Bills

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

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 6.

Mr PICTON: In relation to clause 6, can the minister outline what feedback the minister has received from the Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People about the bill that she is proposing?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: We had a written submission by April Lawrie, the Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People.

Mr PICTON: That was enlightening. Perhaps the minister might elaborate on exactly what feedback was provided by the commissioner in the submission of which she spoke. What feedback did she receive from the Aboriginal Family Support Services about the bill as well and perhaps elaborate on more of the detail rather than just, 'We got a submission.'

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People as far as a brief overview—obviously, she may send you a copy if you want the full version, but the dot points are:

seeks judicial oversight, placement and contract decisions (that will be considered in the full review);

seeks extension of the placement principle to ensure engagement with Aboriginal entities to facilitate involvement in decision-making (that will also be reviewed in the full review);

seeks legislative establishment of Aboriginal family care panels to provide EI (that will also be in the full review);

concern about the definition of an Aboriginal child;

seeks extension to changes to reverse the onus to include long-term guardianship;

seeks changes to penalties for children and young people (that was changed);

seeks clarification if the placement principle applies to placement only (that was changed);

seeks inclusion of self-determination (note that this exists in another section);

seeks placement principle to apply to the courts (that will be considered in the full review); and

supports direction of placement principle and supports the best interest, but said should be equal to safety and placement principle (again, that will be considered at the full review).

Mr PICTON: Thank you, minister, in relation to that. Clearly, the member for Reynell has moved amendments on some of those issues, and the government has opposed those amendments. Can the minister outline which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities the minister or her department have consulted with, and what feedback was received from those communities?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: As I am already on record stating, this was an interim review and it was a targeted consultation. It did include an Aboriginal expert advisory committee, which was made up of experts from around Australia, including April Lawrie, the Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People. I believe it also included Sharron Williams, the CEO of Aboriginal Family Support Services, who were involved in that consultation.

Ms HILDYARD: In relation to new section 12A(a), can you please explain what steps the department currently takes to maintain connection and what may change in relation to efforts to maintain connection with the changes to this clause? Also, in relation to new section 12B(2), can you please describe what would be considered 'active and timely steps'?

The CHAIR: There are two questions there, minister, both relating to 12A. Correct?

Ms HILDYARD: To 12A and 12B.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I am advised that this will further strengthen our practice. As the member for Reynell would be aware, the Aboriginal placement principle is already practised by our department, and in the original bill introduced by Labor there was an Aboriginal placement principle. What we have sought to do is expand it, clarify it and make it stronger and more important in response to the feedback that we received. As I mentioned earlier, we will be reviewing this in full and will go out to full and open transparent consultation in 2022, as required by legislation.

Mr SZAKACS: Minister, my question is on clause 6, new section 12A—Objects of Part, and subsection (b) 'enabling'. I assume 'enabling' is a deliberate choice of word in drafting that section. Would you please advise the difference, from a technical perspective or from a drafting perspective, if there is any, between 'enabling' and 'empowering'?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I am advised there is no hard and fast difference. This is simply the wording that was used in the Queensland legislation, so that filtered through to ours.

Mr SZAKACS: On the same subsection, minister, can you advise who specifically will be charged with or responsible for enabling Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to participate in the care and protection of their children and young people?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It is everybody who was involved in the child's life—everyone in the department, right from the caseworkers at the front line to everyone who is involved in the case and working with the child.

Mr SZAKACS: Minister, I take you to the new section 12C(2)(d). Could you please advise what would be considered a 'significant decision'?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Decisions such as the placement of the child and the contact arrangements would be considered significant decisions, as examples.

Mr SZAKACS: As an example, could you provide—even if it is on notice—any matters that would not be considered to be significant decisions?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Some of the decisions we clarified. When I was in opposition, some of the decisions that carers would complain about having to seek permission for were things like school excursions and haircuts. We have clarified that on our carer portal to say that they are decisions that the carer can make, they are not considered a significant decision, so that would be an example.

Clause passed.

New clause 6A.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 1 [ChildPro–1]—

Page 7, after line 18—Insert:

6A—Insertion of section 15A

After section 15 insert:

15A—Minister may require report from Chief Executive

(1) The Minister may, by notice in writing, require the Chief Executive to prepare and provide a report to the Minister in relation to a matter or matters specified in the notice.

(2) A report—

(a) must be provided within the period specified in the notice; and

(b) must contain the information specified in the notice; and

(c) must comply with any requirements set out in the notice.

Ms HILDYARD: I note that the minister has made an amendment to her own bill and that that amendment is identical to the one that I also put forward, so I will simply ask questions about the new clause in its entirety, or would you like me to ask questions about the amendment, given I put forward the same amendment?

The CHAIR: Yes, I think we are dealing with the amendment specifically now, which will insert new clause 6A.

