Controlled Substances (Youth Treatment Orders) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 14 May 2019.)

Clause 7.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: If I could pick up on our last meeting: when the committee last met I undertook to come back with further advice on costs. In the first instance, treatment orders will be applied to those children and young people already engaged with the youth justice system who have drug dependency problems. There has been some work done on costs in relation to stage 1, but not in relation to stage 2.

The estimated costs will crucially depend on the model of care developed by the interagency working group and the type of services and facilities needed to develop that model. Within that model of care, the estimated cost per young person will vary depending on the treatment pathway determined by specialist clinicians and the court, the length of time for which a treatment order will apply, and the services and facilities used.

It is not possible to make useful estimates of the cost of detaining young people involuntarily until the interagency working group has concluded its work on the model of care. Funding allocations will be announced when made. In that context, I draw honourable members' attention to the recent state budget and in particular Budget Paper 5, page 53. The government has made its first budget allocation to the implementation of youth treatment orders. The budget provides $250,000 in 2019-20, increasing to $500,000 per annum from 2020-21.

The funding will provide a government-funded legal representation scheme for children subject to a youth treatment order application. This commitment reaffirms our determination to fulfil the 2018 election commitment to provide greater support for families who have children struggling with drug addiction.

The CHAIR: We have a number of amendments. I am going to put them in sequence of time when they were filed. The first amendment is the minister's amendment No. 1.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 3, after line 20 [clause 7, inserted section 54]—After the definition of assessment order insert:

business day means a day that is not—

(a) a Saturday or Sunday; or

(b) a public holiday;

This amendment will allow that orders can only expire during the day, at 2pm on a business day. This is to ensure that the transfer of young people out of services or between services will take place during business hours when maximum support services are in operation. A similar provision currently exists within the Mental Health Act 2009 and operates effectively to ensure the transition of young people to their family or between services.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate that this is largely a technical amendment and the opposition will be supporting the government.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Darley–1]—

Page 3, after line 20 [clause 7, inserted section 54]—After the definition of assessment order insert:

controlled drug does not include cannabis, cannabis resin or cannabis oil;

This amendment will remove cannabis, cannabis oil and cannabis resin from the list of drugs that an application can be based on. Under the Controlled Substances Act, cannabis is treated differently in terms of the severity of the penalty and there is a worldwide movement in the change in attitude towards cannabis. This is especially important for instances which only involve cannabis oil, which has different effects from when cannabis is smoked. As such, a young person should not be forced to undertake mandatory rehabilitation if their only dependence is upon cannabis oil.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I rise to indicate that SA-Best will not be supporting this amendment. Whilst we have been hugely supportive, and continue to be hugely supportive, in relation to the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes, I do note that this amendment goes beyond just cannabis oil and includes cannabis and cannabis resin. I also note that for a number of minors, which is the cohort we are addressing in the bill, cannabis can be problematic; it can be an addictive drug that goes to the root of their drug addiction.

I do not dismiss for one moment the beneficial effects of cannabis. We have clearly stated that we support the medicinal use of cannabis, but I think it is also important to note that a court will be able to make a determination as to whether they are of the view that somebody is using cannabis for those purposes or using it in some detrimental way. My position and SA-Best's position is that that should remain within the realm of the courts to determine.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The government strongly agrees with the Hon. Connie Bonaros and will not be supporting this amendment. The bill focuses on health factors. The issue is dependency. It should be left as a matter for the court with input from relevant assessment services and medical evidence whether any particular child or young person should be subject to orders in respect of any particular controlled drugs on which he or she has a dependency. This is intended to be beneficial legislation and the government does not support limiting the reach of the scheme in the legislation.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: While we appreciate the intent of the Hon. John Darley's amendment, the opposition will not be supporting it.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 2 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 3, lines 23 and 24 [clause 7, inserted section 54, definition of domestic partner]—Delete 'a respondent if the person lives with the respondent' and substitute 'a child if the person lives with the child'

I would like to put to the council that this would be an appropriate test clause for a series of related amendments. This amendment is one of many changes where the government is seeking to change the reference to 'respondent' and substitute it with a reference to 'a child' or 'children'. As children are the principal subjects of the bill, it is appropriate that the legislation is framed to reflect that reality. 'A child' is defined for the purpose of the legislation as a person under the age of 18 years. Section 54H deals with young people for whom an order was made before they reached 18 years and the court, in making the order, did not specify that the order was to expire upon them reaching 18 years of age. I put it that this would be an appropriate test clause.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate that the opposition will be supporting this amendment, and we agree that it is the test for many more to come. I think a total of 47 out of 63, or 74.6 per cent, of the government's amendments relate to this and we will be supporting all of them.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I rise to indicate I will be supporting this amendment on behalf of SA-Best.

