Child Protection

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. S.G. Wade:

That it be an instruction to the Select Committee on Statutory Child Protection and Care in South Australia that its terms of reference be amended by inserting the following additional term of reference—

1A. That the select committee further inquire into and report on—

(a) the government’s responses to the recommendations; and

(b) the implementation of the government’s responses to recommendations, including policy and legislation in respect of the following reports:

(i) the Review of Child Protection in South Australia;

(ii) Children in State Care Commission of Inquiry;

(iii) Commission of Inquiry (Children on the APY Lands);

(iv) Select Committee on Families SA;

(v) Report of the Coronial Inquest in the Death of Chloe Lee Valentine;

(vi) Child Protection Systems Royal Commission; and

(vii) any other relevant report.

(Continued from 3 June 2015.)

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (17:36): I rise to oppose this motion. When the select committee was established last year, the government did not oppose its creation. The Hon. John Gazzola and I have represented the government as constructive members of the committee and contributed to its work. The committee has met many times and has heard from many witnesses. In fact, we are due to review the first draft of the report next week.

Given that the terms of reference of the committee relate very specifically to the treatment of foster carers by Families SA, as a committee we had resolved that it was only right for the final witness to be the chief executive responsible for the agency, Mr Tony Harrison. You can imagine my surprise, Mr President, when, without consultation or discussion with the rest of the committee, the Hon. Mr Wade has come to this place and put a motion forward to expand the terms of reference of the existing committee, and in no small way.

The Hon. Mr Wade is seeking to take what was a specific and limited terms of reference and make a committee with the power to look into any matter pertaining to child protection in this state. The government has already established a royal commission into the child protection system. It is an independent and an extensive inquiry into the systems in place to protect our most vulnerable children and what can be done to improve their lot. It is, and as it should be, above political point-scoring and grandstanding. It is not a media circus for taking cheap political shots.

The government has, on many occasions, spoken of the need for child protection to be above the cut and thrust of politics. The Premier spoke very strongly in the other place about the fact that, if we are to make progress in this incredibly difficult and vexed area, we must approach the issue with a measure of bipartisanship and calm, measured reasoning. This is why we have a royal commission. When this committee was established with the support of government, the government members in this place implored the committee to go about its work without pandering to political self-interest and posturing.

I am concerned that some of the committee are trying to pre-empt the work of a royal commission, as well as the government's review into adoption in this state. I am also concerned that some of the focus on adoption by the committee needs to be very carefully considered, particularly when one considers that nearly 30 per cent of those under state care are from Indigenous backgrounds, and the committee has not fully explored the views of the broader Indigenous community on this issue. This is a matter where we need to be very careful, lest we create a stolen generation. The politicisation of the issue of child protection—

The Hon. S.G. WADE: On a point of order, sir, I put to you that the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars' comments about a report that is in preparation by the committee in relation to a current reference has absolutely no relevance to whether the committee should take on another reference.

The PRESIDENT: I think you are right: we should not refer to any part of an issue that is being looked at by another committee.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS: It is the same committee, Mr President. The politicisation of the issue of child protection is of great concern to me. One needs to remember that, for a child to come under the attention of Families SA, invariably means that the child's home life is dysfunctional. This means that Families SA staff are working in very trying circumstances, and I know the vast majority of those staff try to do the best they possibly can for the children under their care, as for that matter, do kinship carers—

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Kandelaars, I just want to make the point that there is no point of order, so go ahead.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS: —foster carers and other agencies who work in a very difficult area of child protection. This is not an issue that should be politicised, but one that should have a multi-partisan approach. I oppose this motion, as its objectives appear to be to create an ongoing circus to give politicised commentary on the manner in which child protection systems operate under the dubious umbrella of a parliamentary committee. Given the Hon. Mr Wade's desire to persist with this motion, I indicate that government members, myself and the Hon. John Gazzola, will be resigning from this committee.

The PRESIDENT: There is a bit of opposition to that point of order. I will get the Clerk to give proper advice on that and I will get back to the honourable member.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (17:43): Very briefly, Dignity for Disability will support this motion moved by the Hon. Mr Wade. We understand that the intent is not to create a circus, is not to create unnecessary workload but to merely track the government's progress on implementing the recommendations of previous reports to do with child protection, and we think that is a meritorious aim and will therefore be supporting this motion. We do not want to see more and more reports done into this area and other areas of importance only to sit on shelves gathering dust. We think that any measure we can take that is reasonable to track government progress in this area should be welcomed, and we welcome the motion.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:44): The Greens will also support the motion. I concur with the words of the Hon. Kelly Vincent just then that any measures undertaken by this parliament to better track our efforts on child protection and improving the protection for children in this state should be welcomed, and members of parliament are well placed to be doing that work. If the government has a great story to tell, then those tracking mechanisms will reflect that.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (17:44): I rise very briefly to indicate my support for this motion and to commend the Hon. Stephen Wade for his work in this area. The need for this sort of monitoring of the government's responses to recommendations and reviews involving our most vulnerable and precious members of the community is absolutely warranted and proved to be as such. As much as they may or may not like it, the government has a responsibility to this parliament and to the community as a whole to keep us updated on these very important issues.

