Bills

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

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 5 May 2021.)

Clause 22.

The CHAIR: The committee has progressed to clause 22 and the minister has moved amendment No. 1 standing in her name. The member for Reynell has had two opportunities to ask questions or speak to that thus far, but I have not put the amendment as yet. There is a further opportunity if the member for Reynell wishes that; otherwise, I will put the amendment.

Ms HILDYARD: I have a quick couple of questions. Minister, what led you to initially abandon section 8A of the Adoption Act in relation to the court being required to take the opinion of a child into account?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Just to be clear, the opinion of the child was not abandoned. It was simply modified to be put into the Children and Young People (Safety) Act and to be relevant to children in care.

Ms HILDYARD: Just to clarify—

The CHAIR: Clarify, yes.

Ms HILDYARD: Why then have you made this amendment?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Under the current section 8A of the Adoption Act, the court must consider the opinion of a child over the age of five by interviewing them in order to determine their opinion. The bill introduces a new right in section 113K for all children to personally present their views to the court regardless of their age. Children of all ages will now have the ability to choose how they want to present their views to the court.

Furthermore, the new provision strengthens the rights of the children by introducing a new right for the child to be legally represented in proceedings. These new rights have not been altered by the subsequent amendment I have put forward in relation to consent provisions in section 113K, which relate only to children over the age of 12.

The CHAIR: I am going to put the amendment now.

Ms HILDYARD: Sorry, do I not have another opportunity to ask a question on the amendment?

The CHAIR: No, you have had three plus a clarification.

Ms HILDYARD: My understanding of the conversation yesterday—and I asked for clarification—is that I was able to speak in relation to the amendment. The minister then responded, and then you asked me if I would like to respond again, and I did that. I did not understand that that was replacing the ability to ask questions on the amendment. If they are the rules and I have misunderstood, fine, but I am confused. I thought I still had three questions on the amendment and then three questions on the substantive clause.

The CHAIR: The reality is, whether it is a question or a contribution, you only have three opportunities.

Ms HILDYARD: Just to be really clear, on a clause that goes for nine pages I will have an opportunity—

The CHAIR: Yes, you are dead right. Member for Reynell, you are—

The Hon. R. Sanderson interjecting:

Ms HILDYARD: Sorry, I am asking the Chair, minister.

The CHAIR: We discussed this yesterday. I understand that it may not give you the opportunity—

Ms HILDYARD: No, it does not give any opportunity to interrogate.

The CHAIR: It does not, no, but they are the rules. The standing orders are in place for a reason.

Ms HILDYARD: I just want to be really clear because there are many, many community members who are concerned about this clause.

The CHAIR: I understand that, but there is no point in arguing with me over this because we have standing orders in place to enable this place to function.

Ms HILDYARD: Yes, and I am sorry. I did misunderstand; I thought the speech—

The Hon. R. Sanderson interjecting:

Ms HILDYARD: Sorry, minister, I am actually asking the Chair a question. I thought your answer yesterday meant that I could speak and then still have three questions. I have misunderstood.

The CHAIR: Yes, well, I am sorry if that was the impression. That was not the impression—

Ms HILDYARD: I thought I could speak for 15 minutes on amendments.

The CHAIR: You can and you did, but that is counted as one of the three, yes.

Ms HILDYARD: What is the second opportunity you gave me to speak? That is—

Mr Whetstone: How many times are you going to talk over the Chair?

Ms HILDYARD: I am asking the Chair a question. I am not talking over him at all, and I am entitled to ask a question.

The CHAIR: No interjections.

Ms HILDYARD: I am entitled to ask a question.

There being a disturbance in the gallery:

The CHAIR: Could you take that gentleman out, please. Could you remove that gentleman. Thank you.

The man having been escorted from the gallery:

The CHAIR: Member for Reynell.

Ms HILDYARD: I spoke and that is counted as one. When you asked me to respond to the minister, that is counted as a second question?

The CHAIR: Yes, well, I probably asked you whether you wanted to respond, which you did.

Ms HILDYARD: So that is counted as a second question, and this counted as a third.

The CHAIR: Yes. Keep in mind, member for Reynell, that we have another amendment. You will then have three opportunities on the clause itself.

