HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-10-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CHILDREN'S PROTECTION (IMPLEMENTATION OF REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 16 July 2009. Page 3641.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (16:25): This bill was introduced by the Minister for Families and Communities and it is certainly a matter for which her department has had responsibility. In any event it was introduced on 16 July 2009 at the time that the Statutes Amendment (Children's Protection) Bill (which we have just debated) was introduced. As I indicated in that debate, both that bill and this bill follow publication of reports by Commissioner Mullighan who was appointed to undertake a commission of inquiry into children who were victims of sexual abuse, first, for those who had been in state care and, secondly, for children on the APY lands. The first report was published on 17 June 2008 and the latter on 24 July 2008.

The government announced that it would file a response to the parliament—which it did—as to what action it would take as a result of the recommendations. Largely, those recommendations have been identified as being accepted. Many of them have been reported on via websites, indicating that implementation of those recommendations had been undertaken or was under consideration or progressing in some way and did not require legislative reform.

We still do not have a full update as to how a lot of those recommendations are progressing, but during the course of briefings on this bill, which related to some of the recommendations that require legislative amendment, we were advised that a number of them are still under consideration. Certainly, during the course of the briefings we were provided with confirmation as to which areas requiring legislative amendment have become the subject of this bill and the preceding bill. During the course of the briefings this bill was described as 'purely Mullighan'; that is, it was a package of legislative reform to amend the Children's Protection Act 1993 and the Health and Community Services Complaints Act 2004 in direct response to Commissioner Mullighan's recommendations.

The opposition will support this bill, as it did the preceding bill under the responsibility of the Attorney-General. At present, the Children's Protection Act 1993 requires all government, local government and non-government organisations to provide a child safe environment; and that is defined in the legislation that we currently have. It is fair to say that, as a general rule, all government and non-government schools, for example, must conduct criminal history checks on persons occupying or acting in prescribed positions. This includes regular contact with children or working in close proximity with children on a regular basis, and supervising or managing personnel working in or around children on a regular basis or accessing records about children.

Commissioner Mullighan, in his inquiry, interviewed a lot of children. He took the view, particularly having identified an extraordinary number of children, many of whom were now adults who had come forward, who sustained exposure to the risk of and perpetration of abuse, that it was absolutely imperative that there be a big change in the way we deal with children whilst working with them, whether in education, recreation, health services, or the like, and that, also, there be some very strict new rules as to the records we keep on them.

From memory, the first report of Commissioner Mullighan identified a number of cases where the records had been destroyed and/or lost and that there had been reporting, which, I think it is fair to say, left a lot to be desired, and that that reporting and recording of events in respect of children was very unsatisfactory. There also needed to be some strengthening as to how we supervised that in the future to ensure that there was full accountability for those who were vested with the responsibility of providing care for these children and that they be accountable to this parliament.

Certainly, for the first time, we see in this bill a proposal that involves the reporting to this parliament by an officer, who holds a position as a result of legislation from this parliament, with a very specific direction that no minister is allowed to interfere with it. I have not seen that in other legislation. On the face of it, it implies that there have been circumstances in the past where a minister has in some way written, drafted, or caused to be rewritten, or caused information to be excised, removed or added to a statutorily-appointed person's report. If that has ever happened, then that would be reprehensible.

The very fact that the commissioner has required that consideration be given by this parliament to ensuring that there be reporting by this particular officer—the person holding this position—to this parliament without interference or influence from a minister of the Crown, I think is concerning in itself. Commissioner Mullighan clearly takes the view that this is necessary to ensure that we hear that the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in the future.

In that regard, I accept the briefings and information that have been provided personally. I thank those officers who were present both at the briefings for the provision of information to myself and other members of parliament and for their comprehensive provision and prompt following up of information, as requested, to assist us in the consideration of this bill—ultimately, the favourable consideration of it by the opposition. I was aware that other, Independent members, or their members of staff, were present, so I do thank them for that. It has certainly assisted the opposition in considering these matters.

