Children and Young People (Safety) Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clauses 81 to 101 passed.

New clause 101A.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Police–1]—

Page 58, after line 38—Insert:

101A—Persons not to be employed in licensed children's residential facility unless they have been assessed

(1) A person must not be employed in a licensed children's residential facility unless the person has undergone a psychological or psychometric assessment of a kind determined by the Chief Executive for the purposes of this section.

(2) However, subsection (1) does not apply to the employment of a person or person of a class, or the employment of a person in circumstances, prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.

(3) A person who is employed in a children's residential facility in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty:

(a) for a first or second offence—$20,000;

(b) for a third or subsequent offence—$50,000 or imprisonment for 1 year.

(4) A person who employs, or continues to employ, a person in a licensed children's residential facility in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty:

(a) in the case of a natural person—$50,000 or imprisonment for 1 year; or

(b) in the case of a body corporate—$120,000.

(5) For the purposes of this section, a reference to a person being employed will be taken to include a reference to a person who—

(a) is a self-employed person; or

(b) carries out work under a contract for services; or

(c) carries out work as a minister of religion or as part of the duties of a religious or spiritual vocation; or

(d) undertakes practical training as part of an educational or vocational course; or

(e) carries out work as a volunteer; or

(f) performs unpaid community work in accordance with an order of a court,

and a reference to employ is to be construed accordingly.

This amendment seeks to insert a new clause into the bill that will ensure that the Department for Child Protection and service providers have engaged as recruits a workforce, specifically in relation to licensed residential children's facilities, that keeps children safe and is psychologically equipped to work with children in care.

This amendment will ensure that, unless excluded by regulations, any person employed in a licensed children's residential facility must have first undergone a psychological or psychometric assessment. A failure to comply with this amendment constitutes a serious offence that attracts increasing maximum penalties for repeated breaches. I note for the sake of completeness that this amendment is also consistent with and related to the Child Protection Systems Royal Commission report recommendation 138, which states:

Recruit child and youth support workers in accordance with the 2016 recruitment model, including a requirement that all applicants for those positions undergo individual psychological assessment.

The amendment will ensure that not just those employed by the government but also those contracted by the government undergo the same strong recruitment process of a psychological assessment. The government is committed to ensuring that children in this state are safe from harm. This is another tool which can be used to help achieve that. I urge members to support this amendment for the reasons I have explained.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Could the minister outline how many of the department's children's residential care facilities are licensed in this state?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I am afraid that on this occasion I will have to take that question on notice and try to get information for the honourable member as quickly as we can.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: This goes to the heart of my concern with this amendment, because I am advised by those in the sector that these residential children's facilities are not licensed. Therefore, the point of this to me seems somewhat moot. My next question is: if these facilities are not licensed, what is the effect of this amendment?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: The measures in this bill will create the class of residential facilities that will apply. Hopefully, that assists the honourable member in her assessment of this amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: So the government amendment is talking about licensed children's residential facilities that do not currently exist in this amendment. Can we clarify that for the record?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Could you say that again?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The government amendment here applies to things that do not currently exist. Is that the case?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Apologies for the delay. Hopefully, this answers your question; it may not, in which case I am happy to elaborate further. The advice I have received is that the current regulatory regime applies to the non-government sector, but there is one that is in place. What this is seeking to do is to combine them both and be more comprehensive as a result.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I cannot easily pick it up; how is a young person defined in this bill?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Being under 18.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: Just on 101A, the insertion, I imagine that in the department there are psychological and psychometric assessments being made and the department would envisage what that involves. For the benefit of Hansard, is that a simple test, filling out a form, or does it involve an interview? I appreciate that the clause says it is determined by the chief executive, but the department would have an understanding of what it envisages.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: The advice I have received is that, as was informed from the Nyland royal commission, there is a two-part process. The first one is for a form to be completed that is a test in the nature of a psychometric test, and the second part is the meeting with a psychologist.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: On the same issue, I take it from the minister's answer that he can assure the house that the regulations would specify not merely that a psychological or psychometric test or assessment be undertaken but that it be administered by a registered psychologist?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the minister for that undertaking. Could the minister explain what classes of persons the government is intending to exclude under proposed subclause (2)?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I can give an example for the benefit of the honourable member. Maintenance people might be an example of people that would be in that category.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I find that a strange example because under subclause (4)(b) it specifically says 'carries out work under a contract for services'. Presumably that is the sort of person that would be a maintenance person as the sort of person who would carry out work under contract for services? In that context, I find it hard to imagine how a regulation could exclude something that is already explicitly stated in the section. I do find that a strange clause but if that is an example that is offered, I find that I am just sceptical of it.