Ms HILDYARD: It is far from satisfactory, but those are the rules.

The CHAIR: That is right, and that is the way it has been for as long as I have been here.

Ms HILDYARD: Yes. We are inserting an act, basically, into another one, but that is fine.

The CHAIR: Well, it is an amendment bill. Once again, standing order 364 states:

In Committee (except when considering Appropriation Bills),

1. a Member other than the Member in charge of the Bill—

which in this case is the minister—

motion or amendment may not speak more than three times on any one question, nor for more than fifteen minutes on any one occasion;

2. debate is confined to the motion, clause or amendment before the Committee.

We need to speak to the question we are dealing with or the amendment we are dealing with. I will put the amendment now.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 2 [ChildPro–2]—

Page 17, after line 27 [clause 22, inserted section 113K]—Insert:

(4) In determining whether to make an adoption order contemplated by this Chapter, the Court must take into account any views expressed by the child or young person under this section.

(5) The Court may determine the weight to be given to views expressed by a child or young person under this section, taking into account the age of the child or young person and any other factors the Court considers relevant.

The CHAIR: Member for Reynell, you have three opportunities now.

Ms HILDYARD: In relation to new section 113C(1) and in light of this amendment, can you please explain, minister, so that I am clear and so that our community is clear, what the hierarchy now is in terms of any orders made under this act and any orders made under any other state or commonwealth laws?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: To answer the question, there is no hierarchy. The court must determine whether the adoption order is in the best interest of the child. In considering this, they will have regard to whether such an order is preferable to one that may be made under another jurisdiction.

Ms HILDYARD: Given your answer, I think there is actually a hierarchy, because they have to reflect on any other orders in relation to any other act. So I guess, if you want to frame it not as a hierarchy, could you please explain a little more the rationale about how orders made under this provision and orders made under any provision of any other act will actually interact?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The only order the court is putting their mind to is whether an adoption order should be made over and above the order that already exists, which would be the guardianship of the CE, which is through the Youth Court.

Ms HILDYARD: Just to clarify, are you saying there are no other interactions with any other acts—the Adoption Act, any other federal or state acts—and that this simply operates on its own, even though it refers back to the Adoption Act?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Any adoption order will be made under the Adoption Act, and a child protection order is made under the child protection act, which is through the Youth Court. That is the interface.

Ms HILDYARD: So when your amendment says, 'In determining whether to make an adoption order contemplated by this Chapter, the Court must take into account,' etc., it seems this amendment is talking about orders under this act.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The court must still consider whether adoption is preferable to state or commonwealth orders but must disregard orders made under the Children and Young People (Safety) Act as orders under that act have already been made. Note that the court does not have the ability to make an alternative order; they are simply deciding on whether or not the adoption order should be made.

Amendment carried.

The CHAIR: We now get to discuss clause 22 as amended.

Ms HILDYARD: Just to be clear, given that the clause goes for nine pages, are you happy if I just ask more general questions?

The CHAIR: Yes.

Ms HILDYARD: I imagine the minister will find which particular section within the section I am referring to. Minister, what is the justification for this chapter being created outside the Adoption Act, with particular reference to the fact that in New South Wales the Liberal government introduced adoption from care without creating a separate chapter of this type and dispensation of parental rights, which already exist in the Adoption Act?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: In New South Wales, it would not have been possible for this pathway to be in their child protection legislation, because the New South Wales Children's Court is responsible for making child protection orders while the Supreme Court is responsible for making adoption orders. In South Australia, the Youth Court makes orders in relation to both areas of this law.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, could you please explain why, according to new section 113C, in an adoption application, even if the judge assesses that a long-term guardianship order is preferable for the child, they must disregard it?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: If the court does not believe it is in the best interest of the child, they will not make the order, and it will maintain under the guardianship of the CE or long-term guardian.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, can you specify what the alternative 'prescribed qualifying period' will be, what the criteria will be for its application and why it takes precedence over the two-year period?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I expect that the regulation-making power would only be used in very limited circumstances. One example may be a regulation to support adoption before the two-year qualifying period where a carer has already adopted a child and a sibling was then born, so you have already got an established relationship with the family and the mother has had a subsequent child, who has been born, so it is a sibling to the child that family has already adopted.