Ms HILDYARD: I might just have a couple of questions on that. I do appreciate that we had an identical amendment, but I will ask a couple of questions. I am sure there will then be other questions on the clause as a whole. First of all, minister, can you provide some examples of the sorts of circumstances in which you envisage the court would make an order under section 53(1)(ba)?

The CHAIR: I was momentarily distracted as Chair, and I do apologise. Are you happy to take that question, minister?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: My understanding is that we are discussing amendment No. 1 standing in my name, which is the insertion of new clause 6A.

The CHAIR: That is correct.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: That is that the minister may require a report from the chief executive, so I am not sure what the 53(1) is in regard to, but this is where we are proposing to insert new section 15A, and we both have the same legislation.

The CHAIR: Yes, that is what we are dealing with at the moment, member for Reynell: the amendment that you and the minister had the same wording for, which will in fact insert a new clause. I do apologise because I was distracted, as I said, and I did not catch all of your question.

Mr PICTON: My understanding of this is that this clause will enable the minister to ask the chief executive to provide a report in relation to matters specified in the notice. I guess my question to the minister is: did the minister not already have the ability to do that; has the minister had difficulty in asking for reports from the chief executive; and how many times has the chief executive been asked for reports in relation to these matters since the minister has been in her current position?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: This was in response to the Rice review. I felt that it was necessary to clarify and make very plain that that was available and to put that in legislation. The member is correct: I have that power already but I think, in response to the Rice review, it is better to have that in legislation so it is very plainly clear.

Mr PICTON: In the three years almost—in fact, more than three years now—that the minister has been in office, how many times has she requested or required a report from the chief executive in a way that would be envisaged by the proposed new section 15A?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: As I have stated in this house many times, I have regular meetings with my CE, so I have not needed to request something in writing. However, in response to the Rice review, I think it was important to put that ability into legislation.

Mr PICTON: I think the understanding of that is that in three years there have been zero requests from the chief executive for a report in relation to this matter. Can the minister outline whether this a specific recommendation from the Rice review, or is this in addition to what the Rice review has recommended that she is now suggesting that this clause be added into her own bill?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: In response to the Rice review, I felt it was important to clarify, and that is what we have done. Clearly, the opposition felt the same way because they have the identical amendment.

Ms HILDYARD: First of all, Mr Chair, I apologise. I misheard what you said before in terms of where we were heading. Thank you.

The CHAIR: That's okay.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, why did you not include this clause in your own bill? Why are you amending your own bill to insert this clause? Why did you not include it in the first draft?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: As the member for Reynell would be aware, I tabled and spoke to this bill in November last year. Since then, we have had the Rice review and the recommendations. I read them and decided and determined that it was better to clarify that power, which, as is noted, already exists, and which, as you have noted, you also felt necessary to include.

Ms HILDYARD: On what sorts of reports, if any, do you seek a report from the chief executive currently? What sorts of reports, if any, would you envisage you might ask the chief executive for? In relation to what matters would you envisage that you would ask the chief executive for a report?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Currently, as I have stated many times, I get regular reports and updates. They are not always in writing; they are not needed and not necessary to be in writing. To predict the future—I do not know. We have this ability here. I felt it was important in response to the Rice review, and the opposition clearly felt the same thing: we both have the same amendment. Given that I can also question somebody with the same amendment, I would ask the member for Reynell why she put it in and what instances she has in mind for this inclusion that she also added?

Ms HILDYARD: I do not know if it is appropriate for me to be asked a question when we are discussing that amendment, but I am very, very happy to outline what I would have asked for a report on.

The CHAIR: No, I do not think there is any need to do that, member for Reynell. You have both come up with the same amendment, as it turns out. So I think we will leave it there. I am going to put the question.

Ms HILDYARD: I have only had two questions. I have not had three.

The CHAIR: Are you sure?

Ms HILDYARD: Yes, I am absolutely sure. Minister, would having had this clause in the act prior to your bill—if the clause was already in existence in the current act—have changed anything at all in terms of your lack of awareness about the sexual abuse of two girls in state care? What will the consequence be, going forward, now that this will be in the act, should the chief executive not comply with any requirements set out in the notice?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: There are many questions there, so I will do my best. As we know from the Rice review, the significant incident reporting already existed. The issue was that the staff were unaware and therefore it was not notified. However, I will note again that the staff did what I believe to be the most important thing: they acted in the best interests of the young people first, and I applaud them for doing that.

However, there is a second step, which is reporting it up so that the minister is informed, and that was not complied with because they were not aware of the significant incident reporting. That is being dealt with now. As we know, the Attorney-General has made amendments, and we went over and above what the Rice review recommended. We are redrafting a significant event procedure that will be simpler to use, easier, more direct and less cumbersome, and there will be an education process for that.

The CHAIR: Point of clarification: you were quite right and I am going to apologise to you, member for Reynell.