Moving to the implementation issue, presumably we have thousands of people working in the sector in the affected areas. We already have a shortage of testing psychologists, particularly registered psychologists. Is it intended that this clause not be implemented with the rest of the legislation? If it is not going to be proclaimed separately and later, what assurances can this council have that it would actually be functional? We could be faced with the disturbing scenario of people currently working in facilities being excluded from the facilities because of the introduction of this requirement.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: My advice is that that will be dealt with in a separate bill that will be designed to specifically deal with transitional requirements.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: That is less than persuasive. If you want to have transitional requirements why not put it in clause 2 in relation to commencement? How can you have a transitional arrangement in a future bill for an act that you are about to proclaim?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: The advice I have received is that we have been pretty clear about the process from the get go and have made clear on the record that the approach would be to, hopefully, pass this bill and then from there establish the transitional arrangements through a separate bill. That has been on the record for some time.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I want to finish the second part of my other question. My understanding is that there is no residential children's facilities that are currently licensed in the government sector, and that has been made clear.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: There are some.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: There are some. How many are there? There was an answer to the first question of how many there are, and how many are not licensed, because my question is: if they are not licensed, is the requirement for the psychological or psychometric assessment for employees in these government residential care facilities a purely administrative one or, indeed, will this legislation actually apply to them with these quite substantial fines?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: If they are not licensed because there are less than three children there, then this section will not apply to them.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Thank you, that answers that question.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: If I understood the minister's answers correctly, both a psychological and a psychometric assessment each have paperwork to be filled out and an interview. Do I understand that correctly or is that just a psychological test?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: The first stage is the psychometric test which is done in a written form and the second stage is a meeting with a psychologist.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: The way I read this section is that you could be asked to do one or the other. Is that correct? It is the use of the word 'or'. Or if my reading is maybe incorrect, can the chief executive order someone to do both?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I am advised that although it is written in the context of 'or', that is, one or the other, the tests by their nature are of both a psychological and psychometric orientation. So one test would not be exclusive to the other, so either test that applies would both be of a psychological or psychometric nature. Does that make sense?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In the context of the minister's answer, I would like to revisit the undertaking he gave me earlier. It goes to the point that a psychometric test, in particular, without a registered psychologist to administer it, may be absolutely useless, so saying that a person has to have an assessment with a psychometric test could be very misleading. Could I restate my earlier question to seek a more specific clarification. If the regulations require a psychological assessment or a psychiatric assessment, whatever the form of the assessment, will that assessment be delivered by a registered psychologist?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: As I said earlier, yes.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: I am going to try to interpret the minister's answer for my own benefit. Basically, they are two descriptions of the one test.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: That is far more succinct.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: Yes, may the minister please note the time that I worked that out. The nature of this test might change. On the drafting, does the chief executive have power under this section to dictate a different type of test, depending on the class of individuals who are visiting the licensed premises? For example, you may not want a full-on psychometric test for the person who is fixing the fuse box when they are gardening, as opposed to the person who may be delivering religious services or spending most of their time there. Or is there no need to make that distinction from a test perspective?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: The example of a maintenance worker coming to a site to fix the fuse box is not a particularly good example because such a person would be exempted from the relevant provisions through the regulations in any event, so in that particular instance it would already be covered.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: Alright, I can give you another example. There would be a person in the kitchen cooking the food who would be there every day and serving the food to the children—so, a school example. They are not necessarily going to be tutoring the children or being one-on-one with the children, but you would still have them tested and checked because they would be in the vicinity of the licensed premises, and therefore there would be a risk of unsupervised contact with the children. This is, I suspect, the point of these provisions. I am interested in whether there is capability for the chief executive to order different types of tests, under the drafting, for the different classes of individuals whom they find. I then come to the question of cost.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: The department's intention is to apply the same test to everyone. Although it is technically possible to have a different level of psychometric testing associated with different professions or roles, as it stands, the current intent is to have one test for everybody, for the obvious sake of simplicity as much as anything else.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: This is probably my last question. Do we have any understanding of what the costs of these tests are? I assume that licensed premises bear the costs.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Unfortunately we do not have a figure at hand at the moment, even potential ballpark costs. I understand that, nevertheless, the price could vary depending on the contracting arrangements that exist for different organisations in any event. Apologies. Good question, though.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: I would ask you to give it to me tomorrow, but I cannot. Later on today, hey? I will not hold up the passing of that clause. We will agree to the passing of that clause. Can the minister undertake to give us an indication of costs? We have a number of stakeholders who have contacted us concerned about the cost burden.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I am happy to undertake to try to get that information for the honourable member.