The court would still be required to make a long-term guardianship order before a child would become eligible. The carer would still need to be assessed as a suitable carer and the court would still be required to determine if the order was in the child's best interest.

The CHAIR: I have taken on board the point that the member for Reynell has raised about this being a particularly long clause and I am going to allow another question.

Ms HILDYARD: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Minister, in your second reading explanation of this bill you mentioned open adoption twice. Can you please define exactly what you mean by 'open adoption' in relation to this bill. In asking that question, I note that general community understanding of open adoption is that a child does not lose all connection with their family of birth or it can merely mean that an adoptee can apply for their information when they reach adulthood. Minister, I think that you implied in your second reading explanation the first scenario, the general community understanding, but that cannot happen with this bill.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Open adoption is where the birth parents are known and, of course, children who are in care do know who their parents are and their parents are already on their birth certificate. In South Australia, we are very fortunate to have integrated birth certificates. Even should an adoption go ahead, the birth parents and the foster and new adoptive parents would all be acknowledged, so there would be that recognition of the history of their family (if they needed their medical history) but also the connection to the family is maintained whenever that is safe to do so, just as it is when they are under guardianship.

Clause as amended passed.

Ms HILDYARD: As I understand it, clause 23 is simply a technical amendment to change the name of the committee to ensure that it reflects the correct name of the committee; is that correct?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Yes.

New clause 22A.

Ms HILDYARD: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Hildyard–3]—

Page 19, after line 38— Insert:

22A—Insertion of section 145A

After section 145 insert:

145A—Chief Executive to develop procedures to keep approved carer's properly informed

(1) The Chief Executive must, as soon as is reasonably practicable after the commencement of this section, develop procedures to be followed by child protection officers and other Departmental staff for the purposes of keeping approved carers properly informed in relation to matters affecting children and young people who are, will be, in their care.

(2) However, nothing in this section requires the Chief Executive or a child protection officer to provide information to an approved carer or other person if to do so would be inconsistent with the principles set out in Chapter 2 of this Act, or would otherwise not be in the best interests of a child or young person.

(3) The Chief Executive must cause the procedures developed under subsection (1), as in force from time to time, to be published on a website determined by the Chief Executive.

In moving this amendment, I draw the parliament's attention to recent surveys conducted by Connecting Foster and Kinship Carers South Australia and also, even more recently, by the carer project. I have had the opportunity to look at these survey results and to talk with leaders of those organisations who represent kinship and foster carers and, on many occasions, to speak directly with foster and kinship carers. I am not surprised that the results of both of those surveys that I have mentioned show major problems with the relationship between carers and the Department for Child Protection.

As recently as this morning, I have been contacted by foster carers who are deeply unsatisfied with their treatment by the Department for Child Protection. Almost on a daily basis, we are contacted by carers raising issues of fairly serious concern about their relationship with the department. Many say that they feel undervalued, disrespected, ill informed and have to wait for timely information, timely conversation about children in their care, including about issues relating to access to medical treatment and all sorts of other issues as well.

Far too many mention that there seems there is a culture of intimidation, which is rife within the department, whenever they question particular methods or decisions. The purpose of this amendment is to respond to that plethora of concerns that are raised with me, as I said, on an almost, if not actual, daily basis.

These amendments seek to put in place measures to address those ongoing cultural issues within the Department for Child Protection. If implemented, they will I think help to address the recruitment and retention of carers, which is currently well below what is needed to support the thousands of children and young people who are currently in either foster or kinship care.

These amendments are about providing a framework for procedural fairness for foster and kinship carers. As I mentioned, those foster and kinship carers are wholeheartedly, rigorously, relentlessly calling out for procedural fairness and for fairness generally to keep them informed of decisions that impact the lives of the children and young people for whom they care and, of course, the lives of their family as well and their interactions with various organisations with whom they deal in relation to the child with whom they have a foster or kinship care relationship.