Ms HILDYARD: It was absolutely a point of clarification; thank you, Mr Chair. In terms of your statement that the Attorney-General has already addressed some of the issues legislatively recommended in the Rice review, my absolute understanding of what has been presented to this house, just on Tuesday, and which I spoke to in relation to the legislative changes, is that those legislative changes were exactly, word for word, what the Rice review recommended to be made.

I am just curious about your statement that the legislation that the Attorney-General presented went above and beyond what was in the Rice review. From my reading it was a very simple bill with two clauses, one clause that made an amendment to the Children and Young People (Safety) Act and one clause that made an amendment to the Bail Act 1985. Both those changes were absolutely what were set out in the Rice review, so I am just curious in case I have missed something about what else it is that legislation did.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: To be clear, it was not that the legislation went over and above, it was that we accepted the, I think, five or six recommendations and went further to that with setting up a significant incident unit and making an appointment from the Attorney-General's office to head up some of the changes. That was the 'over and above'; it was regarding that area.

New clause inserted.

Clause 7

Ms HILDYARD: I will ask the question now in the right place. Minister, in what types of circumstances would you envisage the court making an order under section 53(1)(ba)?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Section 34 makes a consequential amendment following the insertion of section 53(1)(ba), the investigation order, into the principal act. The CE already has these powers; however, we are inserting a new order that used to be there. There used to be a 42-day order under the Children's Protection Act 1993, which was removed in 2017; however, feedback is that is holding up court processes, and we needed to reinsert that. We have done that with an extra two weeks, so it is now an eight-week order rather than the six-week order it was. This simply extends the power that already exists to that new order.

Ms HILDYARD: I understand all those things perfectly; this is not a new question. I absolutely understand those things. I am just asking what circumstances you envisage, minister, would cause the court to make an order under section 53(1)(ba) of the act.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: An order can only be made if there is a suspicion that a child is at risk and that such orders are necessary or appropriate to protect them from harm or to allow the exercise of powers under the act.

Ms HILDYARD: Could you please outline how an investigation, referred to in the clause, is conducted?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It is conducted under the powers using the new section 34A.

Ms HILDYARD: I understand it is undertaken according to those powers; that is what we are inserting. I was interested in how, but I will move on. Would the findings of any of the chief executive's investigations be appealable or reviewable in some way? If so, could you please talk through what that process would be, the time frame, etc.?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: If a further application for guardianship or custody order is made to the Youth Court and the report was relied on, all parties would have the ability to challenge any findings made.

The CHAIR: I have that as three questions now, member for Reynell. Thank goodness we have a team working on the numbers here.

Ms BEDFORD: My question would be: how would they do that?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The department would make an application to the court, and the parties to that application would have the right to challenge the evidence.

Mr PICTON: In relation to a chief executive's investigations, what feedback did stakeholders provide about a potential for right of appeal or review to those findings?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The rules of the court apply, in that they can challenge the evidence.

Mr PICTON: What sorts of circumstances would you envisage the chief executive would now investigate as a result of the insertion of this clause?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: As I stated earlier, an order can only be made if there is a suspicion that a child is at risk and that such orders are necessary or appropriate to protect them from harm or to allow the exercise of powers under the act.

Mr PICTON: Will the chief executive be provided with any additional resources or any additional training or staff or anything else to be able to outline these additional responsibilities afforded to the chief executive under this clause?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: These types of investigations are undertaken by trained staff every day. It is the core business of our department.

Clause passed.

Clause 8.

Mr PICTON: In relation to clause 8, which I understand is the insertion of new section 34A, did the minister consult with the AMA or accreditation bodies, whether it be AHPRA, any of the colleges or other accreditation bodies of practitioners, in relation to new section 34A(1)(b)?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: We received feedback from the AMA on 23 October.

Mr PICTON: Predictably, my question might be: what was the feedback received from the AMA?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It is a long letter, but basically they are saying that the review should include attention to preventative measures. Of course, this was an interim review. This is not the full review. That will be in 2022. I quote from the letter:

We, the AMA, continue to closely monitor the care provided to and for the children and young people in care. We will continue to evaluate the outcomes of this act in readiness for the 2022 full review. In the meantime, we look forward to the legislation achieving better outcomes for the state's young people. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you would like to discuss it further.

In essence, they are aware there is a full review. They were consulted on the first one and they will monitor it and they will be included in the full, open and transparent review that will be open to everyone.

Mr PICTON: How will it work in terms of practitioners who are providing these reports? Is there some ability for them to receive reimbursement for the additional time to provide these reports, or will they absorb the costs in terms of their current work in providing these written reports? I presume to meet the legislation it would not be a sort of tick and flick report, there would have to be some reasonable level of comprehension in those reports and it might take them some time.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: This is an established practice. Practitioners write reports regularly outlining any concern in relation to children and/or their needs, so it is no change.

