Children and Young People (Safety and Support) Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 20 February 2025.)

Clause 1.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Just for the benefit of the committee, I will give an update on where we are. I am not the minister responsible for this bill, and we also do not have the bill officers, the departmental people, available this afternoon, but I understand there are members who wish to continue their contributions today and also put some questions on the record, and on Hansard, so they can be answered when we do have the bill officers available and resume. We are happy to facilitate the wishes of members in relation to doing that, so for a short amount of time this afternoon we are happy to continue the bill, but noting the unavailability of bill officers. We are happy to have questions put on the record to come back to answer.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Can the minister please table a clear and transparent list of what has been changed in the bill before us compared to the 2017 act? Can the minister please advise if a clear and transparent list of all changes to the 2017 act in this bill was given to stakeholders during consultation of the draft bill, and then the bill before us now, or just the summary of key changes and the report from the review of the act as can be found on YourSAy? Will the government commit to publicly releasing a clear and transparent list of what has been changed in this bill compared to the 2017 act before the next sitting week to enable stakeholders the opportunity to get a complete picture of the proposed changes within the bill before us?

Can the minister please advise what parameters were provided to the department, including what budgetary parameters were given to the department, regarding the operationalisation of this bill? Can the minister please advise how this ultimately influenced the consideration of stakeholder feedback and advice? Can the minister please advise what recommendations are still outstanding from the independent review conducted by BDO into the complaints process that was conducted last year?

I have a number of questions I think the minister would be able to answer herself now. Can the minister please advise if it is the government's position that should the best interests be made the paramount principle, the government would no longer pursue this legislative agenda and retain the 2017 legislation?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I understand that the honourable Attorney-General mentioned in his remarks that the relevant officer is not here to provide support, so all of the questions will be taken on notice. This one is included in that in terms of the need to discuss this further.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Is the minister not a member of the government and not able to inform as to the general policy position that this government has taken, rather than specific legislative points within the bill before us?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The honourable member should be aware that I am not the portfolio minister but, further than that, she is saying if something happens in the future then what will the government do, which I think is something that should be clear the minister is continuing to have discussions on, and that is essentially what I am able to say at this stage.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Is it Minister Hildyard's position that should the best interests be made paramount principle within the bill before us, the 2017 legislation would be retained? A further question: has anything of this nature been communicated to either members of this parliament or stakeholders by Minister Hildyard or anyone within her office? Can the minister rule out that she will not be withdrawing this legislation and will continue to pursue legislative reform to the Children and Young People (Safety) Act and will not in fact be shelving it and retaining the 2017 legislation?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Australian Centre for Child Protection submission to the select committee that inquired into this bill made a recommendation in regard to what is called Home Stretch. It noted that the current Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017 section 112(6) defines an eligible care leaver as a person who:

(a) is more than 16, but less than 26, years of age; and

(b) was, at any stage, under the guardianship or custody of the Chief Executive or another person pursuant to this Act or the Children's Protection Act 1993 for a period of 6 months or more (or such lesser period as may be allowed by the Minister).

In the current bill that we have before us, however, the Children and Young People (Safety and Support) Bill, clause 170(6) defines an eligible person as a person who is:

(a) is above 15, but under 25, years of age; and

(b) was in the custody, or under the guardianship, of the Chief Executive or another person or persons for a period of 6 months or more; and

(c) is leaving, or has left, care under this Act or a repealed Act.

Can the minister explain why the government has chosen to diminish the period under which the Home Stretch provisions and supports apply?

Further, the submission from the Guardian for Children and Young People, amongst others, notes in regard to shoulds and musts, in respect of the Aboriginal and Torres Islander Child Placement Principle, that there are a lot of shoulds where perhaps there could be some musts, and specifically I will refer the minister in this question to the shoulds and musts of clause 44, which of the bill currently articulates the five elements of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle: prevention, partnership, placement, participation and connection. That clause sets a low standard for these principles, and it has come under some scrutiny and criticism from the sector.

The bill goes on to read that, for prevention, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people should be provided access to culturally safe services, and, for partnership, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people should be supported to participate in decision-making and policy development. I ask why that is not 'must' rather than 'should'?