Amendment carried.

The CHAIR: We come to amendment No. 3 [HealthWell-1]. Is this one of those that follows on?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Yes. Could I suggest that in terms of the ones that are coming in this immediate burst, amendments Nos 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are all consequential on amendment No. 3 [HealthWell-1].

The CHAIR: In that event, unless any honourable member wishes to speak on any of these individually, I propose to put them all in the one question to the committee, but I am happy to put them individually if an honourable member objects. No honourable member has indicated they object.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 3 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 3, line 26 [clause 7, inserted section 54, definition of family member]—Delete 'respondent' and substitute 'child'

Amendment No 4 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 3, line 27 [clause 7, inserted section 54, definition of family member, (a)]—Delete 'respondent' and substitute 'child'

Amendment No 5 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 3, line 28 [clause 7, inserted section 54, definition of family member, (b)]—Delete 'respondent' and substitute 'child'

Amendment No 6 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 3, line 29 [clause 7, inserted section 54, definition of family member, (c)]—Delete 'respondent' and substitute 'child'

Amendment No 7 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 3, line 32 [clause 7, inserted section 54, definition of respondent]—Delete the definition of respondent

Amendment No 8 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 3, lines 33 and 34 [clause 7, inserted section 54, definition of spouse]—Delete 'respondent if the person is legally married to the respondent' and substitute 'child if the person is legally married to the child'

Amendments carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 9 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 3, after line 35 [clause 7, inserted Part 7A]—After inserted section 54 insert:

54AA—Best interests of child are paramount consideration

The paramount consideration in the administration, operation and enforcement of this Part must always be the best interests of the child that is, or is proposed to be, subject to an order under this Part.

A number of stakeholders have been concerned that this is a punitive bill rather than a therapeutic one. That is definitely not the intention of the government, so it is appropriate that that be made clear. This amendment explicitly declares that the best interests of the child or young person will be the paramount consideration to inform all decision-making. This amendment affirms the government's commitment that the interests of the child should be central.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I rise to indicate our overwhelming support for this amendment.

Amendment carried.

The CHAIR: Amendments Nos 10 to 14 [HealthWell-1] look like they follow on.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Mr Chair, you seem to be moving on to what is suggested section 54A. I thought we might need to at least acknowledge that amendments Nos 3 and 4 [Bonaros-1] are in this clause but they are consequential, in my view. I think Ms Bonaros is saying she will not be moving them.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: That is correct. I think I had noted it was amendments Nos 1 to 6 that were consequential but in fact it was Nos 1 to—

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I think there are two in this cluster.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Yes. Well, if we deal with those now.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: At least they are consequential.

The CHAIR: Just out of an abundance of caution and clarity, in the myriad amendments I have in front of me there are two: amendment No. 7 [Bonaros-1] and amendment No. 8 [Bonaros-1]. It is my understanding, from what members of the committee are telling me, that those two are not going to be moved.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Amendments Nos 1 to 39 [Bonaros-1] will not be moved.

The CHAIR: So those two will not be moved.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Do you want me to give my view to help?

The CHAIR: I am not sure anything the Leader of the Opposition would do would assist me at this point in time, but if the Leader of the Opposition would allow me to concentrate we can progress this with a minimum of fuss. I have now, minister, 10 to 16 of your first set. I intend to put them in the one question unless you or any other member advises me to take an alternative course of action.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: If the council could indulge me, could I suggest that amendments Nos 10, 12, 13, 15 and 16 are all consequential on amendment No. 3 [HealthWell-1]. I propose to separately address amendments Nos 11, 14, 17 and 18.

The CHAIR: Because of that I am going to put amendment No. 10 now to the committee. We will do that and then you can speak to amendment No. 11.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 10 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 4, line 4 [clause 7, inserted section 54A(1)(a)(i)]—Delete 'person (the respondent)' and substitute 'specified child'

I put to the council that that is consequential on amendment No. 3 [HealthWell-1].

