Bills

Children and Young People (Safety and Support) Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 6 March 2025.)

Clause 1.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Last week, members of this council had a number of questions, and I will now put answers to those on the record. If any further clarification is required, we are happy to bring those back. I understand there will be more questions regarding clause 1 today and we will do our best to answer as much as possible, but again we are happy to come back with answers on anything extra that is required. Firstly, the Hon. Tammy Franks had a series of questions regarding the paramount principle. I think our government and the minister have been clear as to the reasons behind the principle of safety in the legislation.

The government and the Department for Child Protection will work under a safety framework for children. The government and the minister understand the need for best interests. This is why we have placed it into this bill, noting that it is not currently in the 2017 legislation. I have been advised that the minister has continually met with key stakeholders such as CAFFSA, Connecting Foster and Kinship Carers SA, CREATE Foundation, the Reily Foundation, the commissioners, the Guardian for Children and Young People and Wakwakurna Kanyini.

The minister recently met with these stakeholders and discussed the principles and how they will work together, taking on feedback and how the legislation can be clearer. That is why today an amendment has been filed to amend language under clause 10(2), to make it clear that the safety principle will prevail where there is conflict between this principle and other principles set out in the bill. This meets the expectation of staff who have made it clear to the minister that a circuit breaker is required.

The honourable member had further questions regarding the age of assistance. I have been advised that an eligible care leaver in the CYP(S) Act is defined as a person over the age of 16 but less than 26. The bill changes the definition to a person who is above 15 and less than 25, so that it is aligned with the ability to provide financial assistance to carers for children and young people to the age of 25. The definition of an eligible care lever is consistent with clause 143, which allows the chief executive to provide financial or other assistance to a person with whom a child is placed until they reach the age of 25.

Further, a number of questions were tabled regarding the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle and why sections are not a must. I am pleased to inform the member that clause 44(3) provides that each of the elements of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle must be implemented to the standard of active efforts. Further, before making an order, the court must be satisfied that the ATSICPP has been implemented to the standard of active efforts. Fully embedding the ATSICPP has been long called for by SNAICC in legislation, and I am very pleased this is occurring. Under our amendment that has been filed, we have listened to the community and are removing several clauses to further strengthen part 4 of the bill.

As a government, we know that the voice of the child is very important, and that is why in this bill the voice of the child and young person is elevated, with a relentless focus to ensure it is heard. Clause 13 of the bill makes it clear that the voices of children and young people are to be heard in prescribed decisions. This specifically includes decisions relating to a child's annual review (see clause 13(7)(e)), and decisions relating to the contact arrangements for the child or young person (see clause 13(7)(d)), including decisions made by CARP. It also sets out without limiting the ways the voice of a child or young person may be heard or their views presented, including having their voices heard in person, with the accompaniment of a support person, or in the absence of a particular person.

Just before answering the next set of questions from the member, I think it is worthwhile to place on the record a huge thankyou to all child protection officers and social workers here in our state. It is also a good opportunity to highlight World Social Work Day, a day to celebrate their work. They do outstanding work every day to ensure children and young people are safe and supported where possible, and for that our government thanks you and we will continue to listen to you.

The member asked, 'What is the rationale for clauses 28(1)(d) and (e) of the bill?' Clause 28(1)(d), according to my advice, expands the persons who may be child protection officers under the act. This now includes Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander persons authorised by the chief executive to ensure people working within recognised Aboriginal entities can be authorised as child protection officers. Clause 28(1)(e) enables the authorisation of other people, should this be required.

It was further requested that we provide an explanation for clause 213, and why moneys are not payable to the child or young people under the chief executive ceasing guardianship. I am advised that clause 213 allows the chief executive to receive money on behalf of a child or young person under guardianship and governs how money is to be paid upon the chief executive ceasing to have guardianship.