These amendments are about giving the chief executive the opportunity to develop—in consultation, of course, with carers and staff—the necessary procedures that will create confidence amongst foster and kinship carers that they will be appropriately, respectfully and expeditiously responded to, dealt with and communicated with about the children who they have chosen to take into their hearts and their homes.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I would firstly like to put on the record my gratitude to all the foster and kinship carers for the amazing work that they do. They open their homes and their hearts to some of our most vulnerable young people and children, and I am very grateful for that. This government, on coming into government, was very well aware of the issues that were being faced by foster and kinship carers, as I had many inquiries to my own office. We have worked very hard to make improvements for foster and kinship carers. Many of those have been achieved and some are still underway, and there is certainly more work to come.

One of those areas was a statement of commitment that was undertaken with the help of Connecting Foster and Kinship Carers, which specifies how foster carers and kinship carers should be treated. We are working on that education process and making sure that every worker is on board and understands that that is the expectation when dealing with foster and kinship carers.

With the new act that was implemented on 22 October 2018, new powers that benefit foster and kinship carers include the ability to have an internal review, the ability to take decisions to SACAT to be determined and the Contact Arrangements Review Panel (CARP). These are three new strengthenings in the current act. If there is any further need, we could certainly look at that when there is a full review. However, my question to the member for Reynell is: how is your amendment any different from the provisions that already exist in the legislation?

Ms HILDYARD: I thank the minister for her words and her offering of gratitude to foster and kinship carers. It is certainly a deep gratitude for those generous people that I share. I also note that the minister, in her words and in her question, spoke about the statement of commitment. I hear a lot about the statement of commitment from foster and kinship carers. Of course, having a statement of commitment about how interactions should occur between the Department for Child Protection and foster and kinship carers is a good thing. Having a statement of commitment to a particular set of principles is of course a positive thing.

However, what I hear consistently and constantly from foster and kinship carers is that having a statement that is not brought to life in day-to-day interactions between the Department for Child Protection and foster and kinship carers is simply not enough. Just having a very nice document is not enough; it has to be brought to life in each of those interactions. I suggest that the minister, if she has not done so already, really thoroughly read the detail of the two surveys that I mentioned. I have read the detail and, as I said, I have had many conversations with carers. What is being raised I think really needs to be heard and responded to if we are to continue to have people put themselves forward as foster and kinship carers.

Some of the things raised in those surveys are very worrying, and they do not give me confidence that people will continue to open their hearts and homes to generously take in children if they do not feel like they are being treated with dignity and respect and in a timely manner for them to be able to provide the best possible love, care and support to the child in their care. So I suggest that the minister goes back and reads or rereads those survey results because they really do bring to life the problems that we need to deal with to make sure these people can continue to do the wonderful work that they do.

I also suggest that, in reading or rereading the results, the minister contemplates some of the comments in the surveys alongside the statement of commitment that has been developed so that there can be some really deep thought about how the statement of commitment is brought to life in a way that actually responds to the issues that have been raised in a survey, which, as I said, get raised with me on a daily basis. Just this morning I had another message come through from a community member who is a very long-term carer, raising particular issues. I think that responds to the commentary provided by the minister.

To come to her question, I guess the difference that this amendment seeks to make is to ensure that there is confidence amongst kinship and foster carers, that there is procedural fairness when they raise particular issues, that the department has gone back and looked at what it can do better, how it could better respond and how it could better deal with those issue, those feelings that foster and kinship carers have.

As the amendment says, as soon as reasonably practicable after the passing of this amendment, should it be passed, procedures are developed. They are relooked at and, in relooking and developing any new procedures, procedural fairness is thought about in relation to how carers and other persons are treated in their dealings with the department when they make that generous decision to provide care and support to a child or young person in their home. It is about looking at those procedures, developing procedures and ensuring that that tenet of procedural fairness is absolutely foremost in those procedures.

But to go back to the point I made about the statement of commitment, the amendment requires that the chief executive really thinks about ways that that statement of commitment can actually be brought to life in a real way in all of the dealings that foster and kinship carers have with the department.

The CHAIR: Minister, you have further opportunities now if you—

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I have no further questions but I would like the opportunity to respond without asking any questions.

The CHAIR: Yes, absolutely. You are able to do that.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Regarding the carer project survey and the connecting foster and kinship carer survey, yes, I absolutely have read every word of the surveys. It is incredibly important to me to hear what the foster and kinship carers are saying, with a view to continually be improving. We realise that there is a lot of work to do coming into government after 16 years of Labor. There is a lot of work for me to do, a lot of bridges to rebuild, and there were a lot of issues under the former government.

