks to provide a balance between protecting and respecting the rights of children and families who care for and protect their children and also the community's obligation to protect children.

As a member of parliament, along with many others in this place I have been contacted by parents with children who have serious drug dependency problems and the terrible toll that it takes on not only the child but also the child's family. They feel helpless in not being able to protect their children from such a destructive drug addiction. Parents face not only the drug addiction itself but also the helplessness they feel towards drug dealers who fuel their child's drug dependency. As an example, I sat down with a parent who was devastated that he had a child who grew up like most: a good kid who loved sport but who, at around the age of 15, just happened to hang around with the wrong group of kids who introduced them to drugs.

What started out as an occasional use of drugs spiralled into frequent use, to the point where, unbeknownst to the parent, the drug dealer was visiting the house to drop off the drugs when the parent was not home. The dangerous issue around this, even more than dropping around when the parent was not home, was that there was a daughter living at home as well. Not only was there a child taking drugs being put in danger but the siblings were as well. As a natural response, the parent cracked down on anyone visiting the house to try to prevent the drugs from being brought into the house, but this led to even more dangerous practices by the child, such that at night-time when everyone was asleep the child would sneak out and try to meet the drug dealer down the street in a local park at 3 o'clock in the morning.

The parent told me that unbeknownst to him anything could have happened and, understandably, they were beside themselves wanting to help their child. In cases such as these and others members of parliament will no doubt have come across, unless that child receives treatment for their drug dependency the parent really does live in fear that one morning they are going to find that their child is missing or, worse, they are receiving a knock on the door from the police telling them that their child has been taken into custody or to hospital or, worse still, has been killed.

Really, for the parent in these circumstances that I have described, the best possible outcome is for the child to get treatment for their drug dependency. As it stands at the moment, this can only really happen if the child voluntarily enters into treatment. There is nothing compelling that child to get treatment, so the vicious cycle continues. Quite rightly, the government also recognises the importance of treating drug dependency in the first instance as a health issue. Previously, I spoke about the parent and how they tried to treat the problem from a disciplinary point of view and the adverse outcomes from that. That parent came to the realisation that it was better to treat the problem as a health issue, as this government is doing.

Additionally, the best interests of the child still have to remain the paramount consideration under the bill, so it is under these considerations that parents who are guardians of their children until they enter adulthood also wish to act. By trying to get treatment for their children, parents really are acting in their best interests. We heard the Minister for Child Protection speaking about the adverse outcomes that drug dependency has had on children that she has had to look after and care for.

To do this, the bill amends the Controlled Substances Act 1984 by inserting a new part 7A, which deals with youth treatment orders. The amendment is in relation to a child or young person with a drug dependency under the age of 18 years. Because they are under 18 years, the Youth Court is the jurisdiction in this state with specialist expertise in matters relating to persons under the age of 18 years. The bill itself relates to a very specific group of children and young people who have refused to engage in a voluntary treatment system, who are at risk and for whom there are no other appropriate or less restrictive means available.

Importantly, the bill does not establish any new criminal sanctions or impose additional penalties on the children or young people who are subject to detention in a training centre. This provides the court with added scope to order medical assessment and appropriate therapeutic treatment where specialist clinicians judge that this is required. New section 54A refers to the best interests of the child. It provides:

The paramount consideration in the administration, operation and enforcement of this Part must always be the best interests of the child that is, or is proposed to be, subject to an order under this Part.

Section 54B of the bill outlines the following orders that the Youth Court can make, these being assessment orders, treatment orders and/or detention orders. The bill anticipates that the court would make these orders in sequence in most circumstances; this is outlined in later sections of the bill.

In terms of what those orders are, the assessment order is outlined, as I said, in section 54B(1)(a), and it requires a specified child to attend a nominated assessment service in accordance with any requirements specified in that order. It also requires the nominated assessment service to provide a report not only to the applicant but also to the child and the court, following the assessment of the child.

The treatment order is outlined in new section 54B(1)(b). This is an order requiring the specified child to attend a nominated treatment service in accordance with any requirements specified in the order. It also requires that the nominated treatment service will provide a report to the applicant, the child and the court, following its treatment of the child. It should be noted that a child may be assessed or given treatment and reports may be provided, despite the absence or refusal of consent by the child, which is what I spoke about previously in terms of children who do not want to comply with treatment orders still being covered in this amendment bill.

Section 54B(1)(c) goes on to outline what a detention order is, namely, an order authorising the detention of a specified child for the purpose of ensuring compliance with either the assessment order or a treatment order made in relation to the child. Importantly, these orders can only be made for a person who is a child at the time the order is made, and orders must not exceed 12 months.

Section 54C relates to who may apply for one of the orders that has been made by the court. The application for an order can made by a family member of the relevant child. In the bill's definitions, it is specified that a family member can either be a spouse or a partner of that child, noting that legal marriage is between people aged 18 and above. For a child to be a spouse, it has to go through the courts for that to occur. Other family members can be a parent or a guardian.

Other people who can make an application for an order include the person holding, or acting in, the Office of the Public Advocate under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1993; the officer of the department; the chief executive of the administrative unit of the Public Service responsible for assisting a minister in the administration of the Youth Justice Administration Act 2016; and a medical practitioner who is providing treatment to the relevant child in relation to the child's use of controlled drugs. A medical practitioner would be aware of what the child was going through.

Applications can also be made by a person who is prosecuting the child for an offence and by officers involved in youth corrections and child protection. This takes into account the circumstances that a child may already be before the Youth Court in relation to an offence or child protection proceeding, or may also be in detention in a youth training centre at the time that an application for a youth treatment order is considered appropriate. Finally, the Youth Court itself may also make orders of its own motion if there are proceedings before the court involving that child.