Clause 213 provides that, where the chief executive ceases to have guardianship, the money will be paid to the child or young person if over 18; parent or guardian if the child or young person is under 18; or to an administrator, if an administrator is appointed by SACAT. This is to ensure that moneys are held on the child's behalf by an adult or guardian with responsibility for them.

There are occasions when the chief executive receives significant amounts of money on behalf of a child or young person—for example, as a result of a superannuation death benefit claim or inheritance. The chief executive arranges for such funds to be held by the Public Trustee on trust for the young person. If a young person ceases to be under the chief executive's guardianship before they turn 18 years—for example, in the case of a four-year-old child who was reunified with a parent—it would not be appropriate to pay a significant sum of money directly to the child.

The member also asked a question regarding the rationale for clause 132(3) of the bill. I am advised that subclause (3) is inserted to more easily allow a child or young person to be placed with a family or a person known to the child or young person or their family, which in the case of Aboriginal children and young people is also consistent with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle. It is also consistent with the best interests principle, which sets out a placement hierarchy to promote children and young people living with their family. Further, the rationale for clause 114 of the bill: this clause confirms that the court does not have the power to make orders in relation to contact and placement. Importantly, the courts do not currently have this power.

Consistent with recommendation 9 of the Nyland royal commission, decision-making about placements should be kept as close to the child as possible. Placement decisions may need to be made rapidly depending on the circumstances and wellbeing of the child. It is important to remember that placement decisions are about the best interests of the child and not the adult.

Further to questions asked by the Hon. Tammy Franks, the Hon. Laura Henderson also requested information from the government. Questions were asked by the member regarding whether the government will table a clear and transparent list of what has been changed in the bill before the council. It is pointed out this is not an amendment bill. This is a bill that will replace the current act while retaining some parts of the current act. Therefore, the bill should be read in its entirety. To assist throughout the consultation period, the government provided an overview of the key elements of the bill.

Questions were raised by the member regarding the operationalisation of the bill. As the minister has said, there will be a two-year implementation period that will be an important part of getting the practice right. I am advised the minister has briefed stakeholders such as CAFFSA, CREATE Foundation, the Reily Foundation, Connecting Foster and Kinship Carers, Wakwakurna Kanyini, the commissioners, the guardian, carers and those with lived experience about this important period and how organisations can be involved to get this right.

The member asked for details regarding the independent review into the DCP complaint and feedback management process. I am advised that the findings of the review were largely positive, indicating that the department's system is sound and has appropriate escalation pathways, with opportunities for improvement identified in areas such as reinforcing training to local office staff in managing complaints and feedback.

As part of the department's process of continuous improvement, a statewide roadshow for frontline staff to increase information and knowledge regarding the effective management of complaints is nearing completion. Through the department's new Learning, Excellence and Innovation Academy, the following opportunities will also be explored: developing an online staff training complaints management module for any incorporation for DCP staff induction (I am advised this work has commenced); and additional training in complaint resolution for frontline staff.

In relation to the questions on the topic of reunification for all children, clause 46 is specific to Aboriginal children and young people and requires that active efforts are taken to explore ways in which they can be reunified. This is incorporated within the bill in a way which is consistent with the government's national commitments on legislative reform to address the over-representation of Aboriginal children and young people in care.

All children should expect the government to pursue reunification when it is in their best interests. The best interests principle at clause 11 makes it clear that it is desirable for a child or young person's family to have the primary responsibility for their care. All children's case plans must have a reunification plan that is reviewed as part of the annual review.

The provisions to establish a respected person scheme are set out in clause 55. In the last week of parliament, the member had a number of questions regarding clause 55 and clarification of the role. I am advised that clause 55 provides that a scheme may be established by regulation, providing for the use of respected persons in court proceedings to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people and to assist and advise the court in relation to the traditions, practices and culture of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities.

Clause 55(2) provides that the regulations must provide for certain matters, including the kinds of proceedings before the court in which a respected person may or may not be used, the role of respected persons as support persons for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people in court proceedings, and the role of respected persons in providing advice to the court in relation to the practices and culture of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities.