Amendment carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 11 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 4, line 8 [clause 7, inserted section 54A(1)(a)(ii)]—After 'applicant' insert ', the child (or a person representing the child)'

This amendment would require that a copy of any assessment report be provided to the child or a person representing the child. Under the bill it would currently only be provided to the applicant and the court.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 12 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 4, line 9 [clause 7, inserted section 54A(1)(a)(ii)]—Delete 'respondent' and substitute 'child'

Amendment No 13 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 4, line 11 [clause 7, inserted section 54A(1)(b)(i)]—Delete 'person (the respondent)' and substitute 'specified child'

I suggest to the council that amendments Nos 12 and 13 [HealthWell-1] are both consequential.

Amendments carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 14 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 4, line 15 [clause 7, inserted section 54A(1)(b)(ii)]—After 'applicant' insert ', the child (or a person representing the child)'

Whilst this is not consequential, it is similar to the amendment that the council just supported in amendment No. 11. Amendment No. 11 related to providing copies of an assessment report. This amendment No. 14 would require that a copy of any treatment report be provided to the child or a person representing the child, not merely the applicant and the court.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 15 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 4, line 16 [clause 7, inserted section 54A(1)(b)(ii)]—Delete 'respondent' and substitute 'child'

Amendment No 16 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 4, lines 18 and 19 [clause 7, inserted section 54A(1)(c)]—Delete 'person (the respondent) for the purpose of ensuring compliance with an assessment order or a treatment order' and substitute:

specified child for the purpose of ensuring compliance with an assessment order or a treatment order made in relation to the child

I suggest to the council that these amendments are consequential on amendment No. 3 [HealthWell-1].

Amendments carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 17 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 4, line 22 [clause 7, inserted section 54A(2)]—Delete 'respondent who is under 18 years of age at the time the order is made' and substitute:

person who is a child at the time the order is made (but an order can be made despite the fact that the person will cease to be a child during the term of the order—see section 54H)

This amendment seeks to make clear that an order may only be made in relation to a child under the age of 18 years at the time the order is made. In conjunction with section 54H, it proposes that an order can be made despite the fact that the young person who is the subject of the order will reach the age of 18 years before its expiration. Section 54H provides that treatment may continue beyond the young person's 18^th birthday, except where the court, when making the order, specifies that the order will expire at that juncture.

Amendment carried.

The CHAIR: We now come to amendment No. 18, [HealthWell-1] and amendment No. 2 [Maher-1]. I will ask the minister to move his—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Which goes first?

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, thank you for your commentary, seated. I put amendment No. 18 [HealthWell-1] first. Depending on that vote, then I put yours.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Can I just seek clarification: is that because they were filed first in time?

The CHAIR: No, in the sequence of the bill.

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The CHAIR: They are mutually exclusive. So what I am going to do is ask you both to move them and we will speak to them but, in effect, if in the sequencing the minister's gets up, yours cannot be put. Really, the vote on the minister's amendment is a vote in relation to your own amendment.

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The CHAIR: Yes; you cannot vote for them both because the minister is seeking to remove subsection (3) in his amendment and you are deleting, in subsection (3), a word. That word will not exist if the minister's amendment gets up.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I do not mind who goes first.

The CHAIR: Either way it is a test case because if I put the Hon. Kyam Maher's first and he amends a word then, by implication, the council has suggested that they want the clause to remain. So, in effect, if the Hon. Kyam Maher wants his amendment to get up he is going to vote against your amendment. I want them both moved and we can debate them but that has to be the sequence I put them in.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I understand that but the suggestion that I think both the minister and I are making is that there may be some members, as frequently happens, who do not support a bill but want to make a bad bill a little bit better, and it might be the case that—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: The opposition is supporting this bill.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We are, but it could be the case, though, that members might want this clause deleted but if the clause ends up not being deleted would prefer it to be amended with what the opposition wants. So they may wish the clause to be deleted but if that does not eventuate, may want it to be here and were not given that opportunity, should we do it in that order.

The CHAIR: That is why I am going to have you both move and then we will have the debate in relation to both amendments. They are both going to be moved. I am not going to put them. Then we are going to have a debate in committee about the amendments as a whole. I would ask honourable members to indicate to the Chair what their preference is and then I will consider how I am going to put the questions, to be fair to everyone in the council. Are we all happy with the course of action I suggest? Yes.

The Hon. Kyam Maher, actually your lot is in 54A, so I will get you to move, after the minister has moved, amendments Nos 2 and 3, so a debate on your two amendments and the minister's one amendment. Minister, you can kick off. I warn you that I intend to put a question, so all relax.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I understand that I am talking about amendment No. 18 [HealthWell-1].