New clause inserted.

Clauses 102 to 142 passed.

Clause 143.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: I move:

Amendment No 63 [McLachlan–1]—

Page 77, after line 17 [clause 143(1)]—Insert:

(ca) if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that a child or young person is at risk of removal from the State for female genital mutilation or marriage—seize and retain any passport issued in the name of the child or young person;

This is an amendment to insert into clause 143 an additional power of child protection officers, if an officer believes on reasonable grounds that a child or young person is at risk of removal from the state for female genital mutilation or marriage, to seize and retain any passport issued. There is a consequential amendment, which is No. 64, which accommodates any concerns members might have that we are legislating for the handling of a commonwealth document. It provides that it may be held by the chief executive for a period prescribed by the regulations and dealt with in accordance with the regulations. So, if the provision was fortunate enough to be passed, the regulations could accommodate any commonwealth requirements.

This is a matter of great importance to the Liberal Party and the shadow minister. It was set out in the other place by the shadow minister in relation to the movement of children for female genital mutilation, which is currently illegal. This is a mechanism that is not foolproof but it is a mechanism that would assist child protection officers in the policing of the movement of children for illegal activities.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: The government opposes the amendment. Mr Chair, the government supports the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens also support this amendment. We supported it when it was raised as an issue by the sector, including those groups that campaigned against FGM—particularly women who have been subjected to FGM who live in this state and also sexual health groups, such as SHine SA and the Guardian, who first raised these matters.

I note that in the original bill there were no provisions around this because of the shoddy consultation job that was done on this piece of legislation that we are debating to remove protections against female genital mutilation that were decades old and hard fought by the feminist sector and the women's health sector. It was a shocking—shocking—reflection on the job that was done in putting this bill together.

That it is not even a government amendment, when we get to this part of the debate, but indeed is still an opposition amendment that has to reinsert these provisions—provisions that are part of model codes around the country that ensure protections not only against the act itself but, indeed, provisions where passports can be taken to protect a young girl or a female in this situation—I think pretty much reflects the entirety of this debate.

The fact that the government speaker did not even know that his riding orders had changed and, in fact, the government now supports this amendment, just shows that this bill has a lot of flaws and was badly consulted.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: I move:

Amendment No 64 [McLachlan–1]—

Page 77, after line 27 [clause 143(1)]—Insert:

(1a) Subject to any order of the Court, a passport seized under subsection (1)—

(a) may be held by the Chief Executive for the period prescribed by the regulations; and

(b) must, at the end of the period, be dealt with in accordance with the regulations.

The amendment is consequential.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 144 to 149 passed.

Clause 150.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: Amendment No. 65, which I think we have arrived at, is consequential.

Clause passed.

Clause 151 passed.

Clause 152.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Police–1]—

Page 84, lines 28 to 31 [clause 152(1)(a) and (b)]—Delete paragraphs (a) and (b) and substitute:

(a) a decision of the Chief Executive under Chapter 7 (other than a decision under Part 4 of that Chapter);

This amendment seeks to amend clause 152 of the bill, which confers jurisdiction on the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) to review specified administrative decisions. It seeks to widen the scope of reviewable decisions to include a decision of the CE under chapter 7. The government notes that this amendment reflects the definition of reviewable decision in the original bill tabled by the government in November last year. The reasons for this change I will now briefly discuss.