New section 54D relates to the court making orders. The bill does anticipate that the court would first make an assessment order requiring a child to attend a nominated assessment service. To make assessment orders for a child, the court must be satisfied that there is a reasonable likelihood that the child is habitually using one or more controlled drugs and at the same time the child may be a danger to themselves or to others, that the child has refused to voluntarily seek that relevant assessment and that there is no other appropriate and restrictive means available to ensure that the child receives a relevant assessment.

There are a fair number of requirements before orders can be made and, again, that goes to the heart of taking into account the best interests of the child and also noting that, because of their drug dependency, they may not really be acting in their own best interests. In terms of a treatment order, the court can make one requiring a child to attend a nominated treatment service if that child has been assessed by a medical practitioner, following the making of an assessment order and pursuant to that assessment order that the child is dependent on one or more controlled drugs.

The bill also provides that the question of dependency on controlled drugs is to be determined by reference to diagnostic criteria for a dependent syndrome that is published by the World Health Organization. That gives a frame for that medical practitioner about how the question of dependency on controlled drugs should be viewed. For a treatment order, the Youth Court must also be satisfied that the child may be a danger to themselves or others, that the child has refused to voluntarily seek relevant treatments, that there are no other appropriate and less restrictive means available to ensure that that child receives the relevant treatment and also that the treatment and care of the child pursuant to the order will be governed by an appropriate treatment and care plan directed towards treating the child's dependency on controlled drugs.

In relation to the detention order, the court can make one if it has made an assessment or treatment order in relation to that child and either the child has failed to comply with that order of the court or the court is satisfied that it is likely that the child will fail to comply with that order, again also making sure that there are no other appropriate and less restrictive means available to ensure that the child complies with the order.

In terms of if there is a detention order, new section 54D(5) outlines that a chief executive of the Department for Child Protection, as the department administering the Child and Young People (Safety) Act 2017, must be given notice of proceedings relating to a child that is in his or her custody, or under his or her guardianship, and given the opportunity to make a submission to those proceedings. I should mention that this is for all orders.

If the court does make a detention order, then the court must ensure that the Chief Executive of the Department for Health and Wellbeing is notified of the making of that order once it has been made. New section 54I(1) also notes that a detention order made in relation to a child does not authorise the detention of a child in a place other than an assessment service or a treatment service, unless that child is also subject to a period of detention in a training centre. If it is the case that the child is in a training centre, then that child may be detained in the training centre for the purposes of the detention order.

The bill also imposes obligations on the Chief Executive of the Department for Health and Wellbeing to ensure that a child subject to a detention order receives appropriate care while so detained, including that there are appropriate family visits that take into account the best interests of the child and also that education is provided to them and access to the Guardian for Children and Young People so that they can monitor the situation. It explicitly states that the Guardian for Children and Young People must monitor the child's circumstances throughout this detention.

If the detention order is for ensuring compliance of an assessment order, then that assessment is to occur as quickly as possible. Likewise, if the detention order is for ensuring compliance of a treatment order, that treatment plan should be implemented as soon as practicable after the child is detained, ready to reduce any time spent in detention by the child.

The bill also creates annual reporting obligations, including reporting on the number of detention orders that have been made during a period, the outcome of each treatment order and how many children failed to comply with a treatment order. Of course, because this is new and does take balances into account, as I said before, we really do need to monitor the outcomes of this bill to ensure that the outcomes are those that are intended. To determine the impact and effectiveness of this legislation, on not only the children but also their families and the health and justice systems, there will be a statutory review of the operation of the new legislation starting three years after its commencement.

In her second reading speech, the Attorney-General outlined that operationally it is proposed to implement these reforms in two phases. The first is in respect of children and young people who are already engaged with the youth justice system and who have drug dependency problems and then, subsequently, other children in the community. The intention of the bill is certainly to reduce the number of children who are drug dependent.

I outlined at the start of my contribution that this bill is a balancing act between respecting the rights of children compared with the obligations of the family and also the community to care for and protect that child from the serious effects that drug dependency has on children. The bill does that and I commend the bill.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (16:36): I wish to first acknowledge and thank all members of the parliament who have made a contribution to this debate. I particularly acknowledge the considerable work of the Hon. Stephen Wade in the other place, who has supervised the passage of the bill through the Legislative Council, and, indeed, a number of the members on all sides of the parliament in that place, in a political sense, who undertook quite a lot of work in the development of what is ultimately before us in the bill.

The stakeholders who have been consulted over a period of time have been extensive and they have not always agreed with what is being proposed. I think of somebody like Michael White, the Executive Director of the South Australian Network of Drug and Alcohol Services (SANDAS), a leading body in relation to treatments and services available to support people with drug and alcohol issues. His view was very clear: he did not think that mandatory treatment in any way was acceptable. I think in our discussions he was able to present his basis for that and, by the same token, say that if it comes in he would like to be consulted about the model of care that would be developed to support this. These are the mature contributions, even when they do not agree with us, that we have valued.

Judge Eldridge, the Chief Judge and head of the Youth Court in South Australia and also chair of the equivalent of the parole board for children in South Australia, is someone of vast experience who has to deal with children either in a child protection manner or in relation to criminal aspects. This brings her front and centre with the problem and the devastating legacies of addiction, particularly those where the family has failed to protect children and where the children themselves may then have entered into conduct that is illegal. Frances Nelson QC has also provided wise counsel in relation to this as a leading criminal practitioner in this state and chair of the South Australian Parole Board.

Both have been clear in their support of the advance of this model, being a mandatory process via a health model. It is one which does, as I think other speakers have made clear, balance the need to protect our children and reverse the dereliction of duty of this parliament—indeed, leadership in the community at all—to have allowed our children to get to a state where we have ice addiction that we are now all so familiar with, but it predates that particular popular drug. This has been going on for a long time, certainly in the time I have been in the parliament.