However, I would like to state on the record that if the member for Reynell, as she says, has read these surveys she would also see that there is a lot of good work that was acknowledged. A lot of our workers are doing amazing work in the most difficult of circumstances. I met with the carer project people last week, around 18 or 20 of them, for several hours. My staff stayed even longer. There were even members there who had very positive things to say about the interaction with department staff. I regularly send cards of gratitude and thanks when I hear of the great work that our workers are undertaking.

There is always room for improvement. There are always things that you can do. It is the same with everybody and everything in every job. Everything in life can get better. I am committed to making this better. I am focused on making this better. The statement of commitment is the beginning; that is the start of it. It is the first time that we have had a peak body that is funded properly, connecting foster and kinship carers who are there to advocate and speak on behalf of carers. This government is committed to improving outcomes for the carers along with the children because the carers are important to good outcomes for children. I note that we will not be supporting this amendment.

Ms HILDYARD: Thank you very much. I am really pleased that the minister has brought up the issue of the Department for Child Protection workforce. It is a group of people with a set of issues that they are experiencing that I was very keen to talk about in the course of this bill. I am very glad that the minister has raised this issue.

I absolutely agree that Department for Child Protection workers do extraordinary work. The vast majority of those workers—all those workers—are there because they want to make a difference in the lives of vulnerable children and young people, and I know how hard they work. I know how they are represented by their union, the Public Service Association. Through my dealings directly with Department for Child Protection workers and their union, the Public Service Association, I am deeply worried—not in terms of their skills, but in terms of the lack of resources that are currently provided to Department for Child protection workers—about their ongoing, sustainable ability to provide the services that they want to provide to vulnerable children and young people.

When I raise these issues, I think about what we heard in the Budget and Finance Committee of this parliament just on Monday, and I think about the many conversations and meetings that I have had with Department for Child Protection workers. One of the things that I had heard and that was raised again in the Budget and Finance Committee is the fact that—and I hope this is the right figure—1,293 shifts in residential care went uncovered in the past month, if I understand it correctly. I will check that figure, but it is on record in the Budget and Finance Committee. But 1,293 shifts going uncovered in residential care is absolutely alarming.

From my conversations with residential care workers, I have heard that when those shifts go uncovered what happens for them is that often they are left with one worker caring for all the children in a particular residential care house. One of the things that I heard from workers at a particular house was that what makes that even more difficult, as well as the worry for them about the support that they can provide on a day-to-day basis, is that if one of those children has particularly complex needs or has a situation arise in their life where they need particular one-on-one support, of course they will provide that. If you only have one worker at a particular time in a particular residential care home, what that means is that all those other children in that home are left unsupervised.

When I heard workers talk about this I felt deeply worried for children. I also felt deeply worried for those workers, because, as I said, most workers who work in the Department for Child Protection, or indeed right across the child protection system, are there because they want to make a difference, because they want to do the best possible work that they can. As well as worrying deeply for those children, I also worry deeply for those workers. Something absolutely has to change.

I am alarmed to hear about that circumstance when we also heard in the course of discussions, and indeed in terms of reading the budget papers, the most recent state government budget papers, that there was a $10 million underspend on staffing, training and recruitment in the Department for Child Protection—a $10 million underspend in those budget papers. Yes, workers are doing the best possible job that they can, but when shifts are going uncovered, when the state government's own budget papers reveal such an extreme gross underspend on staffing—it is there in the budget papers—it is highly alarming and highly worrying in terms of their ability to provide the care and support to children in care.

The other thing that has been raised in the media and, indeed, raised in this house and raised directly with me is that there are particular offices where I understand children in care are having to be cared for by staff who usually work in offices. Again, they are doing the best job that they can in a really difficult circumstance, but I do not think anyone in our community would think that that is a satisfactory situation in terms of our responsibility to provide the best possible care and support to the most vulnerable South Australian children to enable them to physically, mentally, emotionally thrive and enable them to equally actively participate in all of the activities that they might wish to participate in—activities that are so important for children in care to have access to. I was deeply worried when I heard about that situation.