Over the last few weeks, the government has met with stakeholders to further discuss measures in the bill, in particular Connecting Foster Carers-SA Inc. On behalf of the government, I wish to take this opportunity to acknowledge that group and thank them for their work on behalf of carers in this state. The government accepts that it is important to carers and important in terms of their retention and future recruitment that the bill provide an external review mechanism to allow decisions of the CE to either remove a child or change conditions as to their status as an approved carer. On this basis, the government urges members to support the amendment.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: The opposition has an identical amendment, but drafted differently in the hope that it had an earlier amendment get up in relation to chief executive and minister. As a result of the chamber not accepting earlier amendments, we will accept the government's amendments, which have an identical effect to ours. I am not clear why the government first left this out. We are well aware of the desires of stakeholders in relation to these reviews and we are pleased that the government has seen sense, at least in relation in this clause, to listen to the stakeholders.

The CHAIR: So, you are not going to move your amendment; is that correct?

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: I am supporting the minister's amendment, which we have not voted on yet. I anticipate that will be successful and I will not be putting my amendment No. 66.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 153 to 164 passed.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: I move:

Amendment No 1 [McLachlan–2]—

Page 91, lines 25 to 27—Delete Schedule 1 and substitute:

Schedule 1—Repeal and related amendment

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Amendment provisions

In this Act, a provision under a heading referring to the amendment of a specified Act amends the Act so specified.

Part 2—Repeal of Children's Protection Act 1993

2—Repeal of Children's Protection Act 1993

The Children's Protection Act 1993 is repealed.

Part 3—Amendment of Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935

3—Amendment of section 5AA—Aggravated offences

Section 5AA(1)(e)(i)—after 'Part 3' insert:

Division 8A or

4—Insertion of Part 3 Division 8A

After Part 3 Division 8 insert:

Division 8A—Child marriage

34—Interpretation and application of Division

(1) In this Division—

child means a person under the age of 18 years.

(2) Nothing in this Division is intended to limit the operation of the Marriage Act 1961 of the Commonwealth.

34A—Bringing child into State for marriage

(1) A person must not bring a child into the State, or arrange for a child to be brought into the State, with the intention of causing the child to be married.

Maximum penalty:

(a) for a basic offence—imprisonment for 15 years;

(b) for an aggravated offence—imprisonment for 19 years.

(2) In proceedings for an offence against subsection (1), if it is proved that—

(a) the defendant brought a child, or arranged for a child to be brought, into the State; and

(b) the child, while in the State, went through the form or ceremony of marriage,

it will be presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that the defendant brought the child, or arranged for the child to be brought, into the State (as the case may be) with the intention of causing the child to be married.

34B—Removing child from State for marriage

(1) A person must not take a child from the State, or arrange for a child to be taken from the State, with the intention of causing the child to be married.

Maximum penalty:

(a) for a basic offence—imprisonment for 15 years;

(b) for an aggravated offence—imprisonment for 19 years.

(2) In proceedings for an offence against subsection (1), if it is proved that—

(a) the defendant took a child, or arranged for a child to be taken, from the State; and

(b) the child, while outside the State, went through the form or ceremony of marriage,

it will be presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that the defendant took the child, or arranged for the child to be taken, from the State (as the case may be) with the intention of causing the child to be married.

34C—Consent no defence

This Division applies irrespective of whether the child concerned, or a parent or guardian of the child, consents to the marriage.

We have sought a minor amendment to the schedule, although the drafting has effectively taken out the schedule and replaced it with the insertion of the words 'Division 8A'. In essence, this is an amendment to the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, which is accompanying the Children and Young People (Safety) Bill and it is to create an aggravated offence that will apply for child marriage on the occurrence of an aggravated feature being established, which is where there is activity associated with child marriage when a child is under 14 years.

Following on from that there is an insertion of the new clause into the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, which comes after subsequent amendments which prohibit bringing a child into the state for marriage and also prohibit taking a child away from the state for child marriage. Honourable members will see in the subsequent amendments that for a basic offence the upper range is imprisonment for 15 years and for an aggravated offence it is 19 years. Also, an insertion of clause 34C, which is that the consent by the child, is no defence to the guardian.