The CHAIR: Correct.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 18 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 4, lines 24 and 25 [clause 7, inserted section 54A(3)]—Delete subsection (3) and substitute:

(3) Until the prescribed day, an order may only be made under this Part in relation to a child who is subject to detention in a training centre at the time the order is made (whether or not the child has commenced the period of detention).

(4) Subject to subsection (5), an order operates for the period specified in the order which—

(a) must end at 2 pm on a business day; and

(b) in the case of a detention order, must be the shortest period the Court thinks appropriate in the circumstances; and

(c) in any case, must not exceed 12 months.

(5) A detention order must be reviewed by the Court, at regular intervals determined by the Court, until the child is released from detention (and the Court must, when making a detention order, make appropriate orders to ensure this will occur).

(6) In this section—

prescribed day means a day declared by the Governor by proclamation.

This amendment proposes a two-stage implementation approach. It sets out that, until a date is prescribed for the implementation of the initiative more broadly, the court will only be able to make orders in relation to children who are in detention in a youth training centre. This ensures that children most at risk are able to get access to drug assessment and treatment. The ability for the court to make orders in relation to all other children would only commence on the day prescribed.

The amendment will also mean that orders can only expire at 2pm on a business day. This echoes an earlier amendment and is to ensure that the transfer of children and young people out of services or between services will take place during business hours when maximum support services are in operation.

The amendment would also establish that a detention order should only be made by the court for the shortest possible period deemed appropriate by the court. In that sense, it could be a very short period; it certainly could be fewer than 28 days. This is to protect children and young people from being in detention for any periods longer than is absolutely necessary to carry out the treatment.

The amendment would require that the court must review detention orders regularly until the child is released from detention, which must be part of the order. This ensures that there are further protections for children and young people who are the subject of a detention order, and they are not held in detention for any longer than absolutely necessary. It ensures that the court is monitoring the detention and progress of the child or young person in their treatment and is able to respond, particularly to any changes in circumstances. We believe that this flexible, regular review is to be preferred to the 28-day provision proposed by the opposition.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I note the difficulty we have with this is that the government is proposing to delete the subsection and put in a new subsection, and the opposition is proposing to amend a part of the subsection that will no longer exist because the new one will instead be in its place.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Can you amend ours?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am about to get to that. Technically, I think the way it will be put is that, if you support the government amendment to delete a subsection and put in a new one, necessarily the opposition amendment fails. I am wondering, to seek the guidance of the Chair: essentially subsection (5) provides that a detention order must be reviewed by the court, and the government's proposal is at regular intervals, but determined by the court. The opposition's proposal is at least every 28 days.

Those words are the essential difference: 'at least every 28 days'. The government's proposal is 'at regular intervals'. I am wondering, for the ease of the chamber, whether I am able from the floor to not move the amendment as it currently stands but agree to the amendment that the government is putting and then the opposition move a further amendment to what the committee has just agreed to, but move the amendment to change 'at regular intervals' to 'at least every 28 days', if that is permissible.

The CHAIR: Yes, it is technically possible because before we vote on the minister's amendment No.18, you could move an amendment to that amendment. Let's not get wrapped around the axle on the procedure. From my perspective, I would like to hear from members. It would assist me if we had the policy debate now about whether it is 28 days and then, if honourable members can indicate to me their views on that, that would inform the most convenient way forward.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The thrust of what we are doing is whether regular intervals should be the review time or at least every 28 days. The opposition submits that these are significant steps to take—to have one of these orders implemented—and it is not unreasonable that it is clarified more than just at 'regular intervals', which is a very subjective term and might not give a child who is subject to these orders the possibility to have regular reviews.

A period of at least 28 days makes it clear. They are—necessarily—reasonably draconian orders that children will be facing, and it gives a regular time period when those orders need to be assessed. We think 28 days is quite a reasonable period to have these orders assessed rather than leaving it to the subjective measure of what is a reasonable time period.

For those reasons I commend this to the council—and it is only a very slight difference here; it is at regular intervals as it stands, whereas the opposition is suggesting it be at 28 days, to actually make sure they happen. We are legislators, and I think it is better, when there is doubt about a time period, rather than leave it up to the discretion of those that are administering this act, to give some direction from parliament about how often it should be.