The CHAIR: Any further questions on clause 8, member for Kaurna? Member for Kaurna, I seem to be losing track here. Apparently you have had three questions. You counted your second question as clarification, didn't you?

Mr PICTON: I am in your hands. I am happy to move on to the member for Reynell.

The CHAIR: I am in the committee's hands. Unless we make remarkable progress from here on, it seems unlikely to me that we are going to get through this bill. That may be the intention or not.

Mr PICTON: I am happy to keep going. I am happy to pass to the member for Reynell if that would assist the chamber.

Ms HILDYARD: If this is helpful, Mr Chair, there are a number of questions about the clauses leading up to the clause about adoption, which we may be able to move through reasonably quickly, but there are quite significant questions about the adoption. In terms of the question, I wanted to let you know that because that may mean we might not get through that.

The CHAIR: It is proper that the bill be examined properly.

Ms HILDYARD: As I said, I think we will probably move a little bit faster before then, but there are pretty significant questions on that clause, just for your information.

The CHAIR: Did you have a question on clause 8?

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, in relation to new section 34A(1)(d) that is being inserted, what other directions does the minister contemplate that the chief executive might now be able to give as a result of the insertion of this clause?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: That a person not attend an assessment of the child or not attend a meeting with the child.

Ms HILDYARD: Sorry, just as clarification, are they the only other two directions that you think would—

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: They were examples I was just given.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, what would be considered a reasonable excuse not to comply with a direction, and who would determine whether that excuse is indeed reasonable?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The court will determine whether it was a reasonable excuse.

Mr SZAKACS: On that matter, minister, the courts will look to this debate in guidance of that, so would you provide some further information around that?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It would be determined by the court on a case-by-case basis. However, a reasonable example could be that it would jeopardise someone's own safety or if they were unwell.

Mr SZAKACS: Minister, in respect to new section 34A(1)(b), could you provide some advice on this section's interaction with matters of professional privilege and confidentiality, whether it be legal professional privilege or matters of doctor-patient confidentiality?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: That is exactly why we need the power, because sometimes the CE will need to require the information. The CE needs the power so they can require the practitioner to provide the information.

Mr SZAKACS: Is it the intention specifically in the drafting, but more importantly of you, minister, that this will override any common law or statutory protections of privilege?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: While we are waiting for that answer, I am happy to take any other questions.

The CHAIR: Let's not be too pre-emptive. We will take it one question at a time, otherwise I will get confused.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Section 166 of the current act covers this, which is 'Protections, privileges and immunities.' It provides:

(1) Nothing in this Act affects any rule or principle of law relating to—

(a) legal professional privilege; or

(b) "without prejudice" privilege; or

(c) public interest immunity.

Mr SZAKACS: Do I take it from that answer that this section will provide an additional matter of direction and allow the chief executive to compel but not to limit the matters of privileges contained within that section? Are there any matters not contained within the existing statutory protections of privilege that this new section would seek to either overcome or provide for the chief executive to direct?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I believe I have covered my answer.

Clause passed.

Clause 9.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, in what sorts of circumstances do you envisage the chief executive would find it necessary or appropriate for a child or young person to be examined and assessed? If you could please give some examples and also advise what form those examples of examinations and assessments would be likely to take?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Circumstances for a child to be examined and assessed would be where there is risk of harm or suspected abuse or neglect.

Ms HILDYARD: Can you answer the second part about what form would those—

The CHAIR: The second part of it was what form would that examination take, and it is reasonable to put those two things.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: As necessary, obviously. If it is a physical abuse, then there would need to be a physical examination. If it is an emotional abuse or if it is neglect, there are different ways that they are assessed. There is no change to normal procedures.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, will support be provided to parents, guardians or other carers to attend examinations and assessments that may not be undertaken in their homes, and what in particular? What support might be provided to parents, guardians or other carers who are based in rural and remote areas and are required, as a result of this clause, to attend particular examinations and assessments outside their homes?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: This is the work of my department. They do this day by day. It is routine business, so it would be no different from what is already happening now. On a case-by case basis, there would be a determination. If you are asking whether they get free transport, I am not sure, but every case would be determined. Some people have their own transport, some people might need help; the department will assess that. That is their role and that is their core business.

Ms HILDYARD: Just to be clear so I understand this correctly, if the chief executive requires a parent, guardian or other carer in a remote area to attend a particular examination or assessment, are you confirming that on each of those occasions, should it be required, the department would provide resources—whether that is for travel, accommodation or whatever else might be required—to enable them to fulfil that requirement?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: As mentioned, this would be facilitated on a case-by-case basis.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, what support is or would be provided to a child or young person who is 16 years of age or more to attend examinations and assessments, given that many young people—16, 17, 18—may not have access to their own transport, funds or resources or perhaps their particular condition may prohibit them from using public transport, etc.? What support will be provided to young people in those circumstances to attend required assessments or examinations?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Again, this is our core business. We work with young people every day, so we are very able to help facilitate transport or somebody to go with the child. They could nominate somebody. We can help facilitate and, again, that would be on a case-by-case basis.