This clause provides the legal framework for the introduction of the scheme and the important involvement of respected persons in court proceedings. The detail of this scheme will be developed in the regulations through consultation with key stakeholders, including peak bodies, the community and the Youth Court. Acknowledging that there is much to be worked through, consultation is critical to ensure that the involvement of respected persons is culturally appropriate and safe and that respected persons are provided with the necessary supports to fulfil this important function while ensuring that care and protection proceedings are dealt with expeditiously, as required by clause 108 of the bill.

Before I answer the next set of questions from the honourable member, I also want to say how wonderful it is that we are discussing the role of the First Nations Voice to Parliament and how that is possible because of the Malinauskas Labor government. It is not the government that sets the agenda of the Voice to Parliament; it is the members of the Voice. The government consulted with the Voice regarding this bill, and with the minister and her team, including members of the department making themselves available to the Voice to discuss the bill and answer any questions. This occurred on 14 November last year.

On the topic of thresholds, we know that getting the threshold right for reporting and responding to children at risk of and experiencing harm is a critical part of keeping children safe, which is why it was a central question in the review of the act. I am aware that raising the threshold was supported by a large number of organisations and experts, including Professor Leah Bromfield and the Australian Centre for Child Protection and Uniting Communities. As noted in the review of the act, increasing the threshold would also be consistent with the recommendation of Malcolm Hyde.

In the current South Australian child protection legislation the threshold for mandatory reporting and screening in notifications is harm. The threshold for removal is the need to protect a child or young person from serious harm. The current threshold for mandatory reporting is relatively low when compared to other jurisdictions. Determining the appropriate threshold for reporting, for screening in notifications and for removing children from their home is a complex task. The threshold needs to reflect community expectation about when a child protection statutory intervention is required to keep children safe and when a support response from other parts of the system and the community might be more appropriate.

This bill provides for a change in the threshold for mandatory reporting from 'harm' to 'significant harm', which better aligns South Australia to interstate legislation regarding notifications. This threshold for mandatory reporting is now consistent with the threshold for removal. The threshold for removal in the current act is 'serious harm'. In this bill, it changes from 'serious harm' to 'significant harm' to ensure consistency of language.

Importantly, this does not preclude mandatory reporters or any member of the public making a report about harm or where they are concerned about the safety or wellbeing of a child or young person. The chief executive is still required to assess all reports indicating that a child or young person is at risk of harm—and that is in clause 73, according to my advice. The word 'harm' is deliberately used in other places within the act to ensure that the chief executive can take action where it is identified that a child is at risk of harm, including by referring a family for intervention services and family group conferences.

Any proposal to change the use of 'harm' to 'significant harm' throughout the bill will have implications and will limit the chief executive's ability to act in relation to children at a lower threshold. For example, if there were a change to 'significant harm' rather than 'harm' in clauses 73 and 74, the chief executive would only then be required to assess and take action where the chief executive suspects the child is at risk of significant harm.

The implication of such a change means the chief executive would not be able to take any action, including referring a matter to a state authority for intervention services unless the child is at risk of significant harm. Effectively, this closes the door for the chief executive to be able to refer families who come to the attention of the department for early intervention under the act. This would have a flow-on impact for families, including limiting the ability to convene family group conferences to circumstances where a child is at risk of significant harm.

On the topic of the Statement of Commitment to Foster and Kinship Carers, I am advised that this has been in operation outside legislation since 2020 and was designed to provide guidance for how carers and workers can understand their roles and responsibilities to work together to support children and young people in care. In providing that guidance, it also recognises the importance of that ongoing working relationship and sets out the basic principles, roles and expectations underpinning that relationship. It is expected that the Statement of Commitment to Parents and Families will similarly set out the basic principles, roles and expectations underpinning the relationship between DCP and the parents and families of children and young people we are involved with.