For children who are subject to these orders we do not think a review every 28 days is particularly onerous, given they are significant orders that curtail very greatly a child's freedom and ability to live their life. Twenty-eight days is a reasonable review time to have rather than parliament not making any statement and leaving it up to those who administer the act to decide what they think is a reasonable time period.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: On that last point I think it is really important for the council to realise it is not the people who administer the act that decide what is a regular review time. A detention order must be reviewed by the court at regular intervals determined by the court. In relation to 28 days, one possibility is that it is too long. As I said in moving my motion, we want detention orders to be for the shortest possible time. My recollection is that there is a Canadian jurisdiction that as a default has detention orders of 10 days. If the model of care develops that sort of pattern of short-term treatment orders, reviewing it in 28 days is not actually helpful.

The second possibility is that 28 days is appropriate, but that would be almost by accident in relation to any particular case. The other scenario is that 28 days is too soon. The court may have somebody before them whose dependency is so chronic that reviewing it every 28 days for the first four months has got them not far beyond starting to engage in the program. The detention order must be reviewed by the court, and there are advocates for the child who will put the case to the court which, presumably, would include not only the nature of the order but the time frame for review.

Let me take this opportunity to stress: the opposition and the government are in agreement that, in the best interests of the child in making sure that the order is of the shortest duration possible, reviews are important. However, we would say that every child is different; every circumstance is different; that is why we have courts. We believe that the review time frame should be left in the hands of the court.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the minister for that clarification and, yes, he is right: there is a requirement of the court to specify the time period according to the government's amendments. I do agree with the minister that 28 days may well be far too long, and the minister cited what was I think an overseas example, a North American example, from memory of what the minister just said, of a 10-day length of detention order, which is certainly much shorter than 28 days.

I will make the point that it is not a requirement in the opposition's amendment that it happens regularly on the dot of 28 days. It is a review at least every 28 days. So the 10 days that overseas experience has shown as being more appropriate may be what the court ends up doing. It is not a requirement that they have to review at 28 days and then after another 28 days. It is at least every 28 days, so if it is 10 days, as the North American experience shows, as the minister cited, it might be that the court said every 10 days.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I will just reiterate my last example, which is that if it was a longer order, repetitive reviews may be a waste of resources. I would rather have health professionals engaging young people in therapy rather than doing reviews that are not relevant to them.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can I just indicate for the record that I appreciate what the opposition is trying to achieve here, but our position is that we will be supporting the government. I appreciate that the wording of the opposition's amendment does say 'at least every 28 days'. We know in this instance that, at the commencement of one of these orders, we may need very frequent reviews depending on the length of the order. As time progresses, they may need to be less frequent.

I think what is important to remember here again is that we are dealing with highly experienced judges who have lots of experience with dealing with youth in their court. We need to ensure that they have the flexibility to tailor these orders to the needs of the child whose interests are being considered. I am confident that giving them the discretion to do that will result in the best outcomes for that individual.

I agree also that repetitive reviews, while on the face of it may seem like a sensible thing, may not be just repetitive; they may also prove to be somewhat disruptive to the actual order itself. I think that we ought to leave it to the courts to make that determination. I think they will understand and I think they already do when they make various orders and make appropriate judgements as to what are appropriate intervals in terms of conditions that they impose in their orders. For those reasons, we will be supporting the government's position.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will be supporting at least every 28 days.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I agree that reviews at regular intervals should be left to the court's discretion, so I will be supporting the government's amendment.

The CHAIR: Thank you, honourable members, for indicating where you sit on the matter. Leader of the Opposition, are you intending to move your amendment to the minister's amendment? I cannot put the question on the minister's amendment No. 18 if you want to move an amendment to that amendment. If you do, you do it now.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Thank you, Mr Chair. You are both wise and brave in your guidance of us in this chamber. I move to amend the amendment as follows:

Delete the words 'at regular intervals determined by the Court' in subsection (5) and replace with the words 'at least every 28 days'.

The Hon K.J. Maher's amendment negatived; the Hon. S.G. Wade's amendment carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 19 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 4, line 28 [clause 7, inserted section 54B]—Delete 'respondent' and substitute 'relevant child,'

Amendment No 20 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 4, line 31 [clause 7, inserted section 54B(a)]—Delete 'respondent' and substitute 'relevant child'

Amendment No 21 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 4, line 36 [clause 7, inserted section 54B(b)]—Delete 'respondent' and substitute 'relevant child'

Amendment No 22 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 4, line 41 [clause 7, inserted section 54B(c)(i)]—Delete 'respondent' and substitute 'relevant child'

Amendment No 23 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 5, line 10 [clause 7, inserted section 54B(c)(v)]—Delete 'respondent in relation to the respondent's' and substitute 'relevant child in relation to the child's'

I put it to you and to the council that amendments Nos 19 to 23 are consequential on amendment No. 3 [HealthWell-1].