Mr PICTON: In relation to section 35(2a)(e), I imagine there might be a situation in which there is a lack of availability of appointments or a timeliness issue with appointments. In situations such as that, what accommodations would be made if it were impossible for a person to comply with that section due to the lack of availability of appointments alone?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: We work with families to ensure that these assessments happen on a case-by-case basis, whatever would be considered reasonable to make that assessment able to go ahead.

Mr PICTON: In relation to the new penalties under this section for people who, without reasonable excuse, refuse or fail to comply with a direction, they seem to be settled at imprisonment for six months or $10,000. I am wondering whether the minister can outline how these penalties were arrived at, whether they are consistent with findings of recent reports, including the Rice report, and what the justification is for them being set at that level.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: These powers are to protect children and they reflect the seriousness of breaching the direction, and they are in keeping with other penalties in the act.

Mr PICTON: What additional resources will be provided to departmental workers should they be required to ensure a child is examined or assessed?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: This is the work that we do every day. This is not a new power. It is our standard core business.

Mr SZAKACS: Will the minister advise how many directions are currently made under the existing section per year?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I do not have that information here.

Mr SZAKACS: Well, as clarification or a second question, will the minister take that on notice?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: We will consider that and speak with the member later.

Mr SZAKACS: What consideration will the minister go to in respect of my question?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: How easy it is to report on.

Mr SZAKACS: Can the minister advise whether the numbers are kept by the department?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: They are recorded on a case-by-case basis. Certainly what I found coming into government is that the C3MS system does not easily report on all the things you might want to know, and that was the system we were left with. We are looking at whether we can get a new system. We have added on things, such as being able to do the drug and alcohol testing.

In opposition, I was never able to have my question answered as to how many drug and alcohol tests. We made changes to make that report available. I do not know whether this is a reportable area, because they are embedded into each case file and there are thousands of them, so it is not as easy as pressing a button and getting a report.

Mr SZAKACS: Considering that the new section has a custodial penalty attached for failing to fulfil the requirements under the direction, is it not imperative for you as the minister to track the data, considering that the end result of a failure to adequately abide by the direction is a risk of custodial penalty?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Every case has to be dealt with on its merits. It is dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

Clause passed.

Clause 10.

Mr PICTON: I am obviously very interested in this clause, given my shadow portfolio responsibilities. From what I can read, we are now basically saying:

(2a) If the Chief Executive reasonably suspects that a child or young person is at risk as a result of impaired mental health on the part of a parent, guardian or other person [responsible for the person]…the Chief Executive may, by notice in writing, direct the parent…to undergo an approved mental health assessment.

This is of the kind approved by notice in the Gazette, and that raises a series of questions. The first would be: what consultation has the minister, the chief executive or the department undertaken so far with mental health organisations in relation to the insertion of this clause, particularly in relation to what feedback you have received from those mental health organisations, groups or professionals around how impaired mental health would be defined, given that clearly a significant number of South Australians live with mental health illness quite successfully in the community? How would that be defined and what was the feedback in relation to people undertaking this approved mental health assessment, and what feedback did you get on your proposal for that?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Could I please just have the exact question. That was very long. What is your exact question, sorry?

Mr PICTON: My exact question is: what feedback did you get from mental health organisations and professionals in relation to the insertion of this clause, particularly around the definitions of what would be impaired mental health on behalf of the parent, guardian or other person? Also, what would be defined as this approved mental health assessment that would take place?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: We work with health professionals every day in our department. Of course, this went through our social affairs cabinet committee, which includes the Minister for Health, and it was also approved through cabinet, which has all the ministers. It has also been seen by the portfolio management board, so it has been seen by many relevant people.

Mr PICTON: It seems quite extraordinary that we are inserting a new clause in here that is around impaired mental health and defining a mental health assessment that people will be going through, but the minister has failed to consult any mental health organisation. The minister said, 'I went through a cabinet committee, which has the Minister for Mental Health and Wellbeing on it.' Well, he is not a mental health professional, he is not a mental health organisation and he is certainly not independent of the government in terms of those issues.

In regard to these questions in terms of how these matters are defined, particularly now that we know there has not been a proper consultation with any mental health professional or any mental health organisation, firstly I would ask what are the criteria that the minister would envisage would be defined as impaired mental health on behalf of the parent, guardian or other person? Is that a clinical definition? Is that a definition that has come from the bureaucracy in the Department for Child Protection? Where has that definition come from? What would be classified as impaired mental health and where has that meaning come from? Is there any other legislation that refers to—

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, you have the opportunity to speak, obviously, and I am not going to—

Mr Picton interjecting:

The CHAIR: No, but I was going to ask you to really be quite specific about the question. You have the opportunity to talk for up to 15 minutes, but you were looking to pose a question there. What I have noticed from the opposition is that they seem to be rolling two or three questions into one, so let's be quite specific so that the minister is able to answer.