Can I say that, for the child-safe environments, which, I suppose, is one of the most detailed new regimes to be imposed on a whole lot of parties, it has not been an easy aspect to consider. We have moved from having this general obligation to keep children safe in certain environments (we have police checks on a number of different people who come in contact with his children) to a much more rigid regime. So, it is not just a general duty of care anymore to provide this safe environment. We are now under a regime that has been described as an enhancement of the provision to promote child-safe environments, and an even broader number of organisations—all our social and sporting organisations and the like—must have criminal history checks for their personnel who are working with children.

In addition, each group has to lodge a statement setting out details of its policies and procedures. In this case, that lodgment or registration is with the Chief Executive of the Department for Families and Communities. They must have policies in place to undertake criminal checks on those persons working in prescribed positions. The sporting and recreational bodies, as well as church groups and health professionals, are required to strengthen their child protection policy overall.

So, you have not only a general obligation to provide a safe environment, and you carry some responsibility to do so, but also, as some commitment to that, you must register a set of policies you will implement to ensure that the criminal history reports of this broader group are obtained.

We were informed and I note from the report that the current obligations to prevent registrable offenders from engaging in child-related work under the Child Sex Offenders Registration Act are not in any way overridden, and that legislation still prevails. Probably still the most powerful initiative of this whole regime is the very hefty penalties to organisations that do not comply.

In relation to the imposition of this new regime that Commissioner Mullighan suggested was necessary, when we look at other jurisdictions in other states that have gone down the road of implementing these procedures, what has come to pass is that in one jurisdiction, for example, a massive number of criminal reports have been sought.

It is probably not surprising that church groups, sporting groups, recreational bodies and social bodies, where children could be potentially exposed to this, and therefore they have an obligation of care to the children who come within their organisation, would take the most conservative view on what they should undertake.

The best way for them to do this is to do two things: first, to have just about everybody checked so that they do not fall between the cracks in their obligation—in other words, just in case, they cover people who may or may not need a criminal check—and, secondly, to have a policy plan which they register with the department and which covers everything.

The departmental personnel who attended the briefing provided us with some fact sheets and pro forma type agreements, plans or programs (I am not sure what they were called) that were a protocol of the policies that were to be implemented or could be used to be implement them. I think these were used as a guide to help organisations so that they did not have to write all these things but, if they committed to a pro forma, so to speak, they were likely to be covered.

So, it is quite possible that, in the interests of simplicity and security against any potential breach of their obligation in what could be a cloudy area as to whether one might or might not be relevant for the purposes of having to undertake this obligation, they have erred on the side of caution or conservatism and covered the lot. As a result, we might find that, under this new legislation, thousands or tens of thousands more police checks need to be done than were previously required, and that may be an extra cost to the public purse.

It seems, at least in one jurisdiction, that there has been a sort of explosion of numbers of criminal reports (criminal history checks, as they are) that have been called for, and that is a public expense. From the point of view of trying to make this easy for organisations to comply, as distinct from whatever extra cost there might be for some reports that may be unnecessary, on balance this is probably the best way to go.

I accept that in developing a formula, or a way around to comply with the recommendations of Commissioner Mullighan, it has been a difficult exercise and, because some of the ways in which they are operating interstate are still fairly embryonic in their implementation, it is hard to judge yet how effective it is going to be.

I have said to the house before that I am cautious of this whole question of, I suppose, relying on criminal history checks as some kind of panacea of protection for children. I am not suggesting for a moment that the government is trying to promote the fact that, by having a criminal history check, everything is fine. Clearly, the people who have a criminal record are the ones who have acted in a manner that is inappropriate and illegal towards children and have been caught.

I am sure that the people in this parliament fully appreciate that there are often situations where children have been victims of abuse of which the perpetrator is still at large or, certainly, has not been apprehended or prosecuted. So, it is by no means some panacea of protection, but it is a start and it is one way of, at least, I think, making it harder for people who have some propensity in this area, if they have at least been caught, and to be able to exclude them from being able to continue to have access to children and an opportunity to perpetrate some abuse on them.

It is not a comprehensive answer but we support the government's formula in this regard. It might be a bit more expensive than if some other restrictions had been placed on it but, on the other hand, that needs to be balanced against the extra workload that would place on sporting, recreational and church facilities, and the like.

The other areas in respect of additional protection for mandatory notifiers is important. This is to protect people from intimidation or unfavourable treatment, including that they may be a victim of a departmental officer. I think that is an important initiative. It is purely Mullighan, as it has been described, in that it becomes an offence. It certainly strengthens that area.