I would like to thank all members who have asked questions regarding this very important bill. I look forward to the ongoing discussions today in a way that will continue to advance the needs for children and young people in our state.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am just wondering if the minister can assist us with the amendment that has been filed today. Can she explain to us the difference between the original set of words in the bill and the amendment that has been filed when it comes to the safety principle and paramountcy principle?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the amendment provides additional clarification around the principles. Members would be aware that this bill has added 'best interests' into the legislation—and will do if it were to pass—which was previously missing from the legislation, so this is a clarification and the minister continues to meet with stakeholders around these issues.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Could the minister please outline who was consulted with in regard to the amendment that we have just received—in fact, that we received on our desks as you were answering the questions?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the minister continues to meet, and has continued to meet, with various stakeholders, a number of whom I outlined in my opening remarks today in answering some of the questions that have been placed on the record. I am advised that the minister has emphasised her deep understanding and appreciation of the best interests principle, but has conveyed also to stakeholders the reasons why the safety principle must be prevalent in the event that there is a conflict.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the minister explain how the amendment filed provides the clarity that she referred to?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think it provides the clarity that I just outlined in response to the most recent question as well.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: With respect, I did not understand it from the response that was given, so perhaps the minister could do that again. I did not understand that from what the minister just said at all.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: As I outlined, the minister is very conscious of the importance of best interests of the child and in fact in this bill it is included for the first time because in the existing legislation, the 2017 legislation, best interests does not form part of that act. However, in the event that there is a conflict between best interests and safety, the safety principle is the paramount principle and that is what is specified in this amendment.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just to be clear, best interests may not be in the current act, but it is in the current bill. I want to understand the difference between the words: 'No other principle or requirement set out in this act displaces or can be used to justify the displacement of the paramount principle,' versus, 'If, in relation to a decision under this act, there is a conflict between the safety principle and any other principle or requirement, the safety principle prevails.' What is the legislative interpretive basis and difference between those two sets of words?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the clarification in language is considered appropriate.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: And therein lies the issue, because that also does not answer my question. Perhaps if I can ask the minister in a different way. Under the current drafting in the bill, if there is a conflict between safety and the principles that have been inserted in subclause (11), which will prevail?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised safety will prevail.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: So taking me back to my original question: what is the difference then between the current bill as drafted and the amendment that has been filed today?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My understanding is that the clarification of language was an outcome of some of the discussions that have occurred.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Who did those discussions occur with?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I answered that question a few minutes ago.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: No, you actually did not. We asked who supports this amendment that the government has put before us today?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I said earlier in my comments today, and also in answer to a question a few minutes ago, that the minister has continued to meet with various stakeholders. I outlined some of those who were named in my opening remarks in the chamber today. The amendment has come about following various discussions with a number of stakeholders.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: If any of the stakeholders named by the minister representing the minister as those who engaged in meetings and photo opportunities in the last few weeks wish to disavow themselves as support for the current amendment before us, how will that be facilitated?

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Franks, would you like to clarify for the minister?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The minister has represented the minister and answered that she has met with a number of stakeholders. A number of stakeholders have been cited. We have asked which of them support the amendment that the government has now put to their own bill. We have not actually been told which ones support the government amendment to the government bill. We have been told that they have been met with. The clarification we seek here is how will groups be able to de-identify themselves as being in support of this government amendment if they are not? Or is the government claiming that all of the people who have been met with in the last few weeks are actually in support of this new government amendment?

While it has shades of the Social Workers Registration Scheme, perhaps the easier way to frame all of this is: would the government name those stakeholders who actually support the government amendment? Make it simple: can you please name which stakeholders, which organisations, support your current amendment here, filed in the last hour today?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I repeat again, the minister continues to have meetings and discussions with various stakeholders and continues to seek to come to outcomes that are consistent, as well as taking into account the views of stakeholders.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Besides the fact that we do not know which stakeholders the minister is actually referring to in the statement she just made, I would still like clarity around the wording. Is the net effect of the original drafting and the amendment the same?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have already answered that question.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Sorry, I would like that a little clearer on the record. What is it: yes or no? Is the net effect precisely the same under the amendment and the original provision in the bill?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: As I said earlier, the amendment seeks to clarify the language.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I do not know if I am talking the same language as the minister—and I know this is not her portfolio so this is not a personal affront to her—but the minister responsible for this bill has put forward an alternative amendment. My question is very reasonable: I want to know the difference between the amendment and the original clause. The minister says it provides clarity. I cannot see that clarity.