In the next clause, for placement, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people should be placed with their family and/or member of their community. Again, I ask why that is 'should' and not 'must'? Further, it states that participation decisions that affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people should engage Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander family-led decision-making. Again, why is that not 'must'?

For connection, the bill states that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people should 'be supported to develop and maintain their connection with their family, community, culture, Country and language'. Why is that not 'must'?

Finally, the bill here states that if an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child or young person is placed under the guardianship or care of a non-Aboriginal person, the court should be satisfied that the person has demonstrated commitment to supporting connection. Again, why is that not 'must'?

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Can the minister please advise how the definition of 'harm' and 'significant harm' was determined? Can the minister advise why a decision was made for principles in clause 46 to only apply to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people, and not all children? Can the minister advise what types of proceedings will be used for 'respective persons', or what role they will perform, as outlined in clause 55? Can the minister give clarification as to the respected person's role in court proceedings, as per clause 55? Is the minister concerned that this may significantly increase the length of these hearings and delay the commencement of trial, in relation to clause 55?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In the Guardian for Children and Young People's submission to the select committee, she notes that:

I am pleased to see that a provision has been included regarding internal reviews; however, no equivalent guarantee has been inserted regarding an opportunity to provide in-person submissions at annual reviews or CARP reviews.

She goes on, as the guardian, to state:

At the same time, I am concerned that with respect to annual reviews:

the removal of an existing provision, which requires the annual review panel to notify the child of their annual review, and give them a reasonable opportunity to make submissions (including in the absence of a person who has care of them)

at the same time, a new provision has been introduced to guarantee the opportunity for in-person attendance and submissions at annual reviews from carers with whom a child or young person is placed.

The guardian goes on to say:

I understand the new clause 13 may be intended to ‘catch’ this process, through imposing an obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure children and young people’s voices are heard in the course of decision-making affecting them. However, the discretion allowed by that provision falls far short of a guaranteed opportunity for in-person attendance and submissions. It is insufficient to meet the intent of my recommendation: which is to improve opportunities for in-person attendance at annual reviews.

If the government could please respond to that concern raised by the Guardian for Children and Young People.

I also note that the Guardian for Children and Young People has called for the government to establish a rationale, because it is challenging and curious, for clause 132(3) in the bill. Also, she asks what the rationale is for clauses 28(1)(d) and 28(1)(e) in this bill. Further, she asks what the rationale is for clause 114 in this bill. With regard to resolution 24 of the Guardian for Children and Young People's submission to the select committee, she goes on to note with concern:

However, at the same time, it limits the definition of a qualifying offence to circumstances where the offender was a parent of the child (removing the words ‘or guardian’). A new definition is inserted which clarifies that, for the purpose of the provisions, parent does not include a step-parent or a person acting in loco parentis.

Her concern, raised in her submission, was that this significantly alters the scope of applicability for these provisions, and the rationale for why a parent should be excluded from the scheme if they were found guilty of a homicide against their stepchild rather than their biological child is not apparent and requires an explanation from the government.

So if the government could explain to this council whether that is an error in drafting or whether it is intentional or perhaps the guardian has not received the information and the government has not communicated well enough why, with that definition of parent, the government has taken that approach and whether they are concerned that it indeed will limit the scope of those who are captured where homicide against a child has occurred.

Further, at resolution 25 of the Guardian for Children and Young People's submission she seeks to understand at clause 213, which deals with moneys, why that is not payable to the child or young people upon the chief executive ceasing guardianship. If the government could please provide an explanation for that, that would be most appreciated.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Can the minister please advise what changes were made to the bill as a result of consulting with the First Nations Voice to Parliament and why the government or department failed to meet with the First Nations Voice until only after the bill had passed the House of Assembly?

Can the minister please advise if the decision to change the threshold from 'harm' was a decision made due to resourcing issues? Can the minister please advise how changing the threshold to 'significant harm' will result in better outcomes for children? Can the minister rule out that by changing the mandatory reporting threshold there will not be children who would otherwise be brought to the attention of the department who may now not be—i.e. can the government rule out that children will not slip through the cracks under this new reporting threshold?

