Children and Young People (Safety) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 May 2021.)

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (16:16): I indicate I will be the opposition's lead speaker on this government bill and in doing so will take this moment to thank the shadow minister for child protection and member for Reynell from the other place for her ongoing commitment to this portfolio area and for her ongoing briefings. In the past 18 months, around 500 additional children have gone into state care.

While we talk in statistics, these numbers are individual children, some of the state's most vulnerable children. We have all heard one too many alarming stories, shared through media reports, of children and young people being abused in state care. They are not only stories; they are the horrific and life-changing experiences of individuals in state care.

The bill before the chamber, the Children and Young People (Safety) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2020, was introduced in the other place by the minister and member for Adelaide with the intent to further strengthen the legislative framework to protect people who, for whatever reason, are in state care. It is disappointing that I do not stand today to talk to a bill that achieves this necessity, that ensures children and young people who rely on state care feel protected and are able to thrive.

I know the member for Reynell has taken the time to meet with many stakeholders across the board to hear their concerns and feedback regarding the government's proposed bill. This appears to be in stark contrast to the minister's consultation process. Many of the key stakeholders have expressed their disappointment at the lack of consultation from the minister. In some cases, alarmingly, individuals and organisations felt they had not been consulted or spoken with at all.

This is also in contrast to the minister putting on the record in her second reading that this bill honours her commitment to prioritise a 12-month stakeholder review of the act and that the bill had been developed in consultation with stakeholders. Further, the minister went on to note that stakeholders overwhelmingly supported the minister's proposed amendments.

Considering the cultural sensitivities and the vulnerability of children and young people who will be impacted by this bill, it was disappointing to hear that the minister's words do not reflect the experience of stakeholders. Stakeholders have dedicated their expertise and resources to working to ensure children and young people facing difficult circumstances can live their best lives, safe and in a thriving environment. Their expertise was overlooked by the minister.

As a consequence, the bill as it stands will not provide the appropriate legislative protections. In fact, the minister has also made amendments to her very own bill. These organisations and individuals, these stakeholders, rely on a strong legislative framework so they can provide the best care and support possible. However, the proposed changes put forward by the minister, the member for Adelaide, specifically around adoption laws, have raised significant concern with stakeholders.

The minister's changes seem to remove key protections from children and adults by altering the role courts play in adoption processes and the crucial ability for children to be heard. Unlike similar New South Wales legislation, this bill seems to establish a two-tiered adoption system that has the potential to erode the rights of children in state care when it comes to adoption.

Stakeholders have raised concerns that the very voices that should be heard will go unheard. The South Australian Council of Social Service stated through correspondence, 'We believe that the bill is inconsistent in its application for the principle of the best intent of the child or young person.' The South Australian Adoption Act is designed to ensure that children's voices are heard and listened to at every stage of the adoption process.

Prior to the minister's amendment, amending her own bill, the proposed changes removed a child's right to agree to or have a say about their adoption, and the ultimate decision-making powers were transferred elsewhere. While the minister may have gone into this review process with the best intentions, the bill as it stands could have a range of consequences—consequences that would have been avoided through an inclusive and thorough consultation process.

Moves to prevent or limit the court's capacity to make an alternative order to an adoption, even when the other orders could be in the best interests of the child, could prevent a child, their parents and the siblings' views possibly from being considered. In summary, these amendments, which cover a number of sections of the bill, are largely focused on ensuring children and families affected by the act have a voice and are properly engaged in decision-making processes. They respond to issues raised by a range of stakeholders, including from Aboriginal to multicultural groups. This includes:

ensuring that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families and communities are enabled to more deeply engage in all aspects of child protection, not just placement, and to lead processes and solutions;

providing procedural fairness to foster and kinship care in relation to departmental processes and interactions;

the proposed new two-tiered adoption process;

bringing the best interests principles to life;

the extent of powers afforded to the CEO; and

ensuring that children, families and communities from diverse cultural backgrounds are properly considered.

Unfortunately, none of these amendments were accepted by the government in the other place, including those in relation to the adoption and care amendments. The government cannot explain why they want to establish a two-tiered system of adoption in South Australia—one for children in state care and one for the remainder of the population—nor why any changes to the adoption regime in South Australia could not be achieved via the Adoption Act. Nor can they explain why they did not consult with the two adoption peak bodies: Adoptee Rights Australia and Post Adoption Support Services.

I am also concerned that this bill, which was introduced in November last year, was left to gather dust for so long, particularly given the number of ongoing issues impacting the child protection system. Ministers are at the decision-making table to be a voice for South Australians—they have been sworn in to protect. Ministers are there to ensure that stakeholders are properly consulted when policy is designed. However, the stakeholders impacted by this bill rightfully feel overlooked by the minister, and they feel they have been totally ignored by the minister.

Many of the amendments put forward by Labor directly address issues raised by Aboriginal individuals and communities, who are deeply concerned that one in every 11 Aboriginal people in South Australia are in state care. This review process has been dragged out for so long that it is now likely to be superseded to a much broader and in-depth review of the Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017, which is scheduled to be debated in October of this year.

As I was saying earlier, there are many times that mistakes can happen—and mistakes can happen—but when you find out that two children have become pregnant in state care, and find this out through the media, not once but twice, if not more times, and on the second time of finding this out, instead of going into your ministerial office to ask how this happened and questioning the department about how you were not advised and how this could happen to a child in state care, go out into your local community to attend an event, to take happy snaps at a citizenship ceremony or to go doorknocking the next day in your electorate, is nothing but disappointing and not what a minister should be doing. Not only has she put her own self-interest first in that case, but she is looking at not even consulting with the relevant stakeholders when it comes to the significance of this bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.J. Stephens.