If the government cannot respond to me and provide that clarity then we have a problem, so I am going to ask again: clarity in what way, in what sense? Is the net effect the same? Will safety prevail in both instances in precisely the same way? Is there any legislative or interpretive difference between those two sets of words?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the clarity, the clarification, is particularly considered useful and appropriate for practitioners. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, there needs to be clarity for practitioners and those who are involved in making these decisions.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I remind the minister that when that clarity is being sought we refer to Hansard all the time. Our courts refer to Hansard when they seek clarity from us about what was intended when we made these pieces of legislation. So, again, I am asking not for the interpretation that the lawyers or the courts might apply when they are looking at it, I want the government's intention insofar as it relates to that clarity now, while we are dealing with this bill.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: As I mentioned in my opening remarks, this amendment makes it clear that the safety principle will prevail where there is a conflict between this principle and other principles set out in the bill. As I said, this meets the expectations of staff, who have made it clear to the minister that a circuit breaker is required.

What would be important is the implementation of this, which will be done in consultation with peak bodies. Peak bodies will be absolutely important in the implementation process, and the minister will continue to discuss the interaction between the two.

I think it is unreasonable to imagine that we could set out every single circumstance. I do not think the honourable member was necessarily saying that is what we should do, but that is almost the implication of the question. This sets out what will prevail where there is a conflict, and that clarification is considered particularly important for practitioners.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: With all due respect to the minister, my next question is: based on that response, is there any circumstance where safety will not prevail over best interests in the current drafting in the bill?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think it has been a consistent position of the government and of the minister that safety needs to prevail. But it is important to reiterate again that in the existing act best interests is not one of the considerations, so this bill actually elevates the importance of best interests while still maintaining that safety must prevail.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I apologise. Maybe we need to dumb this down a little for me. The current act does not include a reference to best interests, but we are not talking about the current act; we are talking about the current bill. The current bill does provide for best interests, in clause 11 of the bill. Clause 10 of the bill deals with safety.

There is an amendment in relation to safety that interacts with best interests, as is drafted in the bill now—not the act. We are putting the act to one side for a moment because we are not looking at the act; we are looking at the bill. In what circumstance will best interests, under the bill, not the act, override safety either in the bill or in the amendment?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think it is relevant to compare to the current act because it is about what this bill is seeking to achieve. It is seeking to achieve an elevation of best interests of the child whilst maintaining safety as the paramount principle. I emphasise again, the implementation will possibly answer some of the questions that the honourable member is raising. There is a two-year implementation period, I am advised, according to the plan within this bill.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: With respect, I am not willing to wait two years to understand a set of words that the government has proposed or the minister has proposed as put before us in a debate that we are having right now. That is a lousy, lousy excuse. We are here now and we are asking for some clarity around words.

If this is the amendment that we have had presented to us today, then I would expect, given that there are so many ears and eyes watching this debate to see where we are going, we can at the very least explain the difference between the current set of words that are being proposed in the bill and the current set of words that are being proposed in the amendment. That is not a big ask—absolutely, by no stretch of the imagination a big ask. Can we confirm if the net effect, as I said before, of the original drafting and the amendment are the same when it comes to best interests and safety?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: What we can say is that the safety principle is paramount. The amendment seeks to clarify that. It is not possible to outline every possible circumstance that may arise as an example in this place.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I do not want the minister to outline any circumstance. I want to know what the clarity is. I do not want anything more. I want her to explain the difference between the two amendments. I understand she has said now three or four times that it provides clarity. Either I am stupid or I do not see the clarity. That is what I want a response to.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think I have answered the question. It has been asked a number of times. I have answered it a number of times. I am not sure that there is anything further to add.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Turning to another issue, I do thank the minister for the responses that we received today. It is a little disappointing we could not have received them out of session prior to the debate coming back before the council today, but we will look forward to digesting those responses because, as I had referred to, certainly mine were related to potential amendments to the bill.