I have been amazed at the diversity and number of people who have come to me—and I think I would share this with a number of members in the parliament—from all walks of life, from different backgrounds, who have been pleading with us to do something to protect children in these circumstances. Very often they are desperate parents, puzzled in many ways as to how the situation has got so bad for their child, but they are begging for somebody to do something to protect them because they see their son or daughter spiralling into a circumstance that is unsafe and completely unsatisfactory.

So we understand why we are here. The model has been teased out and developed and, in fact, enhanced in the other place. As I say, I welcome the contribution from the crossbench and from others in the debates there. To the people of South Australia I would like to say that it has been a long time since I issued a private member's bill in a similar format, which was dismissed by the parliament in 2017, obviously being voted down by the majority numbers of the Labor Party who, of course, were in government at that time.

I respect the decision of the parliament at that time, but I make the point that this is not an issue that is going to go away. We did make a commitment to progress it. We have had a considerable diverse contribution to its development and that has continued during the year or so during which this matter has been debated in this parliament.

We are getting to a stage where I foreshadow there will be some amendments in committee and some to tidy up. Some aspects have become clear now as a result of decisions that were made in the Legislative Council, but that does not in any way undermine the fact that some tidying-up amendments need to be made because subsequent amendments up there have made some of the sections superfluous. Wiser people than me have looked through the bill as it has come out of the considerable debates in the other place and identified some things that we need to tidy up if we are going to progress this, and I certainly hope the parliament is going to be in step with us on this side of the house to ensure that its passage is secure.

With that, I am happy to move to committee. I note that the opposition have foreshadowed two amendments that I have seen. Obviously, we will listen to the view in relation to those. One of those appears to be a variation of what had been previously put in the Legislative Council, so I will look at that as we progress. I thank all members. I just say to the people of South Australia that if this bill is able to pass this parliament and receive assent to the amendments that are being proposed here, we will have done something, finally, to help children, and the bill will be able to commence to provide a service to children who are already detained in youth centres.

We will continue to work with the model and how we might provide a service in the community for those other children but in a mandatory environment. So I thank all members and ask that the bill be now read a second time.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr PICTON: Firstly, I would like to make some comments in relation to the cost of this measure. As the Attorney-General reminded us in her closing contribution, this came about because of a private member's bill that she originally introduced in the previous parliament. It was then reintroduced into the other place in the middle of last year, so it is been a very long time since it was first introduced into the parliament. Still, despite all that time, we are yet to know how much this is going to cost.

I think it is important to note that this originally came about because it was a private member's bill because, basically, the reintroduction of her bill was similar in many ways to her private member's bill. There did not seem to be a significant amount of work that had been done on it prior to its introduction into parliament, it did not have a lot of detail as to how this was going to work, there were very little protections in there, there seemed very little work with stakeholders from what they have been telling us, and it has basically been up to the Legislative Council to try to fashion this into some sort of shape.

Quite often, when you have private members' bills, it is up to the government of the day to raise the question, 'Well, you want to do this, but there is a budget connotation with what you are trying to do. There is going to be a cost to this at the end of the day.' Here it is quite the reverse, where it is the opposition and the minor parties saying. 'Well, government, there is going to cost associated with this bill you are introducing. Can you outline how much that cost is going to be and who is going to pay for it?'

Yet we have received no answers on that front and no detail from the government as to how much it is going to cost. In fact, the recent state budget outlined specifically one measure for this particular bill, but it was not in relation to the treatment of young people, the detention of young people or any of the key measures of this bill; it was a small amount of money in the Attorney-General's area allocated for legal representation. We know how much the government thinks the legal representation element to this is going to cost, but there seems to be no allocation of funding for how much the actual guts of this bill is going to cost, and that is important for a number of reasons.

One is obviously that that will impact upon what sort of treatment is going to be available for people under this measure. When the budget is available is going to impact upon when this will start operating, and whether the government is going to be paying for it or not is going to impact upon the judicial system's willingness to prescribe orders of this type. I ask the Attorney-General: can she outline finally for the parliament and for the public, how much this measure is going to cost, where the money is coming from, and from when the funding is going to start operation?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I thank the member for the question and I think it is a reasonable question, but here is the situation: we have a new model of approach to deal with children who are addicts. Here is what happens at the moment: it costs us, I think, up to half a million dollars a year if they are in a children's prison in one of the training centres. It cost us an enormous amount of money to provide for supervision and support if they become subject to a guardianship order in the state. They might be both in the children's prison and under the guardianship of the minister. It costs us an enormous amount of money for extra health services to deal with the legacy of addiction, and there is the emotional cost of these children whose lives could be destroyed, both literally and, of course, in a circumstance where they might be alive but have no future.

What is the cost of those things? It is astronomical, and this government is committed to looking at a process within the envelope of the protection of a court approval to do something about it. As the member is aware, a working group has been established in the health department to start working on the model of care and what options there are. No doubt the member is fully aware that, for example, with mandatory treatment in mental health matters, sometimes that is done by the person remaining in the community and they have to attend to have a mandatory medication, sometimes an injection, over a few months, and on other occasions they are detained in a psychiatric facility or part of a service at a general hospital. That costs money.

I would certainly hope and we would expect that the numbers that we are talking about here, which I would hope would only be a handful a year, are going to be much less than that burden. But even in that area we have a process under the Mental Health Act to protect people against harm to themselves and others. We have a process that we impose so that we can protect those people who are clearly not in a position, in those circumstances, to make decisions with some clarity to ensure that they protect themselves or others against harm.

For us on this side of the house, this is an imperative. The estimate still is that it would not be very many. Again, we have consulted with the Chief Judge of the Youth Court because, as the member quite rightly points out, in doing the assessment on the question of legal costs of representation, dealing with fewer than 10 applications that go through a year, estimates have been given and we have identified that for the purposes of this being an add-on.