I have already briefly referred to the Guardian for Children and Young People as the person who is to have absolute independence. They must be expressly recognised and have powers extended for the guardian to act as an advocate for a child in state care. This is important because Commissioner Mullighan has finished his charter (his commission) and we must, obviously, have some way of ensuring that there is an independent party who can receive and act for children in state care in the future when they have made a disclosure of sexual abuse, or want to do so, and have some representation, and that there be immunity from ministerial direction when they bring reports to this parliament, of which there is an extra obligation on them to do so in respect of child abuse victims for children in state care. So, it is a good initiative, it is good to see it in the bill, and I thank Commissioner Mullighan for that.

The Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner is a relatively new role. I think the member for Little Para, when she was the minister, introduced this legislation. It now covers complaints, not just in the public health system but in the private sector and the community sector. There has been some query over whether children themselves can lodge complaints, and the time frame to do so. That has been clarified in this bill, and we welcome that.

There is the promotion of participation of children in government decision-making. This recommended a specific youth advisory committee. To be frank, I did not think this was a glaring omission. A number of youth advisory committees report to government and advise ministers, and I am sure they do very important work. I think what Commissioner Mullighan had in mind here was to provide an opportunity for that advisory committee, via the Guardian for Children and Young People, to focus specifically on meeting regularly for consultation and to give advice.

I am sure other members of the house would have received rather emotional pleas from constituents or their family members about cases where children had been victims of abuse or where they themselves had grown up and lodged a complaint or concerns and submissions with each of us who have expressed appalling histories in relation to child abuse.

I am sure that other members would have also received correspondence and personal representations from a number of those who came forward as a result of the commission of inquiry by Mr Mullighan. Possibly members have received submissions, as I have, from many who did not go to Commissioner Mullighan for lots of different reasons. Sometimes they had been so bruised and burdened by what had occurred that it was very difficult for them to come forward, even though Commissioner Mullighan and those working with him on the inquiry did everything possible to create an environment where they would feel welcome and comfortable in coming forward to recount those often extraordinarily painful events.

Recently, I became aware of the case of a person who had given evidence to Commissioner Mullighan. It was a female person now in her 60s who had given evidence of child sexual abuse perpetrated by her stepfather over a period of five years from which she had three pregnancies—one aborted, one full term which the stepfather and this child's mother took and raised as their own, and the third pregnancy went to full term and the child was adopted. Although this person had spent three years with other siblings in a state care institution (an orphanage), the actual abuse occurred outside of the orphanage and outside of the time during which she was legally a state ward, as were the other siblings.

Commissioner Mullighan, in that instance, referred the matter to the police and identified that it was strictly outside his terms of reference but that it needed to have some attention. I am pleased to say that, from ongoing discussions with the South Australian police force, it is continuing to review that case having issued charges against the alleged perpetrator, but it is currently impeded by some extradition action.

I am sure other members are aware of many cases where people have come forward and that we need to make sure that we do our best in the future to facilitate a voice for children who are placed in this situation, ensure that their records are intact and ensure that they are protected as best we can in the first instance and that they have some redress if they are not.

I think it is fair to say that the most disappointing aspect of this legislation—not specifically this bill, because I think the minister has quite properly acted upon Commissioner Mullighan's recommendations in this regard—is the singular and notable absence of support for recommendation 43. The government has failed and refused to support it, and this is the recommendation by Commissioner Mullighan that there be a therapeutic facility for the secure care of children who are the very few at the pointy end who have no other service.

The minister may not have been present during the previous debate or in a position to listen to all of that, but it was of concern to me—and I think all members of this house—that we have a situation where, as the minister is aware, children from time to time for short periods in this state end up in a child prison (in particular, the Magill Training Centre) because there is nowhere else to put them even though they have not committed a criminal offence.

This is the best we can do in the circumstances: to offer a child prison as a place of last resort in order to protect a child from themselves or others. The child might be a runaway. The minister would be aware of a case I have raised here in the parliament of a runaway who ultimately became a drug addict and pregnant with a child who I think, after she was born, went into the care of the department. For her own protection—and I have no reason to think otherwise—she was placed at the Magill Training Centre in a children's prison because there was no other safe and secure place for her to stay.