Mr PICTON: She is happy to answer.

The CHAIR: After all that, she is happy to take it.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It is very long, but I will do my best. From my knowledge, having been the minister for three years, mental health assessments are already being done. This just creates a new power for the CE to direct a parent or guardian or other person with responsibility for a child to undergo an approved mental health assessment where a child may be at risk as a result of their impaired mental health.

We would take advice from the mental health expert on whether they are impaired. They are the ones who do the report, they are the ones who do the assessment and they are already doing those assessments. This is simply giving the CE the power to direct that to occur in the best interests and safety of a child.

Mr PICTON: The central question of this, though, is now that this will be the chief executive's decision as to whether they suspect that somebody has impaired mental health. Can the minister outline what process the chief executive will go through to form a view under this proposed legislation that somebody is at risk as a result of impaired mental health on behalf of the parent, guardian or other person?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It is determined in the act, where the chief executive reasonably suspects that the child is at risk. It is then up to the health professional to do the assessment, and they are the ones who would determine whether there is an impairment. We do it every day. This is our core business. The only change is that there is now a power to direct so that we can look after children in a timely manner. There is no point in asking a parent for years and years to get an assessment that they do not get and the child is left in danger.

Mr SZAKACS: I just consider it to be perhaps a mischaracterisation from the minister that this is an existing power of the chief executive that is just being clarified in this amendment. In fact, this is a new section, which provides for the first time the capacity to direct a parent, guardian or caregiver to have a medical assessment. A mental health assessment is a medical assessment.

This is the question that I ask of the minister: who will be, under the gazetted notice, able to undertake this mental health assessment? Will it be psychiatrists only? Will it be general practitioners? Will it be psychologists? Does the minister have any intention of limiting who, from a medical perspective, may actually undertake these approved assessments?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: There would be a range of specialists with expertise. Just to be clear, this is done on a voluntary basis as part of our core business. We already do an investigation and assessment if there is suspicion. Remember that one of the three main reasons that we remove children is mental health, so these assessments are routinely and regularly done.

However, in the instance where a parent is refusing to have an assessment, two things could happen. Either a child could be left in danger because it is taking six months, a year or two years for the parent to go and have an assessment, or we could remove the child unnecessarily when the parent does not have a mental health issue but they have not gone to an assessment so how would we know?

This is really to keep children safe and, if there is no issue, the child can stay with the parent. If there is an issue that can be treated, then the parent could get help. If you have a mental health assessment then we know how to help you, and we can put the structures around the parent. I think this is necessary, and it is all about the safety and protection of the child.

Mr SZAKACS: I rise to furiously agree with the minister, but unfortunately she did not answer my question. Is there any intention of limiting, within the Gazette, the class or categories of medical professionals or allied health professionals who will be able to undertake this assessment?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: There would be a range of qualified experts. We have not limited that. Off the top of my head, I would expect that there might be psychiatrists and psychologists, but we are not limiting it.

Mr SZAKACS: I am somewhat worried by the minister's answer off the top of her head. This is an incredibly important new section. Mental health assessments, medical assessments, by direction are not something to do off the top of your head.

Everybody in this chamber wants to get this right. Everybody in this chamber has foreshadowed their support for this clause. What I am after from the minister is: if this has not already been undertaken, will she undertake to consult widely with professional associations and mental health advocacy groups before any such notice is drafted for the Gazette?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: We do use a range of experts. However, we do have an approved panel of psychologists. We also have, for the first time under this government, a lead psychiatrist, Prue McEvoy, who is shared with Health. I know that we also use the services of CAMHS. Of course, that is for our young people. We do use state government services. They are all approved and they are all used on a daily basis.

The CHAIR: I am going to pull you up there, member for Cheltenham. You have had three.

Mr SZAKACS: Can I just seek clarification? Will the minister undertake to consult before the matter is drafted for the Gazette?

The CHAIR: That is a fourth question, member for Cheltenham.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: We will always talk to the mental health professionals within government.

The CHAIR: Any further questions on clause 10?

Ms HILDYARD: Yes. First of all, just to echo the sentiments that the member for Cheltenham expressed, we certainly agree that it is incredibly important to support parents and guardians and other carers in terms of their mental health and in terms of their access to any support or treatment or examination that they may require.

It is very worrying to hear, first of all, in an answer to a question from the member for Kaurna that it seemed that there had not been any mental health organisations consulted. I think it was the social affairs committee of cabinet—so an internal ministerial committee—rather than having received any detail from mental health professionals individually or organisations.