Can the minister advise why the decision has been made to have a different threshold for interventions taken to remove a child or young person into care or return them to family post care compared to mandatory reporting? In other words, why is there an inconsistent application of significant harm and harm within the legislation? Is this something that was raised as a concern during the consultation?

Have concerns been raised with the government that the statement of commitment does not create legally enforceable rights through entitlements and why was this decision made? Were any changes made between the first draft of the bill as a result of consultation received during that period? In consultation on clauses 16 and 17 were young people consulted and what were their opinions? Were any changes subsequently made as a result of these opinions in the consultation?

How did the government go about first establishing how the new threshold was appropriate? Having done so, how did the criteria for that threshold of significant harm then come into being and how has that threshold been set, more particularly?

Could the minister advise if she agrees that sexual abuse always results in significant harm to a child, whether physically, emotionally or psychologically, and can the minister advise why the decision was made to have it as the threshold of harm rather than significant harm? Can the minister advise why harm caused by sexual acts is considered harm rather than serious harm? Can the minister advise why there is an inconsistent threshold between harm and significant harm?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I note that in submissions to both government and to the select committee inquiring into this bill, organisations that supported best interests of the child being paramount made their views clear, certainly to the select committee, and apparently had made their views clear to the government's consultation process but had been ignored.

My questions are: why has the government ignored Uniting Communities, Junction Australia, The Carer Project, Uniting Country South Australia, Infinity Community Solutions, the Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People, the Commissioner for Children and Young People, KWY Aboriginal Corporation, BaptistCare SA, the Youth Affairs Council of SA, the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, SACOSS (South Australian Council of Social Service), the Legal Services Commission SA, SAACCON (SA Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisation Network), Relationships Australia, the Australian Centre for Child Protection, Wakwakurna Kanyini, the Law Society of South Australia, Thriving Families SA and, through them, the BetterStart team from the University of Adelaide School of Public Health? Why have their views that the paramount principle of this legislation be the best interests of the child been ignored?

Further to that, anticipating that the government will possibly contend that this goes back to a coronial inquest, I have a further question, which is drawing the minister and the government's attention to the work and words of Coroner Mark Johns at 5—Conflict of interest, at 5.1, with regard to the coronial inquest into the death of Chloe Valentine. I note that he said at 5.1:

Social workers working with parents of young children, including such parents who are themselves under 18 years, must act at all times in the interests of the child. They must be trained to see that the interests of the child and an irresponsible parent are in conflict. You cannot act in the best interests of both. Any attempt to do so will inevitably lead to confusion and muddle-headed thinking, such as we have seen throughout this inquest.

At 5.3 he goes on to say:

I am firmly of the view that social workers must accept that the child's best interests can and do conflict with the parents sometimes. In some cases, such as that of Chloe and Ashlee, they conflicted most if not all the time. It was not possible to act in a way that was best for both of them. So Ashlee's needs and interests had to give way to Chloe's. They must become the standard approach in dealing with these cases.

I ask the government to reflect upon that and provide a response as to why the best interests of the child, given all of the credible stakeholders in this sector have for many years now, and continuously through consultation on this bill, told the government that they support the paramount principle being best interests of the child, that the words of the Coroner make it clear that he saw that the then Department of Families SA had their own conflict of interest where best interests of the child were not put first. In some ways the intention of the Coroner has been twisted.

I note further that in Hansard in the other place, at the time when the shadow minister was the member for Adelaide and the Attorney was the member for Enfield, when this debate came up, after the Nyland royal commission made it very clear that best interests of the child should be paramount in terms of the stakeholders already letting the government know we had taken a wrong path—with good intention, but a wrong path—in that discussion the then Attorney stated that there was not an adequate definition of best interests of the child.

I note that much work has been done interstate and that any jurisdiction in this country that looks at South Australia looks at a jurisdiction that has taken a different path. We are standing alone in the choices we have made with regard to our child protection legislation.

Some jurisdictions had followed that same path that South Australia had undertaken, but had returned to either a paramount principle of best interests of the child or a dual principle of best interests of the child. In doing so, many in the sector have pointed to Queensland and Victoria as the exemplars of the wording around that definition. I note that the definition, which is in the amendments that I have filed, puts safety of the child to the forefront, but it is so much more than that. It reads:

10—Best interests of children and young people must always be paramount

(1) For the purposes of this act, the best interests of children and young people must always be paramount.