The reason we cannot do that and say, 'For a child who is going to be detained, what is it going to cost for this treatment? What is the daily rate in a facility that is purpose-built in some way—either in a facility or purpose built?' We do not know the answer to that. The member well knows that the interagency working group is continuing to do that work, and that includes some of the people I have referred to already in the contribution to the debate. However, it also includes addiction medicine specialists and child psychiatrists. These are the types of people who are very well versed in what is required for the treatment and the circumstances of how it is going to be managed in a compulsory environment.

It is important that we let them do that work, and that is the very reason why there is a proposed staggered approach to the implementation of this legislation. Let's not waste any time if there is a chance. As the judge in the Youth Court says, if there is a circumstance already where a child is being detained in custody that there is an opportunity for them to have treatment while they are there because they are identified as being addicted, let's not waste any time. Let's get on with it. That is what her position is. Let us just appreciate that this is necessary for us to do.

As a government, we will obviously have to look at the cost and set-off and savings that will be made in a financial manner for us to be able to advance this as an available option to those who we vest the responsibility to protect our children.

Mr PICTON: I appreciate the Attorney-General's response in which she has basically acknowledged that they do not have an idea of how much this is going to cost. They are still waiting for the interagency working group—and 'interagency working group' sounds a bit like Utopia—to start working on this matter to try to come up with what the cost is going to be. But it seems very unclear how much it is going to cost. It is an important question for the parliament to be asking. I think usually governments do not introduce legislation without having that idea first, without knowing what the offsets are going to be, because parliaments should be able to consider what the cost is going to be to other services.

The Attorney-General says that there is a whole range of costs for these people already, so does that mean that whatever costs the interagency working group comes up with are going to have to be born of those budgets that she mentioned in terms of mental health budget, the youth detention budget, community services, youth justice? Will there be new funding that will be allocated by the government to this, or will it be that whatever the cost is will be born of those agencies, and additional savings will be borne by those agencies to fund this new scheme?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member understands that, whilst there is no costing provided for the purposes of this process, as a member of the parliament, he does have an input ultimately in relation to the budget of the government that the government presents to the parliament for approval each year. When that has been developed and finalised in concept, and it has been determined which model of care is to be applied, those assessments will be made and will ultimately come back to the parliament for approval.

Mr PICTON: Clearly, we are not going to know. The concern I have in relation to that is not only in terms of our ability to oversight this but also in terms of what the ability of this is going to have on those other services, what the impact is going to be on those of the services who are potentially going to face offsets. The Attorney-General mentions the budget. We have passed the budget in this chamber, which allocated a nice little slice for her department to look after her department as part of this, but there is no additional allocation out of general revenue for the health department. So I am concerned as to whether health is going to be impacted.

I was also very interested in the Attorney-General's comments—and I think she was quoting the Chief Judge of the Youth Court—in saying, 'Let's not waste any time.' We have finally got to this point of having this committee discussion here in this parliament, more than 18 months after the election, and that seems to have been a significant amount of wasted time that it has taken to get up to this point.

It was also a very significant amount of wasted time that the Minister for Health took to even start this interagency working group to look at the model of care. He did not start that until very late last year when he said, in one of his narky letters that he occasionally sends to me, 'Based on your comments on the radio, I am going to start this working group.' What were you waiting for? Apparently, 'Let's not waste any time,' but it took six to eight months at least for the government to even start thinking about what the model of care was going to be.

Now we have amendments being brought in by the Attorney-General to say this is going to be a problem for the Acts Interpretation Act for us to have to start this two years after the bill gets passed in parliament. Give me a break. This would mean if this suggestion was passed by the Attorney-General that it would not actually start operation during the life of this parliament. It would be in the next parliament that this scheme would start operating.

Not only that, the government has sought amendments in the other place to make it clear that this is only going to initially apply to people who are already in youth detention. As far as I can see, there is nothing preventing the Attorney-General, the Minister for Health, and particularly I guess the Minister for Human Services, from providing care, drug diversion programs, drug counselling and drug treatment for people in youth detention today. That could happen today.

That could happen today, but we are going through this whole rigmarole, this whole exercise, and what we are going to get out of it at the end is the government saying, 'We'll pass this bill and it will be two years plus, plus. We don't want it to be two years. We want it to be more than two years, until it even starts operation,' and even then it is only going to start for youth detention detainees, and then it will be some time after that, perhaps years, when it might start for any other person who could apply through the Youth Court.

Perhaps this is all related to cost, perhaps this is all related to the fact that they know that this is going to be expensive and they do not know how to fund it and that is why no money has been put in the budget. I ask the Attorney-General specifically: when will the Youth Court be able to provide the first order in relation to a child who is not currently in youth detention?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I refer to my previous answer. Otherwise, I take that as a comment.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I move:

Amendment No 1 [DepPrem–1]—

Page 2, after line 7—Insert:

(2) Section 7(5) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1915 does not apply to this Act or to a provision of this Act.

Essentially, this clause is a formal clause. The government proposes to disapply the two-year rule to ensure that this legislation does not commence until the necessary facilities and support services are in place and ready to accept children. While the government does not intend to unduly delay the commencement of this important legislation, it is critical to the successful operation of this legislation that it only commence when these facilities and services are ready.

The interagency working group has advised that additional services, infrastructure and training will be required before the youth treatment order initiative could commence. Reinstating disapplication of the requirement for the usual two-year rule will ensure that robust, safe, clinical and legally effective systems are in place that protect the best interests and safety of children prior to its commencement. Given the position outlined by the representative for the opposition, I would expect that in those circumstances this would be supported.

Mr PICTON: I rise to absolutely oppose this amendment. It is completely ridiculous that the Attorney-General stands up in this parliament and says, 'Let's not waste any time,' but then the first amendment she moves in this parliament is to push this off into the never-never. She is saying that she wants to pass this legislation swiftly, even though it has taken them 18 months to get to this point of the debate because they have been delaying, but then saying, 'Oh, well, it's going to take us years and years to even get to the point of not only implementing it for people in the community but, in fact, just implementing it for people already in the youth justice system.' It is completely absurd.