So I just wanted to make that point because we do agree about how incredibly important the introduction of this clause is and how important it is that mental health professionals are assured that this clause is one that will work in the appropriate way to ensure that people do access the mental health support and services they may need and that they are able to access those services and supports at the same time that the wellbeing of children is considered when there is an issue that a parent or guardian or other carer is experiencing.

I did just want to also note—and this will lead me to my question—the other thing that I find incredibly concerning in relation to the introduction of this clause which is that it is well documented publicly that the Infant Therapeutic Reunification Service, which was previously run between DCP and SA Health via the Women's and Children's Hospital—

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Point of order, Chair: is the opportunity to just give a speech or is it actually meant to be a question?

The CHAIR: In fact, minister, it is. The opportunity is to speak.

Ms HILDYARD: I did have very brief questions, but a few things that have been said have caused me great concern. One of the things that concerns me is the context in which this particular amendment has been made. I was just getting to that point that it is well documented publicly that the Infant Therapeutic Reunification Service that has been successfully run for many years—it is an internationally award-winning service that is run by both DCP and SA Health via the Women's and Children's Hospital—has recently ceased.

There is a tender that has been put out for particular elements of that service to be provided. I am not aware of when or how the tender will be awarded, but what I am aware of is that their service simply ceased in August. Again, I state that that was a program that was incredibly successful. It was award winning in terms of supporting families with mental health issues and issues around substance abuse.

One of the things it lists in relation to its description online and elsewhere is the work that it did to support families who were struggling and needed to be strengthened because of mental health issues that they were experiencing. So the reason I am very concerned and I have further questions about this is that, as well as that award-winning service ceasing in August and no news coming out about who is now going to provide it, it is my understanding also that there are no psychiatrists or psychology services that have been attached to that tender.

I am deeply concerned that we are now inserting this clause that provides power to the chief executive should the chief executive reasonably suspect that a child or young person is at risk as a result of impaired mental health on the part of a parent, guardian or other person who has responsibility to care for that child. We have this new power, and one of the core exemplary services in this state has simply closed, and the tender, which still has not been announced, does not have psychologists or psychiatrists attached to it.

My question is: should the chief executive so determine—and I will have another question about how they might come to that reasonable suspicion that there is a risk—given the closure or the outsourcing or the privatisation of the Infant Therapeutic Reunification Service and the fact that the new service will have no psychologists or psychiatrists attached to it, what support will those families who are struggling with particular mental health issues now be able to access to get the support they need and to strengthen their family so that their child or children or the young people in their care are safe?

The CHAIR: If I am understanding that right, it is: what support is available, and how do they access it?

Ms HILDYARD: With particular reference to the Infant Therapeutic Reunification Service and its closure.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: There were a few accusations that I would just like to clear up firstly. We do have a Portfolio Management Committee, which is the CEs across government, who would be involved in this. So there is a panel of experts, and we do use across-government experience. To avoid any confusion, any Gazette notice in relation to an approved mental health assessor will be consulted on with mental health experts.

As far as the reunification service that the member for Reynell is referring to goes, as she rightly said, it has been out to tender. The Women's and Children's Hospital may have put in a tender; I am not part of that process. They were certainly able to. The results of that tender process have not been made public.

As to reunification services, which that was, we use NGOs and we use private providers. Our DCP staff are also involved heavily in reunifications, and the government announced late last year the Newpin reunification program, which is a significant investment in a new service run by Uniting Communities that will be starting soon in South Australia. So we have a range of reunification services and a range of experts.

The reunification tender that is out does not in any way exclude psychiatrists or psychologists from being part of the program, so there was nothing to stop them from putting in a tender. We will wait for the results.

Ms HILDYARD: I do not think that answers my question about what support there is for families who are experiencing mental health issues—one or both or a number of parents, guardians or carers—and exactly where they will access support from a psychologist or psychiatrist in the public system, given the tender that was put out eight months ago now after this award-winning service was abandoned. Where will they be able to access those psychology or psychiatry services, particularly given the new tender that has been out for eight months now does not actually include a call or a requirement for psychology or psychiatry services?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The reunification tender does not exclude psychiatrists or psychologists from being part of the program. Currently, we use these services every day. We have the adult mental health services that provide services to our department. There is CAMHS. We have our own psychiatrists and psychologists who work in our department as well. So this is what we do every day. The only change in this is the ability to direct.

Ms HILDYARD: This gives the power to the chief executive should they reasonably suspect that a child or young person is at risk as a result of impaired mental health on the part of the parent or guardian or other carer. I want to understand a little more about what you envisage the chief executive would deem to be circumstances that might elicit a direction under this section.

What I mean by that is that I understand that, very sadly, parents, guardians and carers may experience ongoing serious mental illness, and I understand that may create particular risks for children, which is incredibly heartbreaking and sad for that family. What I really want to understand, though, is that there are those serious, ongoing long-term mental illnesses that may create that risk in particular circumstances.

