Bills

Children and Young People (Safety and Support) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 October 2024.)

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD (Reynell—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (15:42): In closing this second reading debate, I wholeheartedly thank the members who contributed and for sharing their thoughts on this significant step forward in our journey to fundamentally reform the child protection and family support system in ways that help improve children's lives. I thank the shadow minister, the member for Dunstan and member for Elder, who spoke to the range of changes this bill progresses and why this bill is so important.

The member for Dunstan rightly reflected on just how heartbreaking abuse and neglect of children is, how devastating it is that this has happened in our community for decades, and really courageously spoke about the impact of harm on children and how it never leaves you. The member reflected on how our community wants us to do the best we can to prevent the harm of children and to be there for kids when things go wrong. Thank you so much to the member for Dunstan for her insight and wisdom.

The member for Elder also spoke to important parts of the bill, particularly highlighting how crucial it is to empower Aboriginal people in decision-making and to elevate the voices of children: to hear from them about what they want, what they feel comfortable with, what works for them and to really, really listen to them. The member for Elder also beautifully spoke about being a carer and about the absolute love she has for her foster-daughter, describing her experience as the best thing she has ever done in her life—absolutely beautiful words and so encouraging of others to consider this journey, too.

Importantly, the member for Elder also thanked the remarkable workers in our system, who unfailingly want to make a difference. The shadow minister spoke about the comprehensive review of the bill and the feedback he has received, and the member spoke about the briefing we held with him. I thank him for the time to talk about this very important bill. I really look forward to engaging with the shadow minister in committee on the matters he has flagged, including on the empowerment of Aboriginal families and communities in decision-making about their children and about the national approach all states have signed up to in relation to the genuine empowerment of Aboriginal people in decision-making. We know Aboriginal children will do better when decisions about their lives are led by Aboriginal people and communities, and this legislation provides a pathway to a sector in which Aboriginal people lead decisions for Aboriginal children and their families.

As I did in my second reading speech, I thank the many community members, partners, workers, stakeholders and young people themselves for their engagement with this bill and the review process. The depth of feedback received from across the sector and community has been enormous and speaks to our shared commitment to children and young people. The review provided a really important opportunity to rigorously examine and improve this central legislative framework through which South Australia's system operates. This significant bill speaks to our determination to progress improvements that give young people in our state the best opportunity to be safe, well, loved and enabled to thrive, and it sets a foundation and a framework for transformational change to do so.

There are children and families in South Australia facing profound challenges that many people do not ever have to contemplate. This legislation acknowledges this, will help respond to these challenges and is a crucial part of the foundation to drive real change in the lives of children who most need support. As we have said publicly in the lead-up to commencement, there will be significant opportunities throughout the implementation phase to work closely with community across government and with all stakeholders to ensure supporting policies and processes are designed and implemented in ways which empower children and young people to thrive, which enable people and organisations to help shape the way forward.

Again, our government is utterly determined to do what we can to help tackle the complex challenges children and their families face and to help children thrive. This bill is a really important step forward. Again, I thank those who I mentioned in the Department for Child Protection in my second reading speech and I also thank the incredible team in our ministerial office, particularly Matthew Pearce and Ruth Sibley, who have played a crucial role in bringing this bill to the parliament. I am so pleased to again commend this bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr TEAGUE: I rise again noting the second reading debate and in particular the issues flagged along the way. I just confirm my particular interest in those matters. I will aim to invite the government to provide any broadranging indications about part 4, in particular, and then address those discrete matters that I raised in the course of the second reading debate. I say that by way of introduction at clause 1.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 and 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Mr TEAGUE: At clause 4, we see there defined a significant change that is then applied, ultimately, at part 7—the meaning of harm and significant harm for the purposes of part 7, in particular. I guess the question is: how did the government go about, first, establishing that the new threshold was appropriate and then, having done so, how did the criteria for that threshold of significant harm then come into being? How has the threshold been set, more particularly?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Broadly, first of all, we know that getting the threshold right for reporting on and then responding to children at risk of or experiencing harm is a really critical part of keeping children safe, which is why this particular threshold formed the basis of a central question in our review process.

What I can say is that in the review process—which, as I spoke about in my second reading speech, engaged around 1,000 people—overwhelmingly, the majority of those stakeholders who participated in the review indicated that the threshold should be higher, so that is certainly one factor that we have taken into consideration. Many of those stakeholders agreed that a threshold of 'at risk of significant harm', which is what we have reflected in this bill, would also create consistency with interstate models. We know from research and from undertaking comparisons with other jurisdictions that, arguably, our jurisdiction currently has the lowest threshold.

Through that analysis and also through the rigorous review process and the feedback that we received, and considering the volume of notifications that we receive as a result of that low threshold when compared to other jurisdictions and the issues that that creates in terms of ensuring that we are focusing on those children most at risk, they were the factors that we considered in terms of arriving at this particular view.

I would say the two really pressing factors were that comparison between other jurisdictions, with South Australia arguably currently being the lowest, and also that very strong feedback in the review from a range of stakeholders, individuals, communities—the range of community organisations that are well known to the member that work in this space and the various other bodies that operate in this space. That feedback was very strong, and the vast majority of people in that review process provided that we needed to change the threshold to get it right and that doing so would generally align with the community expectation about responding to those children at risk of harm.

Mr TEAGUE: I appreciate the answer. Perhaps the answer might be described as circumstances for a policy objective and therefore for the implementation of a new test. The definition of 'significant harm' now includes a variety of measures—use of the words 'serious' and 'significant' within the definition of 'significant harm'. It is a double-barrelled question, and I am content if it is questions 2 and 3: to what extent is the definition novel, and to what extent has the government considered any legal uncertainty about what is a multifaceted test?

The broader question for now and going forward, should this be implemented, is: to what extent is the government satisfied that those who will be having to interpret and respond to the new test will be able to do so with confidence and, as it were, so as to avoid a status quo scenario, where people just err on the side of comprehensiveness and just report as they have been anyway?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: There are probably a few answers to your question. We did test that definition pretty extensively with government partners but also with non-government partners through inviting feedback on the bill. There has not really been any feedback at all that is negative about that definition.

In terms of other jurisdictions, other jurisdictions, as I have said, have had the higher threshold for some time, and they have not included the more detailed definition of what significant harm is, as we have. We actually feel that including that detail is a better approach in terms of promoting the understanding of those who will work with this definition in terms of making notifications.

I would also say two other things. Firstly, I spoke in the second reading speech about wanting to have a pretty significant period of implementation to make sure that we are with the sector, with cross-government partners, with community, really developing a strong understanding of the bill.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.