A previous question to the Attorney asked when she expected this to be operational, and she clearly had no answer. This whole issue of the timing of the bill is completely a farce. If the Attorney-General is serious about this matter, if the Attorney-General is serious about her proposition of 'Let's not waste any time,' as she said, it should not be put off for more than two years. Let's remember that there is another element to this bill, which would mean that it could be years after that before the Youth Court would even be able to apply this to anybody who is not already in the youth justice system.

The delay on this highlights that the government talked a big game on this before the election, talked a big game on this and a whole range of other drugs policies, but subsequent to the election have been doing exactly the opposite: they have been sitting on their hands. They want to talk tough on this and they want to pass a bill and say, 'We did something,' but they want to make sure that it never actually gets implemented (a) because they do not know how much it is going to cost; (b) because they do not know where they are going to get the money to pay for it; and (c) they do not know how it is actually going to operate, and they are concerned about that.

Clearly, one of those reasons is why this is being pushed off into the never-never. This was an element of the Minister for Health's original bill, some 14 or 15 months ago, when he originally introduced it into the other place. The Legislative Council saw no reason to support this back then, took this out of the bill, and now the Attorney-General is seeking to put it back in. We are opposed to that. We do not see any reason why the Acts Interpretation Act should not apply here. If the government is serious about this measure, they should do some work on it rather than just sit on their hands.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I take that as a comment. I do not have anything further to add.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 22

Noes 18

Majority 4

Amendment thus carried.

Mr PICTON: I would like to ask the Attorney-General about the interagency steering group. Could she outline for the house what is the membership of the steering group, what days has the steering group met on and when is the steering group likely to reach an outcome?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The group has participation from a range of departments, including the Attorney-General's Department, SAPOL, the Department for Child Protection, the Department for Education, the Courts Administration Authority, the Department of Human Services' youth justice component, the Department of Human Services' disability division and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, which of course is responsible for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation. Health is represented on the group by Drug and Alcohol Services SA, whom I have referred to; child and adolescent mental health services, that is, the Women's and Children's Health Network; and the Office of the Chief Psychiatrist.

My understanding is that they have, and continue to have, the capacity to invite other parties to attend their meetings to inform the group on specific matters to assist their deliberations. I have not seen, or had reported to me, any outcomes of draft models of care/treatments, but I am also advised that the intention is that the interagency working group will prepare a draft model of care for youth treatment for public consultation by the end of 2019.

The working group will report back to the minister through the Department for Health and Wellbeing on the basis of feedback on the draft received from the public and from key stakeholders. In this, the government remains committed to facilitating consultation with key health justice and non-government service providers and stakeholders, including children and families, to ensure that a model of care is developed that is clinically robust, evidence-based and appropriate to the needs of children and young people.

I would like to indicate that this clearly is not a situation that is common. It does occur in other parts of the country where people are under mandatory treatment. However, the key new feature that is being added to this is that in certain circumstances for treatment of the addicted person, in this case for a child, to apply that, there may be, for example, the same medication, but there may need to be models identified for the purpose of the application of that, particularly in a mandatory or compulsory environment.

As responsible members of the government, and as ministers, we have to rely on the advice that we receive on these matters. We have had a diverse view. As you know, there are plenty of people out there who are desperate to have this initiative, but there are also those in the professions who take the view—I suppose at the other end of the spectrum—that anything mandatory should not apply. But we have to work through that with those who, like the Drug and Alcohol Services executive director, say, 'We don't agree with mandatory treatment, but we do want to be part of the working team to develop that model of care.' So that is the time frame, and that is the best that I can advise the committee.

Mr PICTON: To remind the Deputy Premier, I did ask a couple of things. One of them was: on what dates has the steering group met? In relation to the work of the steering group, I appreciate that she has committed that there is going to be public consultation on the draft model of care that will be put out apparently by the end of the year and that people will have the opportunity to comment on that. I guess I would ask: is that when people will know about what the costing of the scheme is going to be or it will not be until the full model of care is decided?

My other question is about when the draft model of care is to be released. That is when the government will turn its mind to procuring some of these services or going out to the market or determining that they are going to procure them from within the government and run them as a government-run service. Will that come only after the full model of care is determined and is there a date when that is likely to happen?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As to the meeting dates, I do not have those here, but if that information is easily available I will arrange for that to be provided. In relation to the costing, it would be somewhat illogical to cost something, even if we thought the draft was the ideal, before we had consultation on it, so it would depend on that being concluded.

The only thing I could think of that was similar was during the previous government when mental health was the responsibility of the Hon. Gail Gago of the other place. There was a model of care developed over quite a significant period of time for the new care arrangements that were going to be employed at what was going to be left of the Glenside hospital. I remember that the Minister for Innovation and I were involved for a long time in that, I think, shameful history in the reduction of services in mental health in South Australia.

Nevertheless, in that era, post the commissioner for social inclusion of the day Monsignor Cappo's report on the audit of mental health services in this state, recommendations came in for new models of care. There was a select committee of inquiry. I think the Hon. John Dawkins might have been the chair of that at the time. This took a long time and we respected that. We were just disappointed that a big 'for sale' sign went up on the Glenside site for 40 per cent of that land before that had been finalised.

That is the only other process that I am familiar with. The member may have more information or experience in relation to those matters than I have, but in my limited experience on this, they do take a long time. We need to get it right. We are talking about the treatment of children in a mandated environment.

Mr PICTON: I appreciate what the Attorney-General has said. I wonder whether, even given what she is saying, it all has to be worked out after the model of care, etc. Does the government have a view on whether these services, whenever they are inevitably rolled out, will be a government-run service or will there be a not-for-profit or other external provider that will be contracted to the government to provide the services? I would have thought that that was a fundamental question that the government would have turned its mind to no matter what the model of care is going to be. I am sure that which pathway you go down would probably influence what the model of care was likely to be. So does the government have a view or even an inclination on whether this will be a government-run service or a not-for-profit or other provider service?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: At present, we currently have drug and alcohol services in South Australia that are private, public and not-for-profit. There may be other models, but they are the ones I am aware of. Some of them are under health agencies.