The 'best interests of children and young people'—absolutely in accord with what the Coroner said. It continues:

(2) In determining whether a decision or action is in the best interests of a child or young person, the need to protect them from harm, to protect their rights and to promote their development (taking into account their age and stage of development) must always be considered.

So that 'best interests of the child', far from the way it has been cast by this government's rhetoric, protects children from harm and it puts children and young people first. The definitions, well consulted on and effectively working in Victoria, go on to state at (3):

(3) In addition to subsection (1) and (2), in determining what decision to make or action to take in the best interests of a child or young person, consideration must be given to the following, where they are relevant to the decision or action:

(a) the need to give the widest possible protection and assistance to the parent and child or young person as the fundamental group unit of society and to ensure that intervention into that relationship is limited to that necessary to secure the safety and wellbeing of the child or young person;

(b) the need to strengthen, preserve and promote positive relationships between the child or young person and their parents, family members and other persons significant to them;

(c) the need, in relation to an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child or young person, to protect and promote their cultural and spiritual identity and development by, wherever possible, maintaining and building their connections to their Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander family and community;

(d) the child or young person's views and wishes, if they can be reasonably ascertained, and they should be given such weight as is appropriate in the circumstances;

(e) the effects of cumulative patterns of harm on a child or young person's safety and development;

That is something that is not just in that Coroner's report but is in the expert advice that has been given, that cumulative pattern of harm being so important. Amendment (f) states:

(f) the desirability of continuity and permanency in the child or young person's care;

(g) the desirability of making decisions as expeditiously as possible and the possible harmful effect of delay in making a decision or taking an action;

(h) that a child or young person is only to be removed from the care of their parent if there is an unacceptable risk of harm to the child or young person;

(i) if a child or young person is to be removed from the care of their parent, that consideration is to be given first to the child or young person being placed with an appropriate family member or other appropriate person significant to them, before any other placement option is considered;

(j) the desirability, when a child or young person is removed from the care of their parent, to plan the reunification of the child or young person with their parent;

(k) the capacity of each parent or other adult relative or potential care giver to provide for a child or young person's needs and any action taken by the parent to give effect to the goals set out in the case plan relating to the child or young person;

(l) contact arrangements between the child or young person and their parents, siblings, family members and other persons significant to them;

(m) the child or young person's social, individual and cultural identity and religious faith (if any) and their age, maturity, sex and sexual identity;

(n) where a child or young person with a particular cultural identity is placed in out of home care with a care giver who is not a member of that cultural community, the desirability of the child or young person retaining a connection with their culture;

(o) the desirability of a child or young person being supported to gain access to appropriate educational services, health services and accommodation and to participate in appropriate social opportunities;

(p) the desirability of allowing the education, training or employment of the child or young person to continue without interruption or disturbance;

(q) the desirability of siblings being placed together when they are placed in out-of-home care; and

(r) any other relevant consideration.

This has been a well honed, well crafted and well consulted on definition of 'best interests of the child' that is working in other jurisdictions and clearly puts the safety of that child and the best interests of that child at the forefront and does so in a way that is absolutely in accordance with what this parliament thought it was doing many years ago and what this parliament should be doing now.

It is no wonder that the sector has backed this in. The question is: why will the minister not back this in? She has been unable so far to name a single credible organisation within child protection that backs her contention that the paramount principle should be the one as she cast it and she has not given an explanation as to why she has not listened to the sector. So I certainly ask for a response to that and why the minister did not consider and listen to the sector and stakeholders.

I will add that I know the Australian Association of Social Workers are also firmly in support of 'best interests of the child' and my feedback from them was that time and time again, starting more than two years ago, every time they went to a consultation and tried to raise this issue they were shut down. So I ask the minister: why were stakeholders shut down rather than listened to?

Further, there is a media release of 3 February 2025 that I believe all members of this council have received and it is from the Leadership Coalition for Child Protection Reform, which is Lutheran Care, KWY, Junction, Baptist Care, Uniting Communities, Uniting Country SA, and Infinity. They have raised four key issues that they say need to be addressed before we support the passage of this bill and they are: elevating the best interests as the paramount principle in this legislation, the consistent application of a significant harm threshold, expanding and amplifying active efforts within this bill, and prioritising and creating stronger provisions for reunification of families.