One that I did not raise in the last incarnation because it was actually not able to be accommodated with the response that I would have hoped to have had at the time was in regard to concerns raised by the Guardian for Children and Young People with respect to the lack of accountability in this bill as opposed to the current act.

Regarding the reporting requirement, I note the current bill in the reporting requirements proposes to remove the only reporting obligation regarding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people. I note that currently section 156(1)(a) of the CYP(S) Act requires the chief executive to report annually on the following information regarding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people, that is:

(i) the extent to which case planning in relation to such children and young people includes the development of culture maintenance plans with input from local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and organisations;

(ii) the extent to which agreements made in case planning relating to supporting the cultural needs of such children and young people are being met (being support such as transport to cultural events, respect for religious laws, attendance at funerals, providing appropriate food and access to religious celebrations);

(iii) the extent to which such children and young people have access to a case worker, community, relative or other person from the same Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community as the child or young person…

I note the guardian's concerns raised in her submissions—and I note that most of her concerns have not been addressed by government—that in fact there has been I think for some six years a legislative breach in reporting to these requirements. Could the government (1) outline whether or not it has been six years that these elements have not been reported on, and (2) explain why they are simply removing their obligation to report rather than reporting?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that clause 23—Minister's annual report, sets out, under subclause (1):

(d) a part setting out the operation of Part 4 during the reporting year, which—

(i) must, in accordance with any requirements set out in the regulations, be prepared in consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons or bodies;

(ii) must include the information required by the regulations; and

(e) any other part required by the regulations.

It is considered that this will be a suitable reporting mechanism.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Had I gone on to continue to read out the guardian's submission, she noted that the removal of a reporting responsibility that the DCP had been unable to meet for six years had been replaced by a generalised description of relevant reporting allocated instead to the minister against requirements that can be set from time to time through the regulation-making process, but she echoed her disappointment that there had been no consultation on those regulations and what they might look like.

Not only was she concerned about this particular removal of this reporting requirement that has seen a legislative breach now—and I did not catch the answer to for how many years, so I would like that question answered—but it was in fact in Commissioner Lawrie's final report recommending legislating that sixth element to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle of performance. So it should hardly come as a surprise to the government that we are expecting to see it in this legislation here articulated rather than waiting for regulations down the track that may or may not come.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: In regard to the first question, I am sorry, I did fail to answer that: we will need to take on notice the question around the claim of six years. The development of regulations is the next part once a bill has passed—I think that is a fairly well-accepted principle—so there will be consultation on proposed regulations once the bill has passed.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Could I please get an answer on how many years it has been since the department has reported on these requirements? Surely, the department should be aware of how—

The Hon. C.M. Scriven: I said I would take that on notice.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: That is why I did not ask this last time when we did not have the parliamentary and ministerial staff in the room. We do now, so: how many years? The guardian has put it in her submission. It has been well promulgated publicly that it has been six years since this reporting requirement was actually adhered to. It is a legislative breach by this department and this minister and this government currently, and obviously previous governments, if that is the case. So can you clarify: how many years has this legislative breach been in place?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that I do not have that information here and that I will need to take it on notice. Certainly, had the honourable member put it on notice the previous week, then we could have ensured there was an answer today.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The honourable member should not have had to take this on notice because the government should be able to answer a question that has been in the report of the Aboriginal children and young people's commissioner and in the submissions from the Guardian for Children and Young People. We know in the select committee into this bill that the chief executive officer claimed that the guardian had not raised issues that she then presented to the select committee and then had to admit either that she had not read the submission or, in fact, that she had misrepresented the guardian.