All are available and they are utilised, depending on what service you want. For example, I think there is a facility on South Terrace that allows for drug addiction treatment. It is private; there is still no healthcare component that is available, as I understand it, at the national level. It costs about $30,000, which is a lot of money, so obviously it is available only to very few.

I think there will be services that we will have to explore once the model of care is determined, as well as who can provide those services. Certainly, nothing has been excluded at this point, but we will obviously have to examine, once the model of care is determined, who can provide those services and what the terms and conditions would be if they want state government funding to do it.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 3.

Mr PICTON: I will generously give the opportunity to the Attorney-General to clarify something that has been of concern to a number of different key groups, key providers and key professionals in this space. Is this going to be a service that is going to, for lack of a better word, cannibalise the existing very small number of services that are available for young people with drug addictions in South Australia? I spoke in more detail in my second reading contribution about the services that are currently available. Essentially, there is one site that currently provides such services in South Australia.

The concern that has been raised with me and with others is that the government will either send people under this scheme into that service or convert that service into the provider here or, alternatively, it will make it a mixed model, where some people will be under this scheme and some people will be under a voluntary scheme. A lot of the professionals have raised concerns that that will impact significantly upon the people who are there on a voluntary basis.

I am happy to give the Attorney-General the ability to clarify this now and put people's minds at rest, but it seems to me that this would be an additional service and would not be eating into that very small service that is currently available, which is very much oversubscribed and has a very long waiting list to get into.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, I hope this is some reassurance. Firstly, the services we have now work very hard. They respond as best they can on a voluntary referral basis to the demand that is there. Unquestionably, we know we have a problem and it has to be dealt with as a community.

The model has not yet been designed. Whether it needs to be in a separate facility and how long it will take are obviously things that need to be considered. This is why agencies that might currently provide services are in the tent. This is why these groups are being consulted as part of this process: to make sure that the model of the care is got right. All I can assure the member of at this point is that there is no service provider that is being excluded or that is going to lose work. There is a lot of work to be done in this area.

Funding is another aspect. Our government, in due course, if this bill passes and a model of care is resolved—it may provide different levels and different options of service—will be looking for competent and qualified people to undertake this difficult task. On the structure of their own arrangements, whether they are public or private, there has been no decision to exclude any part of the sector from that. In fact, we welcome those who are prepared to work in this area and we appreciate it and need more of it.

Mr PICTON: As part of the changes that the Minister for Health introduced to his own bill that significantly changed it, one is to initially make this bill only apply to people already within the youth justice system. We do not know for how long that is going to apply; the government could take years to determine that. At least initially, whenever this kicks off, this will only apply to people who are already in youth detention.

The concern that has been put to me is that this could create a problem. Could this influence a magistrate's decision in terms of whether to grant or deny bail to somebody, or the particular sentence that they might apply to somebody because they would seek to try to utilise the ability for an order for somebody in youth detention? It actually creates an incentive for somebody to be in youth detention for longer.

Maybe the Attorney-General does not agree with that, but hopefully she can see that there is some potential for that to occur. Has any thought being given to those concerns—have they been put to the Attorney-General—and does she see that it is important, therefore, that that initial stage that the government has now put in place should not be too long because it could create a perverse incentive in the system?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not reflect in any way on those who have raised this when it was considered in the other place, whether there might be a risk of a judge making a decision to incarcerate a child to enable them to effect the provisions of this clause. Quite simply, I have a lot greater confidence in the Youth Court, and those who comprise it—which is Judge Eldridge and the two magistrates assigned to the court—to make that determination.

One of the reasons it is important to have a judicial determination for an application such as this is to protect the interests of the child and to ensure that there is a place or a venue to which perhaps desperate and distraught parents who might be begging to have a child put in custody can go. That is why we need to have the independent qualified determination by the Youth Court. I have confidence in them having the capacity to do it, and they do that every day. So when you ask the question whether I have any concern about that, the answer is no.

Mr PICTON: Can the Attorney-General articulate for the committee how she would describe the cooperation between her and the Minister for Health, between her department and the health department, between her office and the Minister for Health's office. Are you one mind on this legislation?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It seems to be a very general question. I do not have a lot of direct interaction with the Department for Health officers and those who are facilitating the working party. I have a regular interaction with the minister and, occasionally, with ministerial staff. I am very pleased that the Minister for Health has willingly taken up the progression of this legislation in the other place. The Controlled Substances Act is a matter that is dedicated to him, and therefore he is the party, in a government circumstance, to have the carriage of this matter. My position on this matter is well known. I gave it the first crack back in 2016-17. Are we at one? Absolutely.

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, you have had three questions.

Mr PICTON: If I could ask one more, I am happy to skip a few clauses.

The CHAIR: So you want to strike a deal, do you?

Mr PICTON: That is right. Let's make a deal. Alright, we will go to the next clause.

The CHAIR: I think we had better stick to the rules as best we can. I know I have been flexible in the past and it is the first time, as Chair, I have had a deal put to me. Anyway, it was worth a try, member for Kaurna.

Clause passed.

Clause 4.

Mr PICTON: I have now decided that I am going to ask some more questions, you will be glad to know.

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, you are entitled to do that.

Mr PICTON: I appreciate that. Thank you very much for your entitlement.

The CHAIR: You are entitled to do that, and if I were a stickler for the rules then we would stop after three questions on each clause. We are on clause 4 now and you may continue.