So my question is also: has the minister responded to that correspondence from that key leadership group and has she done so in writing and, if so, can a copy of that correspondence be provided for the benefit of the council's deliberations?

Further, just this week we saw a state government response to the coronial inquest recommendations relating to the death of Caleb Evans, a pseudonym, name suppressed, that was prepared by the Department for Child Protection and the Department for Health and Wellbeing. The Coroner made a number of recommendations, but recommendation 1 and recommendation 2 both recommended specific changes to the act that we are currently debating before us in this bill.

In the government's response, they agreed in principle, but refused to change the legislation. My question is: why is the government not amending this bill before us in response to these most recent coronial inquest recommendations and why do they pick and choose which parts of the Coroner's words they listen to and which ones they do not? With that, I move:

Amendment No 1 [Franks–1]—

Page 12, line 4—Delete '(Safety and Support)' and substitute '(Best Interests)'

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

That progress be reported.

The committee divided on the motion:

Ayes 8

Noes 9

Majority 1

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Motion thus negatived.

The CHAIR: We are at clause 1.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will note for the clarity of members that we voted on a procedural motion, but we did support the amendment to change the title of the bill, which reflects the best interests principle, which is an ongoing issue within the bill. I know there are members in this chamber who would like to put on record why they supported the best interests principle being paramount.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: I will take this opportunity to touch on and briefly address what could be described as a lukewarm attitude by this government to this bill. The first sitting week back this year the bill was listed as the government's number one priority, with all stages to be completed that week. The second sitting week back this year the bill was listed to progress as far as possible, and now this sitting week, the third sitting week back this year, the Children and Young People (Safety and Support) Bill was not listed as a priority—all the while we in the opposition have been encouraging the government to listen to the sector and bring considered amendments to this legislative reform.

It was only today, following notification from the crossbench and opposition that we still had questions for clause 1—and I indicate that I still have questions for clause 1 that I will put next week—that members were notified by the government that we would proceed with questions on clause 1 today, only to subsequently be advised that the bill officers would not be available today and that questions would be put on notice and answered later.

I find it quite astounding that the government would bring on this bill and then say, 'We know you have a question, in fact many questions, but you will not get your answers today.' I find it quite the change of attitude from this government, to try to ram this bill through on the first sitting week to now, when there is not even a bill officer available to answer questions from members in this chamber. Nonetheless, we progress with the bill before us, and I indicate that I will have future questions next sitting week. I will say that this government should be up-front with the child protection sector and members of this parliament if they intend to shelve this legislative reform; they should say so publicly, not behind closed doors, if it is their intention to do so.

I indicate that the opposition has supported the Hon. Tammy Franks' amendment to amend the title of the bill from the Children and Young People (Safety and Support) Bill to be the Children and Young People (Best Interests) Bill. The title of the bill should indicate the intention of the legislation. This therefore foreshadows the intention of the opposition to support a shift from the paramount principle in this legislation from safety to best interests. It is important to note that it is in the best interests to include children's and young people's safety as one of the core rights that should guide all assessments. Keeping a child or young person safe is always in their best interests. The best interests principle does not sit in opposition to the principle of safety.

We have thoroughly engaged with the sector and listened to their expertise and their guidance. I take this moment to thank everyone who has taken the time to email us, to meet with us and to share with us the ways in which they believe we can improve this in-crisis child protection system. The process undertaken between the crossbench and the opposition in engaging with this sector has, I believe, been a true example of what coming together for a shared cause in politics looks like.

It is in doing so that the opposition has made the decision to adopt best interests as what we believe should be the paramount consideration. It has been abundantly clear that the sector largely disagrees with the adoption of safety and is, in the most part, supportive of the best interests of the child being the paramount principle. It strikes me as unusual that the government would adopt an approach that appears to be contradictory to the views of the sector, and it is disappointing that the government has adopted what could be described as a 'tin ear' approach to the views of the sector on this issue.