Again, this is an issue that has been pursued by the honourable shadow in the other place. The amendments effectively, as I said, create offences of bringing a child into the state for the purpose of marriage and, similarly, an offence for removing. The amendment seeks to overcome the current anomaly that once a child is removed from Australia our laws have no jurisdiction to prohibit a forced marriage that may occur overseas. The amendment seeks to criminalise such practices and, similarly, if someone brings a child into South Australia with the same intention.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: The government opposes this amendment. It is outrageous. The amendment proposes to amend the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 to introduce criminal offences of bringing or arranging to bring a child into South Australia or removing or arranging to remove a child from South Australia with the intention of causing a child to be married. The offences impose a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment for a basic offence and 19 years imprisonment for an aggravated offence. An offence is aggravated when the offender knows that the victim is under the age of 14 years.

The commonwealth Criminal Code Act already contains offences relating to forced marriages, both when they involve a child and when they involve a person over the age of 18 years. Indeed, the commonwealth provisions cover a broader range of conduct associated with forced marriages. At this point in time, the government is of the view that the commonwealth offence regarding child marriage is sufficient and at this point in time the government submits that focus should remain on ensuring all measures within the bill are adequate without venturing into other statutes and creating new indictable offences when existing offences at a commonwealth level are more than adequate.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens rise to support this. We commend the work both of the Liberal opposition in this place and the shadow minister on this issue, who has raised it in the other place several times. Child marriage is indeed an issue that should be taken seriously. It is an issue of child safety and it rightly belongs in this bill. To leave the jurisdiction of the commonwealth as good enough is not good enough. This bill is brought to this place without the support of those who work in the child protection sector. It is little surprise that the government will not even support quite sensible and quite reasonable amendments to protect girls against child marriage in this state.

I have talked about this before in parliament. I find this issue a personal one because when I was at school there was a friend of mine who was married off. When we were teenagers in the eighties there was not an awareness that there was anything we could do about this. I think the state needs to step up here and ensure the strongest possible provisions and should be promoting a range of measures to tackle the issue of child marriage. These are girls, these are not brides. This is a human rights violation and it should be taken more seriously by the Weatherill government.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting the opposition's amendment.

New schedule inserted.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS (Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (01:30): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN (01:31): I thought I would set out the Liberal Party position at the third reading. Throughout the debate the Liberal opposition has been very conscious of its solemn obligation to develop legislation that is sound and effective and restores community confidence. Our approach to this bill has been guided by a collection of like-minded organisations, and they have implored us not to support the passage of the bill.

At the same time, they provided us with suggested amendments should the Liberal Party seek to improve the existing bill. We thank them for their wisdom, patience and guidance during the period that we have given consideration to this bill. For the benefit of honourable members, I will set out the members of this coalition: the Law Society; the Australian Medical Association (South Australia); the South Australian Council of Social Services; the Child and Family Welfare Association; the Council of Carers of Children; the Youth Affairs Council; and, the Child Protection Reform Movement.

Certain amendments moved by the Liberal Opposition did not find favour with this council; I have touched on two in particular. The bill before us as amended does not identify a guiding priority that refers to the best interests of the child as being a paramount consideration. This has been something that the coalition and stakeholders consider critically important. The Liberal Party agrees.

Our amendment was drafted to also accommodate the government's view that the concept of safety should also be clearly stated as a priority in the bill. Our view is that this clause would have worked, and it kept faith with the concept of best interests that is referred to throughout the Nyland report.

The guiding principle, as stated in this bill, is of vital importance to the opposition, as is making the minister responsible under this bill. To the Liberal Party this was an important amendment, having regard to the ongoing public debate regarding ministerial accountability and, in particular, the circumstances in Oakden, although obviously not related to children, but was related to the accountability of a minister and a department.

We must remember, honourable members, how we arrived at this place. We have had a litany of failures in child protection and safety. If the government is not willing to take responsibility for its leadership failings, at the same time the problems have festered, while the reviews and reports have mounted up. We have Layton, Mullighan, a select committee, Debelle, Allen, Moss and, finally, Nyland.