Mr PICTON: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I am wondering whether the Attorney-General can outline whether any of her staff or whether any of the Minister for Health and Wellbeing's staff, or indeed the minister or herself, have been present at any of the working group meetings.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I can only answer for myself in relation to the working group, but I have a representative from the Attorney-General's Department who sits on that who reports back. I also chair a social division of the cabinet committee, obviously as a member of cabinet. In relation to the working group itself, I have not attended it; I am not a member of it, but I do have a representative on it.

Mr PICTON: From the department or your office?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The department.

Mr PICTON: I understand that you said you are not going to answer on behalf of the Minister for Health, but can you take on notice between the houses whether the minister or his office have been attending meetings of the working group?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am happy to do that and, if that information is available and able to be given, I will make sure that it is made available.

Mr PICTON: I am wondering whether as part of the proposed oversight model for this, which we will get to in detail later, the government will be providing funding for that oversight body, or whether it will somehow have to be funded within a department, or whether it will be a voluntary position.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As clarification, are we talking about the interagency working group?

Mr PICTON: No, the visitor scheme.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It has nothing to do with this clause and I was just trying to find where it is in the bill. I think the member is referring to the visitor scheme for the purposes of auditing the services available. For example, we have a visitor scheme under the Mental Health Act, and there is a body vested with the responsibility to attend premises, unannounced basically. It is a way of supervising or at least keeping a check on the services that are made available, and we have them in different agencies. If we are talking about a proposed visitor scheme under this act, I will take that on notice and get back to the member.

Clause passed.

Clauses 5 and 6 passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I move:

Amendment No 2 [DepPrem–1]—

Page 4, line 37 [clause 7, inserted section 54B(4)]—Delete 'subsection (5)' and substitute 'subsections (5) and (5a)'

Amendment No 3 [DepPrem–1]—

Page 5, after line 4 [clause 7, inserted section 54B]—After subsection (5) insert:

(5a) Until the prescribed day, an order made under this Part will cease when the child is released from detention (if the order has not ceased at an earlier time).

Amendment No. 2 is consequential to the insertion of subsection (5a) in amendment No. 3. I am happy to outline what No. 3 is about so that is clear. The bill allows for a two-stage implementation approach. It sets out that, until a date is prescribed for the implementation of the initiative more broadly, the court would only be able to make orders in relation to children who are subject to detention in a training centre at the time an order is being made, whether or not the child has commenced the period of detention. This amendment makes it clear that, until the prescribed day, orders made in relation to children in detention at a youth training centre will cease when their term of detention finishes.

Once the full scheme is implemented, this requirement will no longer be necessary, as services for continued court-ordered treatment for children released from a training centre will be available in community settings. In light of the fact that amendment No. 2 is consequential on amendment No. 3, I propose to move together amendments Nos 2 and 3 standing in my name.

Mr PICTON: I indicate that the opposition will support these amendments; however, to make a brief comment, this does highlight a couple of things, and one is that it highlights the poor drafting of the government in this matter. This was the government's bill. They amended it with this clause and now they are amending their amendment. It shows what a weird and lacklustre process the government has gone through on this matter.

It also highlights again that the government is basically pushing this off into the never-never, that this is applying initially only to people within the youth justice system and that the government are going to be holding this up and saying, 'We have done this,' even though it applies to people they could provide services to tomorrow if they wished. It could be many, many years away before anybody else would actually be able to receive services as they wished. This essentially makes very clear that this is going to be only for people who are already in detention, already in the youth justice system and could already be provided with services by the Attorney and by the minister if they wished to do so.

Amendments carried.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I move:

Amendment No 4 [DepPrem–1]—

Page 10, lines 32 to 34 [clause 7, inserted section 54L(1)(c)]—Delete paragraph (c)

New section 54L(1)(c), which was inserted in the bill in the other place by the opposition, is redundant, as the issue of legal representation is now covered by section 54M. The bill provides that with any proceedings under this part or any appeal under section 22 of the Youth Court Act 1993 relating to proceedings under this act children will be entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner provided at no cost to the child. That said, I would be expecting the opposition to support this, as it is to really tidy up what has been left there.

Mr PICTON: We are all being told by the Attorney what to do now. Thursday afternoon in parliament—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: In some parliaments, that would be contempt.

Mr PICTON: That's right. The member for West Torrens says that in some parliaments that might be contempt. Let's be very clear about what is happening here. The government put a bill which was based on the Attorney-General's whip-up of level 2 as she had an idea of something when she was opposition. They have plonked it into the parliament, they had no idea how it was going to work and it had no protections in there. The opposition, being very helpful—and credit to the Hon. Kyam Maher for his expert work on this matter, which I may or may not have assisted him with—put some amendments into the parliament, including that we should actually give these kids some legal protection. We introduced that to the parliament.

The minister then caught up to the fact that members of the other place were pretty upset by the fact that there was no protections in this bill for people whatsoever and introduced his own amendment. As per the way that these things tend to work in the other place, both amendments were passed: our original one, which set it, and then the minister's subsequent one. If anything, the minister has chosen to remove our amendment but equally could have removed their amendment. Perhaps, it could be equally said that this is tidying up their mess rather than our mess.

In any case, we support it. We are glad that two amendments got passed through the upper house to the government's lacklustre bill to ensure legal representation. Once again, we note that the Attorney-General has expertly protected her department from the funding element of this bill, but the actual health services are completely exposed and it could lead to significant cuts for other agencies.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As to my amendments Nos 5, 6 and 7, amendment No. 5 is consequential upon amendment No. 7. I advise the committee as follows regarding amendment No. 6. The existing provision requiring that a child be reviewed by a psychiatrist at a minimum once every four days while in detention is too prescriptive, as the model of care may determine that such oversight should be provided by any medical specialty relevant to the specific child's treatment—for example, addiction, medicine or paediatrics. It is proposed that the scope of medical oversight be broadened to allow for other relevant clinicians to examine children subject to detention orders.