Could you just work it out now, please? How many years have you been in legislative breach for this reporting requirement, and why is it not in this bill? Why have you dropped it? It was something you were not doing anyway that you are required to do. How on earth can this government expect us to trust you to put it in the regulations when you are not doing it now? You cannot even tell us for how many years you have not been doing it. Indeed, it is something that has been raised by no lesser than the Aboriginal children and young people's commissioner and the Guardian for Children and Young People. It is a significant concern.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have already outlined what the approach is planned to be and that we will have to take the question in regard to the claim of six years on notice.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In response to the questions placed on notice, the government noted that it had consulted with the South Australian First Nations Voice to Parliament on 14 November last year. Can the minister representing the minister outline how much later that was than when the parliament received this bill?

What was the date that the parliament first received this bill, and what was the date—which was 14 November last year—that the South Australian First Nations Voice to Parliament was consulted with? I will also note that it was one of the very few significant criticisms in the inaugural address of the South Australian Voice to Parliament, that this bill had been so poorly consulted on between the government and them, so to then trumpet it as somehow an achievement is a little bit rich.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the bill was introduced to the House of Assembly on 16 October and passed on 12 November, and that the minister was invited to address the Voice on 14 November, remembering that it is not the government that sets the agenda of the Voice to Parliament—the Voice is able, quite rightly, to seek information and seek to have matters discussed with them.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In that inaugural address by the South Australian Voice to Parliament there was criticism on the consultation process for this particular bill. Did the minister follow up with the Voice to Parliament following that criticism?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that both the minister and the department have made themselves available to the Voice and to other stakeholders; I am not able to answer the question that was specifically asked.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: How did the minister and her office make themselves available to the South Australian Voice to Parliament?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: When they were asked to speak or to engage, they did so.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I guess the answer is, and if the minister representing the minister could clarify, it is like, 'I won't call you, you need to call me.' They had already put it in their inaugural address that they had a problem, but the minister has not followed up; is that the case here?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: As I said, I was not able to address the specific question of if or when the minister reached out, but I reiterate again that the Voice to Parliament sets its agenda. It decides whether it wishes to invite ministers or others to address them. They invited the minister and she was happy to oblige.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Following that meeting, what changes were made to this bill following that consultation with the First Nations Voice to Parliament?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that, following discussions with the Voice as well as with other stakeholders, the amendments that have been introduced since the introduction of the bill to this chamber have taken some of those into account.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Can the minister please advise which of the government's amendments they have filed specifically as a result of the feedback from the Voice to Parliament? Is it the amendment that has been filed this afternoon, or which one?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: To my knowledge, it is not the one that was filed today. However, as a general rule, we will not necessarily say, 'This body said this, and therefore this amendment was filed.' Given as well that there have been a number of discussions, it will not be only one stakeholder group—in this case, the Voice—that would have made suggestions that have now been incorporated into amendments that have been moved by the government.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: On promulgation of the previous amendments from the government, several organisations were cited as having been consulted with. Why was the South Australian Voice to Parliament not cited as one of those organisations that have been consulted with in those previous amendments? Will they be surprised to learn that apparently now they have been with regard to the first set of government amendments?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that, as an outcome of the discussion with the Voice, some of the things that they identified as issues or potential issues have been incorporated into government amendments.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: What have the responses been to the Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People's submission? I note she is a member of the Voice; she is not the presiding member of the Voice. Why, then, have her efforts been ignored?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I do not agree with the characterisation that any of the feedback has been ignored. I think the minister has engaged extensively in terms of feedback and consultation, and all of that has been valued. It does not necessarily mean that every piece of feedback can be incorporated into amendments, particularly given some of it could easily be conflicting, so it is a matter of continuing that dialogue and that interaction, which I know the minister has been continuing to do. That will continue throughout any next stages, including should the bill pass in development of regulations.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the minister confirm if the minister responsible sought the views of the three commissioners with respect to the amendment that was filed today?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: In regard to the amendment that was filed today, as I have outlined a number of times today, that is seeking to clarify language for practitioners. In terms of all of these matters, the ongoing consultation—the ongoing discussions and engagement—will inform and have informed any amendments.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Perhaps I was not clear enough in my question. I will try to be crystal clear. The three commissioners all signed a joint letter, effectively asking for best interests to be the paramount principle. There is an amendment now that apparently seeks to provide some clarity around safety and best interests principles. I think it is reasonable to ask: have the three commissioners had any discussions with the minister in relation to the drafting of the amendment?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have just answered that question.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Respectfully, I do not think you did, minister. Of those bodies that apparently have been the subject of consultation—I note that the minister said that for the Voice and others there have been consultations and many of those issues have been incorporated into amendments moved by the government, including, in some instances, this one. Can the minister explain to us how the clarity that she speaks of today was described to them?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I was not present at any of the consultations as I am not the minister. What I can say is that the minister has continued to engage, to consult and to take on board all the feedback in relation to this bill.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: That is not an accurate reflection, actually. She has not continued to take into account all the feedback. She has continued to say that she will not resile from her position on this bill and has now come with an alternative amendment. So it is not fair to say that she has taken on board all the feedback. If she had taken on board all the feedback, then the feedback of the three commissioners whom I just referred to, and the letter that they co-signed, would have been considered in the drafting of amendments. Clearly, I do not need the minister to tell me that it was not considered in the drafting of the amendment.