Amendments carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 24 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 5, line 15 [clause 7, inserted section 54C(1)]—After 'assessment order' insert 'in relation to a child'

This amendment seeks to make it clear that orders under this part are issued in relation to a child in circumstances where the court is satisfied that the conditions of making such an order are met.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 25 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 5, line 16 [clause 7, inserted section 54C(1)(a)]—Delete 'respondent' and substitute 'child'

Amendment No 26 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 5, line 18 [clause 7, inserted section 54C(1)(b)]—Delete 'respondent' and substitute 'child'

I put it to you as Chair and to the council that amendments Nos 25 and 26 are consequential.

Amendments carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 27 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 5, lines 20 and 21 [clause 7, inserted section 54C(1)(c)]—Delete paragraph (c) and substitute:

(c) the child has refused to voluntarily seek a relevant assessment; and

(d) no other appropriate and less restrictive means is available to ensure the child receives a relevant assessment.

This amendment sets out the conditions that must be met before assessment orders can be made to ensure that they function as a last resort. These amended conditions include that the court is satisfied that the child has refused to voluntarily seek an assessment and that no other appropriate and less restrictive means is available to ensure the child receives an assessment. These added conditions are in keeping with the government's determination that the paramount consideration in the administration, operation and enforcement of the youth treatment system will always be the best interests of the child for whose needs and care it is designed.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 28 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 5, line 22 [clause 7, inserted section 54C(2)]—After 'treatment order' insert 'in relation to a child'

Amendment No 29 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 5, line 23 [clause 7, inserted section 54C(2)(a)]—Delete 'respondent' and substitute 'child'

I put it that amendments Nos 28 and 29 are consequential on amendment No. 3 [HealthWell-1].

Amendments carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [HealthWell–2]—

Page 5, line 23 [clause 7, inserted section 54C(2)(a)]—After 'has been assessed' insert:

by a medical practitioner

This is another amendment that underscores the fact that this bill is a therapeutic health bill; it is not a punitive bill. This amendment makes it clear that assessments of children and young people must be undertaken by medical practitioners. This will ensure the assessment is conducted with the benefit of the skills and training of a qualified medical practitioner and in compliance with relevant professional obligations applying to medical practitioners.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 30 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 5, line 31 [clause 7, inserted section 54C(2)(b)(i)]—Delete 'respondent' and substitute 'child'

Amendment No. 30 is similar to amendment No. 3 [HealthWell-1]. It is commonly known as consequential.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 2 [HealthWell–2]—

Page 5, lines 33 and 34 [clause 7, inserted section 54C(2)(b)(ii)]—Delete subparagraph (ii) and substitute:

(ii) the child has refused to voluntarily seek relevant treatment; and

(iii) no other appropriate and less restrictive means is available to ensure the child receives relevant treatment; and

(iv) the treatment and care of the child pursuant to the order will be governed by an appropriate treatment and care plan directed towards treating the child's dependency on controlled drugs.

This amendment sets out conditions that must be met before treatment orders can be made, to ensure that they function as intended as a means of last resort. These include that the court needs to be satisfied that the child has refused to voluntarily seek treatment and that no other appropriate and less restrictive means are available to ensure that the child receives such treatment.

This is in keeping with the government's determination that the paramount consideration in the administration, operation and enforcement of the youth treatment system must always be the best interests of the child for whose needs and cares it is designed. This amendment will also require the Youth Court to be provided with an appropriate care and treatment plan before it makes a treatment order in respect of a child or young person, so that the court knows what treatment is proposed for the child or young person.

The CHAIR: Does this amendment supersede amendment No. 31 [HealthWell-1]?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Yes, it does.

The CHAIR: Does any honourable member have a contribution on this amendment?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I just indicate our support for the amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 32 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 5, lines 35 to 37 [clause 7, inserted section 54C(3)]—Delete 'if the Court has made an assessment or treatment order and the respondent has failed to comply with that order' and substitute:

in relation to a child if—

(a) the Court has made an assessment or treatment order in relation to the child and either the child has failed to comply with that order or the Court is satisfied that it is likely that the child will fail to comply with that order; and

(b) no other appropriate and less restrictive means is available to ensure the child complies with the order.