In respect of amendment No. 7, as it stands, section 54L(2) of the bill under clause 7, which was inserted as a result of an opposition amendment in the other place, imposes an inappropriate obligation on the Guardian for Children and Young People to report to the chief executive of the department. As members know, under the Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017, the guardian should report to the parliament through the Minister for Child Protection.

Additionally, not all young people detained pursuant to the bill will be under the guardianship of the Chief Executive of the Department for Child Protection. This amendment rectifies this inconsistency with other legislation. I will clarify this, but I understand that the Guardian for Children and Young People, who is the subject of this, supports that.

Amendment No. 5 is an amendment that is consequential to amendment No. 7, so I have dealt with two substantive matters. One is in amendment No. 6, which relates to the model of care being too prescriptive. I am happy to do them in whatever order.

The CHAIR: The difficulty we have here is that the member for Kaurna has a further amendment to amendment No. 6. Let's be patient and go through these one at a time. Attorney, move amendment No. 5 and we will pass it.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I move:

Amendment No 5 [DepPrem–1]—

Page 10, line 35 [clause 7, inserted section 54L(1)(d)]—Delete 'Guardian for Children and Young People' and substitute:

person responsible for exercising functions under the visitor scheme (established under subsection (2))

I move this amendment for the reasons I have already explained.

Mr PICTON: In relation to this matter, once again this was something that originally did not form any part of the bill whatsoever. This was something that the Hon. Kyam Maher sought to introduce for some protection so that we would have somebody with oversight of what is going on, if this scheme was ever to be established, which seems a very long way off indeed.

We obviously have been speaking, as has the government, to the guardian, who has expressed her concerns. She said to us that she would rather it was the youth training visitor who performs this function than the guardian. That is the amendment that we are working on. The government has come up with its own amendment, which is to say that there would be a new visitor scheme. I think that raises questions about who that will be. Who is going to do it? How much is it going to cost? How are they going to establish it? There is a whole range of questions.

It seemed a lot simpler to do what the guardian was suggesting and make it the youth training visitor, particularly since we know that, maybe for years to come, it is only going to be applied to youth justice. So I think that what the government is proposing is not as good as what the guardian was suggesting. But we have spoken to the guardian's office. They are happy to support this, I guess being pragmatic about the matter. On that basis, we are happy to support it, but with the questions that I have asked raising those concerns.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I move:

Amendment No 6 [DepPrem–1]—

Page 10, line 37 [clause 7, inserted section 54L(1)(e)]—Delete 'psychiatrist' and substitute 'medical practitioner'

I have indicated that we consider this to be too prescriptive and therefore the amendment is being made to ensure that we can add in a specialty that is relevant to the care, i.e. an addiction medicine or paediatric person.

Mr PICTON: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Picton–1]—

Page 10, line 37 [clause 7, inserted section 54L(1)(e)]—Delete 'psychiatrist' and substitute:

medical practitioner with appropriate expertise in dealing with paediatric substance abuse or mental health issues

I am reminded of the movie Inception, the dream inside the dream, as I move this amendment to the amendment. I am moving to amend amendment No. 6 of the Attorney-General by adding the words 'with appropriate expertise in dealing with paediatric substance abuse or mental health issues' after the word 'practitioner'.

On the first point, I acknowledge that I see the point of the government in changing 'psychiatrist'. I think that is a reasonable proposition. However, I think that you have gone from being too prescriptive to being too vague in changing it to just medical practitioner. Clearly, we are not just looking for any medical practitioner, with respect to any medical practitioner. I think the parliament, the public and the people involved in this would want to have somebody who has some expertise in the matters that they are going to be dealing with, whether it is mental health or whether it is going to be substance abuse.

I do not think that it is unreasonable that we should have a doctor who has some knowledge or expertise in dealing with those matters. To take that out, to make it too vague, I think is removing one of the protections that I thought was important in the other place. Therefore, I move this amendment to give more flexibility, acknowledging, in particular, significant issues we have in terms of the availability of psychiatrists, which we have dealt with in terms of bills that the Attorney-General has brought to broaden a whole range of criminal laws so that we do not need psychiatrist's opinions on things, but we should have a medical practitioner who has some expertise in what they are dealing with.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: On the face of it, there would be some merit, but again we think this is too prescriptive—they have to be a medical practitioner in this instance. This is the every four-day checking of the children we are talking about; we are not talking about the original assessment or the treatment orders that are made as such. We are talking about a process where there is going to be a statutory obligation for this child to be checked by a medically qualified person—not a health professional or even a nurse administrator or any other health qualification; they have to be a medical practitioner to actually do that check. We think that is prescriptive enough.

I take the point made by the member and I would expect that agencies that are operating this service in due course will obviously need to have very clear expertise in this area of service in a robust way, no question about that. We also need to remember that we are putting in this area a very prescriptive obligation—namely, every four days this child has to be checked. We think a qualified medical practitioner is adequate. I therefore oppose the motion to amend the motion.

The committee divided on the amendment to the amendment:

Ayes 18

Noes 22

Majority 4

Amendment to amendment thus negatived; amendment carried.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I move:

Amendment No 7 [DepPrem–1]—

Page 11, lines 21 to 25 [clause 7, inserted section 54L(2)]—Delete subsection (2) and substitute:

(2) The Minister must ensure that a visitor scheme is established, in accordance with the regulations, to monitor the health, safety and wellbeing of children who are detained pursuant to detention orders.

(2a) The regulations may confer functions under the visitor scheme on the Training Centre Visitor appointed under the Youth Justice Administration Act 2016, the Guardian for Children and Young People or a person appointed as the visitor for the purposes of the scheme by the Governor.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I move:

Amendment No 8 [DepPrem–1]—

Page 11, lines 32 to 36 [clause 7, inserted section 54L(4)]—Delete subsection (4)

This amendment is consequential to amendment No. 6.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (8 and 9), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (17:57): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.