I have a question, minister. My question is: given that she was not in the room and could not provide those answers, will she take that on notice and come back with a person who was in the room with those individuals and provide a response?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I would like to clarify: I think my words were that the minister has taken into account all the feedback. That does not mean that all the feedback will necessarily be agreed to and incorporated.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: I asked a couple of questions last sitting week. My apologies if I missed the responses when you brought them back earlier this afternoon, but I will put it to the minister again in case they were in fact missed. Can the minister advise if it is the government's position that, should 'best interests' be made the paramount principle, the government will no longer pursue this legislation and retain the 2017 legislation?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the answer to that question is yes.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Just to clarify, should 'best interests' be made the paramount consideration by virtue of the majority of this Legislative Council passing an amendment, the government will retain the 2017 legislation.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that we will not be working under a framework that does not prioritise children's safety.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I also am not sure if you answered my questions from the previous sitting week in regard to clause 85—the definitions there and the wording around parents. I will outline the question again. It was again raised by the guardian, certainly around current qualifying offences: homicide and offences against the person and causing serious harm where the victim is a child or young person and the offender is a parent or guardian of the child or young person.

The guardian has raised some concerns around the wording because, with the limited new definition, she is fearful—and I ask this specifically—about what happens if somebody has committed a homicide, for example, against their stepchild and whether that is indeed covered. Could you please clarify that? It was one of our concerns around a potential amendment being required.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the matters raised are quite complex, and therefore additional advice is being sought. That advice has not come back as yet, but we will endeavour to be able to provide that once the clarification is available.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can I ask the minister then what other questions were not answered because we have just identified two that were not answered? We have not received this in writing. What other questions from the previous sitting week have not yet been answered?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have provided the answers that are available to me. I am sure if there are any members who have asked questions that have not been answered, they will be able to identify them and re-ask them or seek clarification.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am not sure that this is productive then. We have identified already two questions, and mine was quite serious and quite specific around the wording of the definition of 'parent' and whether or not a step-parent who commits a homicide against a child, a different child, is then actually included in the scope of the new legislation. It does not seem to be advantageous to try to continue this particular committee stage at this point, so I move to report progress.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I move:

That this bill be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

The council divided on the motion:

Ayes 8

Noes 9

Majority 1

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Motion thus negatived.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I move:

That this bill be made an order of the day for the next Tuesday of sitting.

Motion carried.