As I said at my clause 1 contribution, based on feedback received, safety as the paramount consideration results in a one-dimensional application of decision-making rather than a holistic framework that considers safety amongst emotional needs, developmental needs, cultural identity and long-term outcomes, amongst other things, as you would see where decisions are made in the best interests of the child, with best interests being the paramount principle.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Henderson, this is not another second reading speech. I think you have had the opportunity to make a contribution to clause 1 previously. Are you nearly ready to wind up with this?

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: With that, Mr Chair, I will make my closing comment, which is that, noting the government's strong opposition to best interests, it is my hope that the government will now come to the table and listen to the sector and what they want, and that their expertise is leading this discussion for many of us in the chamber.

The Hon. S.L. GAME: I rise, very briefly, to put on the record why I support the amendment by the Hon. Tammy Franks to amend the title of the bill and reflect the best interests principle as paramount.

The reason the best interests principle needs to be paramount is that every single stakeholder that I have listened to and engaged with has explained to me that failure to do so will, (1), result in children being removed from their families and homes who should not be removed from their families and homes. Children need to be with their families wherever they can be. As a mum of three children, I can only imagine the total devastation from both the parent and child perspective of a child being removed who does not need to be removed.

Secondly, it has also been explained to me that not only are we going to see an increase in the number of children being removed from their home who should not be removed from their home but we are putting at risk not removing those children who are at risk of serious harm and then being left in situations where they should be removed.

For me, I am not an expert in the field, but I am willing to listen to those who are the experts, and every single stakeholder has clearly explained to me that we have to have the best interests principle as paramount in order to ensure that children who should be with their parents are, and those who should be removed have the best chance of being removed.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I rise to indicate the reasons for my support for this amendment with respect to the title of the bill and the issue of best interests. I think it has been articulated well by all honourable members who have spoken today. It is extraordinary that we have had to get to this point of this debate to try to engage in these discussions productively with the government, and indeed the minister, around the feedback that we have all received in relation to the issue of safety and best interests. It is absolutely dumbfounding in many respects that we are still here.

It is extraordinary today that this debate is being brought on and we are not in a position to progress the debate as we ordinarily would with a bill because of the absence of advisers for the minister. As we know, when these things normally occur, and perhaps we could have asked questions on this particular clause, it is not a fixed question and nothing flows from that. There is always a dialogue that ensues, and I think today is a reflection of how ill-prepared we have been for that, and I have to say in that respect I think the minister has taken for granted the way that this chamber operates, and so it is a warning and a message.

I am not referring to Minister Scriven when I say this. I am referring to the minister responsible. I am, indeed, not referring to any minister in this place. I am referring to the minister responsible in terms of the way that we conduct these debates. By extension, and just to lead on from two points—one made by the Hon. Sarah Game—everyone in here when it comes to this particular amendment, and the reason we have supported this amendment, has done exactly what the Hon. Sarah Game has outlined: they have listened to the experts.

They have taken the advice of the commissioners who wrote that joint letter to us. They have worked their way through the submissions that were given to that inquiry process, and they have come to the very sound decision that we simply cannot progress if there is not any movement. If, as the Hon. Laura Henderson has suggested—and certainly we have heard plenty of stakeholders say to us that if we support this amendment or, indeed, if we do not support keeping safety as the paramount principle, then the minister will shelve the bill or pull the bill and we will be left with what we had in 2017, then I think that is something that we ought to be getting some clarification on from the minister. We need to know what the bottom line is.

The minister has gone to great lengths, I think, in the last week—and it is a little bit laughable—to make herself available to have discussions. Nobody denies that, she has gone to great lengths, but I have not seen the minister come with an alternative amendment to the one proposed by the Hon. Tammy Franks. I have not seen the minister come to us and say, 'Here is what we are proposing.' I have not seen the minister say, 'Okay, here is a middle ground,' and that is precisely what all of us have been working on: trying to find the alternative and the middle ground.

Digging your heels in and saying it is your way or the highway is not going to work in this debate. If you needed any evidence of that then I think the vote that we just had was a reflection of that. We have taken the advice of those expert witnesses in relation to not only the four key pillars of what needs to be included in this legislation but also in relation to this particular amendment, and we have voted as such.