Having moved it, I would indicate that it is similar to amendment No. 27 [HealthWell-1] but is not strictly consequential. These amendments set out conditions that must be met before detention orders can be made, to ensure that they function as intended as a means of last resort. These include that the court needs to be satisfied that the child has refused to comply with their order and that no other appropriate and less restrictive means are available to ensure the child complies. This is in keeping with the government's determination that the paramount consideration in the administration, operation and enforcement of the youth treatment system must always be the best interests of the child.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Mr Acting Chair, with your agreement, I would like to move amendment No. 33 [HealthWell-1]. I put it to you and the council that it is consequential on amendment No. 3 [HealthWell-1]. I move:

Amendment No 33 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 6, line 1 [clause 7, inserted section 54C(5)]—Delete 'respondent' and substitute 'child'

Amendment carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Maher–1]—

Page 6, after line 7 [clause 7, inserted section 54C]—After inserted subsection (5) insert:

(6) If the Court makes a detention order, the Court must ensure that the Chief Executive of the Department is notified of the making of the order.

I indicate that I do not wish to move this amendment; I actually, in fact, emphatically do move this amendment standing in my name. I think the amendment is an important one.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: He is having a go.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, no, I am complying with the former chair.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: New Chair, new rules.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: This amendment clarifies the court must ensure they notify the chief executive of SA Health whenever they make a detention order. I would submit that communication between the department and the court system with these orders and with this regime will be incredibly important and that is why this amendment is being moved.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The government agrees with the opposition and we support the amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 34 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 6, lines 9 to 17 [clause 7, inserted section 54D(1) ]—Delete subsection (1) and substitute:

(1) Subject to this section, the Court must not make an order under this Part unless the Court is satisfied that the child is assisted or represented in the proceedings by a family member or advocate.

(1a) However, the Court may make an order under this Part in the absence of the child, or representation for the child, if—

(a) the Court is satisfied that the order should be made as a matter of urgency; or

(b) the child was required by summons to appear at the hearing and failed to appear at the time and place appointed for the purpose; or

(c) the Court is satisfied that the child has made an informed and independent decision not to be present or not to be represented (and that the child is capable of understanding the nature and possible consequences of the proceedings).

(1b) If the Court is making the order in accordance with subsection (1a)(a), the Court must make an interim order and summon the child to appear before the Court at a hearing to show cause why the order should not be confirmed as a final order.

This amendment ensures that the child has representation in the court in relation to any order made under this part. In this context, I acknowledge the Hon. Connie Bonaros' interest in legal representation and I also refer her to the state budget and the allocation there.

The child may be represented by a parent or another family member or by an advocate, which could include legal or other representation as deemed appropriate by the court. This amendment includes additional criteria regarding the circumstances under which the court can make orders when either the child or representative of the child is absent from the court. This includes when the matter is a matter of urgency, when the child was required to attend by summons and did not attend and when the court is satisfied that the child made an informed and independent decision not to attend.

It also requires that the court can only make an interim order when it is a matter of urgency and must summons the child to appear before the court at a hearing to show cause why the order should not be confirmed. This amendment seeks to further protect the child by ensuring representation in the court for the child and ensuring that orders made in the absence of the child or their representation are guided by robust criteria.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: With your agreement, Mr Acting Chair, I would suggest that amendments Nos 35 to 37 [HealthWell-1] inclusive are consequential on amendment No. 3 [HealthWell-1], which has received the support of the council. I move:

Amendment No 35 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 6, line 20 [clause 7, inserted section 54D(2)(a)]—Delete 'respondent' and substitute 'child (or the person representing the child)'

Amendment No 36 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 6, line 28 [clause 7, inserted section 54D(3)]—Delete 'respondent' and substitute 'child'

Amendment No 37 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 6, line 32 [clause 7, inserted section 54D(4)]—Delete 'respondent' and substitute 'child'

Amendments carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 38 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 6, line 40 [clause 7, inserted section 54D (6)]—After 'An' insert 'interim'

This amendment and others to section 54D dealing with proceedings in the absence of a child allow a distinction to be made between an interim and a final order and sets out the requirements for each to have effect.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: With your agreement, Mr Acting Chair, I would like to move amendments Nos 39 and 40 [HealthWell-1] and I put it to you and the council that they are consequential. I move:

Amendment No 39 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 6, line 42 [clause 7, inserted section 54D(6)(a)]—Delete 'respondent' and substitute 'child'

Amendment No 40 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 7, line 2 [clause 7, inserted section 54D(6)(b)]—Delete 'respondent' and substitute 'child'

Amendments carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 41 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 7, line 3 [clause 7, inserted section 54D(6)(b)]—After 'confirms the order' insert 'as a final order'

Whilst it is not consequential on a previous decision of the council, this is similar to amendment No. 38, which was supported by the council. This amendment and others to section 59 dealing with proceedings in the absence of the child allows a distinction to be made between an interim and final order and sets out the requirements for each to have effect.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: With your agreement, Mr Acting Chair, I would like to move amendments Nos 42, 43 and 44 [HealthWell-1]. I put it to you and the council that they are consequential on previous decisions of the council in relation to amendment No. 3 [HealthWell-1]. I move:

Amendment No 42 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 7, line 4 [clause 7, inserted section 54D(6)(b)(i)]—Delete 'respondent' and substitute 'child'

Amendment No 43 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 7, line 7 [clause 7, inserted section 54D(6)(b)(ii)]—Delete 'respondent' and substitute 'child'

Amendment No 44 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 7, line 8 [clause 7, inserted section 54D(6)(b)(iii)]—Delete 'respondent' and substitute 'child (or the person representing the child)'

Amendments carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 45 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 7, line 9 [clause 7, inserted section 54D(7)]—After 'confirm an order' insert 'as a final order'

Whilst not strictly consequential, this is similar to amendment No. 38 and also relates to the distinction between interim and final orders.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: If the Acting Chair is agreeable, I propose to move amendments Nos 46, 47 and 48 [HealthWell-1] as all three, in my view, are consequential to amendment No. 3 [HealthWell-1]. I move:

Amendment No 46 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 7, line 15 [clause 7, inserted section 54E(1)]—Delete 'respondent' and substitute 'relevant child'

Amendment No 47 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 7, line 18 [clause 7, inserted section 54E(1)(b)]—Delete 'respondent' and substitute 'child'

Amendment No 48 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 7, line 20 [clause 7, inserted section 54E(2)]—Delete 'respondent' and substitute 'child'

Amendments carried.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Darley–1]—

Page 7, after line 26 [clause 7, inserted section 54E]—After inserted subsection (3) insert:

(4) An assessment order, treatment order or detention order will be taken to be revoked if—

(a) in the case of an assessment order or a detention order authorising detention for the purpose of ensuring compliance with an assessment order—a person responsible for undertaking the assessment; or

(b) in the case of a treatment order or a detention order authorising detention for the purpose of ensuring compliance with a treatment order—a person responsible for undertaking the treatment,

certifies (in accordance with the requirements, if any, prescribed by the regulations) that the assessment or treatment to which the order relates has been completed.

This amendment is to address circumstances where a young person has successfully completed treatment early. As the bill currently reads, even if treatment is successfully completed, the treatment and detention orders still remain in force until they expire or are revoked by the courts. My amendment will change this so that if a person who is responsible for assessment or treatment agrees that the treatment has been completed successfully, then the order will be revoked from that point in time. It is pointless to have a treatment or detention order continue if treatment has been successfully completed.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Whilst I acknowledge the good intent of the Hon. Mr Darley, it is not the government's intention to support this amendment. The amendment is largely unnecessary as it is a matter for the court to deal with the duration of orders when making assessment treatment and detention orders. In any event, the government does not consider it appropriate for a health practitioner or a social worker to revoke an order which has been made by a judicial officer.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate that, whilst we support the intention, we also support the amendment. We think it is a common-sense amendment allowing for the completion of the order where the relevant treatment or assessment has been completed. We are supporting the amendment.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I rise to indicate that whilst we accept the underlying intention, we think that the court is best placed to make these decisions and, therefore, we will be supporting the government.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will be supporting the opposition.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: We are going to object on this or we will be sending it back on this, so we might as well divide. You just cannot have social workers turning over judicial orders. That is the point. Could I very briefly restate the government's concerns? The government agrees that it is pointless having a treatment order that is of no ongoing effect but, as a matter of principle, we object to a social worker or a health practitioner cancelling an order that has been put in place by a judicial officer. I ask the committee to consider that so that when we next meet, we might consider the amendment formally.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 13:01 to 14:15.