I was also very worried when I heard that particular workers in the Department for Child Protection who have responsibility for placing children, in determining where they would be best placed in terms of which residential care home, which particular setting, are also very stretched in terms of their resources to appropriately and in a fulsome way explore what those best possible placement options are by deeply understanding the needs of a particular child that they are considering in terms of the best possible placement for them. It has also been identified to me that there is a lack of resource in terms of that case management at that social worker level, which is highly alarming.

The other thing that has been brought to my attention by a number of staff is that, again at that social worker, case manager level, when a particular staff member goes on leave, the department is so severely short-staffed that it is really difficult for any position to be backfilled, even if that person is on leave for a month or more. When these workers come back after leave, even when they have had a huge caseload before, they come back to find that it has continued to increase and they come back to an even heavier workload.

It is on the public record and it has been reported in the media that workers are very unhappy. They are currently running a campaign about these issues and urging the minister to better resource staffing, to have a heart about their needs so that they can absolutely provide the best possible support to children.

If we are really grateful for what staff do, as both the minister and I have expressed, and if we really do want the best possible care and support outcomes for the most vulnerable children in South Australia so that that they can, as I said, emotionally, physically and socially thrive, then we absolutely have to fix the staffing crisis in the Department for Child Protection. I suggest that the minister turns her mind to that as a matter of urgency, because, as I said, I am absolutely grateful for what the workers do. We need to support them so they can continue to do that good work.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I do not have any further questions. However, I feel compelled to respond to many of the very misleading, if not incorrect or very untrue, accusations that have been levelled at my department. On coming into government, I must say that in 2017 the PSA had union action going against the then Labor government due to extreme and significant staffing shortages that had been ongoing for several years. In fact, many would allege that those staffing shortages were to cover up the big budget blowouts and to save money, and they were not in the best interests of anybody in the department.

On coming into government, there were 279 FTE vacancies—279. This was in the instance where the case workers were overloaded with cases and were not answering the phones for long periods of time. There was extreme chaos in the department under the Labor government. We have worked very hard. One of the first things we did was broaden the qualifications of our workers so that we could help fill those frontline vacancies. We have got those vacancies down to 60 from 279. We have recruited and retained more staff than ever before in our department.

We have over 244 new social workers and 53 new case managers, and we have more in residential care than ever before also. We are recruiting on a rolling basis for residential care staff. There is no problem in resourcing in my department. In fact, we have improved things substantially and greatly since coming to government, so I refute the allegations made.

As far as the allegations on the uncovered shifts, that is also untrue—that is completely untrue. We have a rostering system, we have DCP workers and we have residential houses. Some are managed and staffed by DCP, some are managed and staffed by the NGO sector, some are owned by DCP and have a mix of staff that are DCP staff and agency staff. There are businesses where it is their whole business to have agency staff, and that is part of the general work, so for companies like Hender, Hessel and BaptistCare, part of their business structure is to provide agency staff.

There is the use of agency staff. Just like in a hospital system, they have the government staff and agency nurses are brought in. That does not mean it is a shift that is not covered; it just means it is covered by agency staff. Yes, all shifts are covered, and our department is doing a fantastic job of looking after children. Yes, we need more residential care staff, which is why we are recruiting and training.

In March, we took on 41 extra residential care staff, including 11 in Whyalla. We just had another 26 come on board at the end of April, we have another 23 in training and there will be another intake in June with TAFE. We are on this; we are focused on this. We are focused on fixing the problems that were there, the 279 vacancies that were held for several years under the former Labor government.

New clause negatived.

Clause 23 passed.

Clause 24.

The CHAIR: In relation to clause 24, to enable the minister and the member for Reynell to have their amendments considered by the committee, I as Chair intend to ask the minister to move her amendment No. 2 on schedule 2 in two parts.

Firstly, I will ask the minister to move that all words in clause 24, up to and including the number 112A, be deleted. If this is agreed to, I will invite the minister to move the balance of her amendment No. 2, that is, to delete the remaining words in clause 24. If negatived, I will invite the member for Reynell to move her amendment No. 16 on schedule 3. That all sounds pretty complicated. We will be able to consider that over lunch. What I am going to suggest now, even though we are a couple of minutes early, as I do not really want to get into the next clause at this point, is that somebody move that we report progress.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 12:56 to 14:00.