In addition to those there have been coronial inquires. It is a roll call of examinations of the government's moral failings, incompetence as well as its inaction. The Liberal Party has come to the difficult conclusion that it would not support the passage of the bill at the third reading. It encourages honourable members to take a similar position to the opposition. The Liberal Party has not made the decision lightly. We have done so based on our genuine deep desire to seek the best legislative framework for the protection of our children when they are in need. We are not convinced the bill in its current form will achieve this outcome.

We hold the same view as the coalition of stakeholders that the existing legislation is sufficiently adequate at this time but not perfect after Nyland. It would serve us adequately until the expected second bill, which the government has committed to during the course of this debate, to be placed on the table in the two houses of parliament and passed with regulations. I will complete my remarks by saying that we will not vote for the third reading.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (01:35): I reiterate that the Greens have not been convinced by this debate to support this bill. We do so with the advice of many in the child protection sector. I received an email this afternoon from Ross Womersley from SACOSS. After thanking those members of this council who have participated in the debate on this piece of legislation, he noted:

...that it is our continuing view that despite your best efforts at negotiation, some desirable amendments and indeed, despite limited ideas about its contents a promise that the government will introduce some complimentary legislation, the current legislation is still by no means overall an improvement on the existing legislation.

It is our continuing belief that this legislation (and the complementary early intervention/prevention bill if it is ever forthcoming) should be singularly directed at ensuring the least number of children ever need to enter into our child protection system. Despite amendments, the proposed legislation also remains flawed in whole raft of other ways. We do not believe the bill will result in addressing this overarching and desirable objective of limiting entrance to the child protection system nor will it ensure adequate, let alone great continuing care for any child or young person who needs to be brought into care.

The reasons for this have been canvassed widely across time and thus I will not repeat them here. However, it is on this basis that when the bill comes before you for consideration we strongly encourage you to reject the bill in its entirety.

That is signed off by the CEO of the South Australian Council of Social Service, who has spoken and worked with the coalition of groups in child protection. Those words were echoed this afternoon in an email sent on behalf of Simon Schrapel, Chair, Council for the Care of Children, who also indicated his appreciation and the council's appreciation for the work that has been done to make this government accountable for its legislative agenda through the moving of amendments and obtaining commitments to bring a prevention bill before parliament before the end of this year. The letter states:

However without seeing the provisions of the Prevention Bill which together with further amendments to the Child Safety Bill is needed to realise real reform to South Australia's beleaguered Child Protection system the Council for the Care of Children could not support the Child Safety Bill in its current format. We do not believe it will achieve the change required to ensure improved safety and wellbeing for SA children and young people and indeed has the potential to make the situation worse for children, young people and families than the current legislative framework.

The Council for the Care of Children believes South Australia does need legislative and policy reform to improve safety and wellbeing for children and young people. Unfortunately the Child Safety Bill even with the amendments passed today will fail to deliver this reform. It will only serve to drive more children into out of home care, add considerable cost to the provision of child protection in South Australia and result in fewer families receiving the support they need to ensure the proper care and protection of children.

We believe better legislation, including a Prevention Bill that addresses problems for families and children at an earlier point, can and should be delivered in this term of Parliament. By working with stakeholders like the Council this is possible in a relatively short period of time. Passing poor legislation like the current Safety Bill is not the answer and the Council would urge you not to support it.

I conclude that I observed that the government even railed in this bill against a motherhood statement of adequate resourcing for child protection and for early intervention. This government has form when it comes to child protection issues. They railed against the children's commissioner having full investigative powers and proper investigative powers.

They railed against a community visitor scheme under the Mental Health Act when that was debated. On both of those occasions, it was the crossbench and the opposition that finally brought reform that was positive to those areas, and I would hope that it will be the opposition and the crossbenchers who will hold the government to account on this bill and make them bring back something that will indeed provide safety and protection for the children of this state.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (01:39): I, too, join my colleagues in urging the council to not support this bill at the third reading. I think it is important to understand that, in the context of the legislative program that the government has already outlined, this bill is the first of two child protection bills that the council is going to consider this year; if I can call this the child safety bill and the second bill the early intervention bill. The stakeholders have been urging since last year—perhaps the middle of last year—that the early intervention aspects of the legislative regime should be considered in concert with the child safety provisions.