Time and time again we have been kept in the dark about the response to recommendations and reviews, not just in this area but in other important areas as well. The Coroner's 49 recommendations into the death of Christopher Wilson spring to mind as a perfect example of the government's ineptitude in this regard. Sometimes we are all left wondering whether it is a case of ineptitude or arrogance when it comes to the government's response, or rather lack thereof. Again, this is an extremely important step, particularly given the gravity of the subject, that I think we need to adopt.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (17:46): In summing up, I would like to thank the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars, the Hon. Kelly Vincent, the Hon. Tammy Franks and the Hon. John Darley for their contributions. In doing so, I would like to correct the record in regard to some of the points that the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars made. In particular, he suggested that I brought this motion before the parliament without any consultation with the committee.

Forgive me for not having my diary with me, but it is my clear recollection that I raised this motion at a previous meeting of the committee. I do recall—and I do not want to name the member because my quote might be wrong—a member of the government saying that the government would need to consider it through their caucus. So it was acknowledged that the motion was noted, but that the government members were not in a position to express a view, and I fully respect that.

I roundly deny the accusation that I made no attempt to consult with the committee. Even if that was the case, earlier this week I distributed the motion and invited any member to discuss the issue with me—that being any member of the council, not necessarily just the committee. Be that as it may, I do have the right to bring matters before the parliament. The fact is that there is no standing order of the parliament that says I have to consult a standing committee, for example, if I want to put a motion before them. Be that as it may, it is a statement of fact that the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars asserted which is wrong.

The second point is that the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars wants to cast this committee as a narrowly focused committee which I am suddenly trying to expand. All I do is invite members to look at the terms of reference. What it says is:

A Select Committee of the Legislative Council of South Australia has been established to inquire into and report on statutory child protection and care in South Australia…

That sounds pretty broad to me. It goes on to say:

…including a review of…foster care…

The point is that Family First went to the last election promising a standing committee on child protection and Families SA. We as a Liberal Party said, 'We are yet to see the case made for a standing committee. We are happy to establish a general select committee with a particular focus on foster care and let's see if the need exists beyond this reference onto other matters.' My recollection—and I could be proven wrong—is that in the debate on the establishment of the committee I specifically foreshadowed that the Liberal Party was open to additional references.

However, even if all we rely on is the terms of reference of the select committee, it is established to inquire into and report on statutory child protection and care in South Australia. So I dispute the re-characterisation of the committee by government members as a narrowly focused committee; they need to learn to read terms of reference. In terms of cheap political points, I am not going to engage in the debate as to what politics are being played because—

The Hon. J.M. Gazzola: Oh, right!

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Okay, let me just make the point: if I was engaged in a political game in relation to this committee, perhaps, since the committee was established, I might have done some media on it. I do not recall having spoken to the media once on matters before this committee. I think, before the government starts throwing around comments about cheap political shots, they might get their head out of, if you like, the flurry that the Premier was engaged in in recent weeks and be fair to the way that committees are being conducted. On the point that the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars makes about himself—

The Hon. J.M. Gazzola: You're a bit sensitive.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Well, I would ask Mr Gazzola to show me one example of when I went before the media.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! There will be no interjections. Just continue on, the Hon. Mr Wade.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The Hon. John Gazzola wants to accuse me of cheap political points. As I said, show me one occasion where I engaged the media on the work of this committee.

The PRESIDENT: No, look, the Hon. Mr Gazzola made no reference to that. All he said was you are a bit sensitive and delicate—that's all. The Hon. Mr Wade, these sorts of debates happen and people put points of view. At the end of the day, you seem to have the numbers. Let's just get on with it.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am sorry, Mr President. I appreciate you regard your role as something of a political commentator as well as the chairman of the council, but that is not what I see your role as.

The PRESIDENT: I make no comment. I am just trying to make sure we get this through.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: All I ask for is the opportunity to make my points. If the government wants to stand up and characterise this committee as a political circus, it deserves to be rebutted. The failure to rebut the crass accusations of government members would leave them endorsed by not being challenged.

The fact of the matter is we have had a positive engagement on foster care. I am disappointed that the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars wants to preview his comments on the draft report days before the committee has a chance to consider them as a group, but that was his choice. I am sorry my point of order that the standards of this house should be maintained was not better expressed, but the fact of the matter is that this is a committee that has worked constructively.

I believe that these particular terms of reference are particularly well suited to the parliament. We are after all a forum dedicated to accountability. I think at times we do bite off more than we can chew in terms of developing recommendations for policy action, but surely the parliament is extremely well suited. I cannot think of a task better suited to a parliament than holding an executive to account for the recommendations of experts in the field—people like Justice Layton, people like Justice Mullighan, people like Coroner Johns.

I believe that this is a very relevant task for the committee to undertake. I am honestly disappointed that the government has not seen this as an opportunity to move forward. This is an opportunity for the government to engage the opposition and crossbenchers in a positive path forward for Families SA. Clearly, this organisation has a big task in front of itself to refocus, to stabilise and to fulfil its statutory and other duties, and it is important for us as a parliament to make our contribution. If the government wants to engage in the sort of political jibes we had from the Hon Gerry Kandelaars today, it will long postpone the recovery of Families SA. I urge the council to support the motion.

Motion carried.