Child Protection

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:38): My question is to the Minister for Child Protection. Has—and, if so, why has—the minister dismissed recommendations from children's commissioners, the Guardian for Children and Young People and a coalition of sector leaders to adopt the best interests of the child as the primary principle in child protection? With your leave, sir, and that of the house, I will explain.

Leave granted.

Mr TEAGUE:The Advertiser reports that two children's commissioners, the guardian and a coalition of sector leaders support the best interest principle. The minister has said she 'will not back away at all' from the government's position.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD (Reynell—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence) (14:39): Again, the first point I would make in answering this question is that those opposite in this house when this bill was before this house did not propose any amendments. They supported the legislation. It was voted for. It went to the upper house. Again, I am not sure what has happened between the deputy leader and the shadow assistant minister for child protection. Maybe while he was chasing his leadership ambitions, there was something else going on. I am not quite sure what has happened there between those two.

Secondly—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Members on my left and members on my right will come to order and listen to the minister in silence.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Interesting. But secondly, what I would say is that I know that those opposite have chosen not to delve into the complexity of the reform that is required. To give a little bit of a history lesson, some years ago best interests was the only principle in legislation. There were various coronial inquests and recommendations made, and in the legislation that we have now safety is the paramount principle.

In the legislation that we have proposed that those opposite supported through this house, we now for the first time—yes, our position has been to retain safety of children as the paramount principle—have also inserted best interests as a guiding principle in a very extensive way. What the legislation says is that in relation to all decisions best interests will be applied. However, when there is a conflict, when a worker has to make the most complex, sometimes life or death decision about whether or not to remove a child, they need as was called for in coronial inquests absolute clarity—absolute clarity—in that moment about what the prevailing, what the paramount consideration is. Therefore in this legislation we have maintained that and we have inserted the best interests principle. So I don't really understand what their position is in relation to the interaction between these two principles.

But the position that I can speak about is that of workers in the sector, workers in the sector who speak to me about the fact that of course, of course, they constantly strive for the best interests of the children and families they work with—of course they do. I was speaking not so long ago with a worker, an incredible worker, as they all are, in the sector who had been there for 40 years and she said, 'Of course we do that work, of course we are striving for the best interests of children to be realised; however, when you get to that moment and you have to consider that heartbreaking difficult decision of whether or not to remove a child, you need clarity that safety is the paramount principle.'

That is why we have those two propositions in our legislation. It is complex. I am sorry that you cannot understand the complexity of what children and families go through.