Could the minister speak in detail so I can really understand what she envisages the chief executive might consider once the chief executive has this power. If there is a particular suspicion or understanding that there might, for instance, be an experience of depression for a period of time, or a period of time that is not about a long-term mental illness but perhaps something has happened in a family, and it may be that there are mental health issues that are experienced for a shorter period of time, if that makes sense, rather than a long-term ongoing mental illness.

I really want to understand how the chief executive will distinguish those. Is there going to be a regulation or a list of particular conditions? Is it on a case-by-case basis and, if so, who will support the chief executive in making those decisions because I imagine mental health professionals will need to be involved in that. I just want to understand a little bit more about what sorts of conditions might give rise to the chief executive making these determinations.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Every day, our workers go into homes of families to do investigations and assessments and to determine whether a child is safe. They do what they can to work with the family to ensure that safety and, as I have mentioned many times in this house, we have invested heavily in early intervention and prevention services.

We have intensive family support services in the north, in the west and soon in the south, which is another social impact bond with the Benevolent Society, and the whole point of this is to go in and to support these families who are struggling. I have also spoken today about our family group conferencing information and support for the funding that has gone into that.

Again, when a parent is struggling with a child, our goal is to build the structures around that family so that the child can remain safe. However, we know that mental health issues impact both short-term and long-term outcomes for children. We will support families wherever that is possible and we do need to get assessments in order to know what supports are required.

Without that assessment, it would be safer to remove the child, which is not in the best interests of the child or the family, so this is simply allowing us to support the family even more by knowing what is the underlying issue that we are dealing with. Without an assessment, it is very difficult to know what that is and a child could be removed unnecessarily or left in danger.

The CHAIR: Final question, member for Reynell.

Ms HILDYARD: Should a child be removed following the chief executive having this new power to direct a particular assessment—as opposed to medical professionals undertaking those assessments—the chief executive will now, with this clause, have the power to direct a person to undergo certain assessments if there is a suspicion that a child or young person is at risk.

Should one of those assessments that the chief executive has directed result in a child being removed or some other direction or program taking place, when would a subsequent mental health assessment or assessments take place? For example, if as a consequence of a mental health assessment a child is removed, after what period of time would a parent, carer or guardian be reassessed so that if they have had treatment, recovery, etc., they could potentially reunite with their child? In order for them to do that, what sort of support could they receive between that initial removal and then a further assessment?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Just to be clear, this power does not affect the removal of a child at all. This has nothing to do with the removal of a child; this has to do with the CE being able to direct someone to have a mental health assessment. Every day they are voluntarily done but, in some cases where a child is deemed to be in significant danger or at risk, this is now giving the chief executive the power to get that done in a timely manner so a child is not left in danger.

As to when a secondary mental health assessment would be done, we would be guided by professionals. At the moment, we are reinserting what was a 42-day order and is now an eight-week order. During that time is the time when hopefully the parent or parents would get help and we would have time to assess whether they are doing the courses that are required, if they are turning up to the visits with the child and how the child is interacting with them.

It would be assessed by the caseworkers and the experts who do this every day, and we would certainly take the advice of the mental health professionals on when a further mental assessment would be required.

Ms HILDYARD: I just want to very quickly clarify something. Minister, should a child be removed after a mental health assessment takes place and it is deemed that there is risk to the child so therefore they are potentially removed, can you guarantee exactly what support is then provided to that family so that things can improve for them? What sorts of supports are provided to them? What are they provided with from the department so that they can recover?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Just to be clear, we do not remove the child just because somebody has a mental health issue or an assessment. It is an assessment so that we can then put the services in place. It might be counselling, it might be medication, it might be parenting courses they need to do. It could be that mental health issues are a result of domestic violence or the situation that they are in.

In fact, I do not think I have actually seen a case where there was only one factor. There are generally multiple factors if you are going to actually remove a child. The supports that would be made available—and everybody has this ability—would be to go to their doctor and get a mental health plan. That is available as a federal government medical service, but there are services already available that would be recommended.

Clause passed.

Clause 11.

Ms HILDYARD: Can the minister elaborate the purpose of this change to how forensic material is described? What is the reason for this change?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: This amends section 37 of the principal act to allow the broadening of categories of forensic material that may be taken or tested in the course of random drug testing to ensure it supports all relevant types of testing available.

Currently, the section is limited to hair or blood. As the member for Reynell would know, there was a large debate on the different specimens that could now be included, such as saliva and urine, and it does go into further areas. It is just expanding it so that we can make use of all technologies that are available.

Clause passed.

Clause 12.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Given that the member for Kaurna does not have a burning question that needs to be asked right now, and that we are at a fresh start and a new clause in committee but that it seems unlikely that we will get through this clause before the house rises tonight, I move that we report progress.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.