The government has ignored those pleas up until this point, but I would urge the government to reconsider, and particularly I would urge all crossbench members to pause and reflect on this opportunity to provide the best possible legislation we can. Some may say, 'Well, we have done all this work on this bill; why don't we just put it through?' I would say to honourable members, the work on the legislation at this point is indeed a foundation for a comprehensive bill. Certainly, the debate is not wasted. The conversation is advanced, but what stakeholders have consistently said is that you cannot understand the protection elements without seeing them in the context of efforts towards early intervention and child protection generally.

The second element, we are told, is already in the process of being drafted. The government told us that as a result of meetings with stakeholders, parliamentary counsel is already working on the second bill, and the government made it clear that they are committed to completing the second bill this year. That is at least one point on which we have a cross-chamber consensus. The Select Committee on Statutory Child Protection and Care unanimously recommended that the child safety bill and the early intervention bill be considered together. Our recommendation was that the child safety bill should lie on the table and be considered at the same time. The committee specifically said that we believe that that was achievable within this calendar year. This is not going to produce a delay. The reality is that it is unlikely that the regime will be implemented by the end of the year anyway, so all let's work on an integrated piece of legislation and get it right.

The broad range of stakeholders have called on us consistently not to pass this bill. First of all, they say that it is not to be preferred to the current law, and secondly, as I have said, they have said that it should be considered in concert. I would urge honourable members to remember, if you like, the relationships between the houses in a situation where we, as a legislative council, cannot insist on amendments without the government agreeing in the House of Assembly. Why would we pass a component of the legislation that we may well want to revisit in the context of issues that arise in relation to the second bill? I think to pass the first instalment without access to the second is undermining our capacity to fulfil our duties.

I agree with the Hon. Tammy Franks in highlighting the concerns of stakeholders that this bill may actually make the situation worse for children and young people. I urge the council to join the Liberal opposition in opposing this bill at the third reading so that these issues, together with issues in relation to early intervention, can be considered at the earliest opportunity, and certainly for the whole process to be concluded within this calendar year.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS (Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (01:44): If I may, I would just like to respond to some of the remarks that have been made by representatives of the Greens and also—

The PRESIDENT: You will be closing the debate, by the way. Does anyone else want to speak? Okay. Go ahead.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I have to say the government is deeply disappointed that after all of the debate, discussion and amendments, many of which have been moved by members of this chamber, this bill is not being supported by the opposition or the Greens. It is important to remember that this bill provides important and needed reform for our child protection system, including rights for foster carers, greater rights and involvement of children and young people and greater powers to the department to be able to enable quicker and more proactive intervention for families at risk. It also provides for a community visitor scheme.

The opposition in particular has moved a substantial number of amendments, to their credit in some respects, and many of those amendments have been successful. However, the opposition's amendments to change the paramount consideration of the act to best interests was not successful. I take this opportunity to remind members that the current act—the Children's Protection Act—currently has protection from harm as its paramount consideration, a change that was supported by this very parliament last year in response to the tragic death of Chloe Valentine.

I think it is of serious concern that the positive reforms in this bill are not being supported because the opposition lost their amendments, not all of them but some of them, particularly the one to change the paramount consideration, and prefers the current act. However, the current act has the same paramount consideration to keep children from harm.

When the chamber contemplates this bill, or for those people who may not already have made their mind up, it is important that we remember the very substantial process that has got us to this point. This bill is principally based upon the recommendations that came out of the Nyland royal commission, an extensive exercise that, naturally, went through all of these complex issues and sought to form a set of recommendations based upon the extraordinary amount of evidence that was brought before that commission. That is the underpinning basis for this new bill, so to vote against this bill in many respects is also to vote against the recommendations of the Nyland royal commission, which I think is an extraordinary position.

We would very much hope, notwithstanding the remarks that have been made by representatives of the Greens and the Liberal Party, that this bill still succeeds in getting through this chamber.

The council divided on the third reading:

Ayes 10

Noes 9

Majority 1

Third reading thus carried; bill passed.