I am genuinely hopeful that we will be in a position to work through the mountain of questions that exist at clause 1 in order to progress this debate further. Bear in mind that the minister herself has said over and over again, repeatedly, that this is a complex area of law. There is nothing straightforward about the issues that we are dealing with. They impact not only children's lives but families' lives and carers' lives in profound ways and we should not be rushing this legislation through. I think the intention of the amendment that I have sought to support, together with other honourable members, is a reflection of that.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: I want to briefly state my support for this particular amendment, which includes that the best interests of children and young people must always be paramount. I also want to concur with many honourable members who have mentioned that we stand in solidarity for this particular amendment, ensuring that, when all the stakeholders come to the round table with us, we have taken their words and their advocacy very seriously.

I believe that in determining whether any action should be taken or any decision made on behalf of a child or young person, they ought to be taken in the best interests to protect them from harm, to protect their rights and to promote their development, and those must all be under consideration in their best interests.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Chair, unless the minister is planning to say something, report progress.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The Hon. Clare Scriven, as the minister handling this, probably has something before reporting progress. I just thought I would very quickly place on the record in relation to the proceeding of this bill today that I think there has been some not entirely fair commentary about how the bill has been conducted. It is true, this bill was not listed this week. I understand there have been some discussions between members in this chamber and the minister and the bill was not listed this week while they continued.

The government, having been approached by members of the chamber who indicated they would like to put on the record further things in relation to this bill, facilitated that today. It was unusual and quickly done, but because of that bill officers were not available. So to suggest that the government wanted to bring this on of their own volition and then did not have bill officers here I think is unfair.

I know no-one is accusing the minister here, but it is actually also unfair on Minister Katrine Hildyard, who is the minister responsible for this bill. The government having facilitated those requests, I think it is unfair for criticism to be made that there are not bill officers here, having brought this on at very short notice as a courtesy to allow members to do that. If there is a criticism of ministers here or Minister Hildyard, I think that is misplaced in that respect.

I encourage all members to continue discussions. As members here have said, it is a very important piece of public policy, a very important piece of legislation, and I do not think anyone here doubts Minister the Hon. Katrine Hildyard's absolute sincerity in terms of what she does in her portfolios. I know that she, like other members here, wants to do the very best to protect children in South Australia. Having known Minister Hildyard for many years and having sat around a cabinet table with her for a number of years as well, I know that she is absolutely and completely dedicated to protecting children in South Australia. So I would encourage members to continue discussions so that we come to the best result.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I want to reiterate, since we were discussing the amendment that has now passed, that I am advised that for the first time the bill would have included both the safety principle and the best interests principle. As I said in the previous sitting week, the advice is that safety has not been elevated because currently, in the 2017 act, it is the only principle to be considered. So what the government had indeed done was to reintroduce and elevate the best interests principle in the draft bill, because that had been removed after the tragic death of Chloe Valentine.

The bill makes it very clear that the best interests principle is to be applied in all decision-making. Where there is a conflict between the two principles, safety is maintained as the paramount principle; that is, it prevails. Workers constantly work to help ensure a child's best interests, according to my advice. However, they need absolute clarity about what prevails when there is a conflict. The bill makes it clear that safety prevails and that that is paramount. I am further advised that the two-year implementation phase will provide a crucial opportunity to bring the two principles in the bill into implementation in the best possible way.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I will be very brief because I do not want to prolong this discussion. I do want to put on the record why I felt compelled to vote for the amendment put forward by the Hon. Ms Franks and, more generally, in support of the changes that have been suggested for this bill. It is because this system has been broken for a very long time. It really needs a complete overhaul, and there needs to be a commitment from both sides, indeed all sides, of this chamber of the parliament—full stop—to fix this.

I and other members of this place would be aware of some horrendous things that have happened in recent times, and yet somehow there is an absolute lack of willingness to take that bold step to turn the place upside down to fix this. I hate even saying this, but there has been an example of a child put in boiling water. I cannot even think about it; that image has haunted me for months. I hope it does not haunt anyone else by me saying it. This is what is happening in South Australia. We have the resources to at least make a substantial change, and the first step in that is the legislative process. I wholeheartedly support these changes. I have no doubt that members on all sides of this place, every single one of us, want better outcomes for these children. This is an opportunity to start that process, and we just have to make it happen.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.