Obviously, the government funds foster carers and secure supported accommodation for children who are in its care, and sometimes for periods they live in motels and things like that. The government does what it can, and I am not here to be critical of that today. What I simply say is that in this state from time to time there are children out at the Magill Training Centre who are there because there is nowhere else safe for them to be. As painful as it probably was for him to deal with this issue in his report, Commissioner Mullighan had made it absolutely clear that, in some circumstances, it is just not acceptable that we leave children on the street. It is not safe. They are vulnerable to predatory behaviour by others, and it is unacceptable that we leave them.

In that very narrow beam of cases of children, we need to provide a place that is secure—that is, that can be locked up—and where they can have a safe environment pending their reintroduction to family, restoration of education, opportunity to pursue employment, independent living etc., and getting themselves back on track. It is very disappointing to me that in the tranche of legislation that is presented both by the Attorney-General and now the minister that that recommendation has been rejected and is not being pursued.

I do wonder, minister, whether there had been any inquiry made or assessment done by the department as to what the cost might be to establish a secure facility of up to, say, four or five rooms that would accommodate four or five young people so that they might be independent of children who had committed crimes, whether it was just dismissed out of hand, whether it did not get past the Treasurer or how far it had progressed. It is fair to say that we on this side of the house are very disappointed that that initiative has not been followed through or at least some investigation done to ascertain why it was not implemented.

It is rather churlish, I think, of the Attorney-General to have advised the house an hour or so ago that his answer to this was that a particular witness to the inquiry had said that there could be some concerns about having a therapeutic secure facility. That is one witness. He has quoted a statement that was made by somebody who I think gave evidence from Anglicare. The fact is that Commissioner Mullighan heard all the evidence and all the information and, having heard all that, he recommended that we actually have a therapeutic secure facility.

To cherry pick a little piece of one party's evidence to the inquiry and use that as justification for not proceeding with that recommendation, when the only alternative for some of these children is to be put into a children's prison, I think is just an abrogation of responsibility. I would hope to hear at least a more convincing response from the Minister for Families and Communities, and I hope at least to hear that there has been some investigation into this before it was dismissed out of hand on the basis of a piece of someone's evidence to the inquiry.

The second aspect that is very disappointing for the opposition is that now, having the second part of this reform recommended by Commissioner Mullighan, we still do not have any redress fund for the victims who have come forward. A very clear recommendation of Commissioner Mullighan was that there be an investigation into the establishment of a redress fund. We understand that a committee had been established consistent with that occurring. We have never seen this committee's final recommendation, if it ever came to one. I do not know. We have never had any report back from the Attorney-General as to what this committee ever recommended and we would certainly like to know.

What we do know is that the Attorney-General simply says to us here in the parliament, 'If they want to make a claim, they can lodge an application for an ex gratia payment to me,' for which of course the threshold is so high they have no chance of ever getting it, or, alternatively, they can apply under the victims of crime legislation where they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they have been a victim of child sexual abuse, years ago—in some cases decades ago—where the witnesses and/or alleged perpetrator may not even be alive.

Clearly, there is no real opportunity for the victims who have gone down there and poured out their heart sometimes through multiple sessions with Commissioner Mullighan or one of the persons assisting him in that inquiry, told the most intimate detail about what had happened to them, and all around Australia we have in different jurisdictions redress schemes available for people to get some compensation. Sometimes it is only a small amount and sometimes they are capped—for example, I think, in Western Australia.

There are different maximum amounts that can be applied for but, when we come to deal with all this legislation, there is nothing here in South Australia, not even the decency of an answer as to what the committee recommended. I think that is an insult to those who have suffered, those whom we all urged to come forward and speak to Commissioner Mullighan and who were brave enough and bold enough to do so. Yet as a parliament we have no capacity to say to them, 'We will recognise that as other jurisdictions have around Australia and we will give you some financial redress.'

The reason we, as a parliament, cannot do that is that obviously it is a monetary expenditure and it is a matter that requires the government's endorsement. It is extremely disappointing that this issue has been left unresolved. Some people ask me why these people do not go and apply for what we used to call a criminal injuries compensation case—a Victims of Crime Act compensation. Under that bill, if you are the victim of a crime and you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that you are a victim of a crime and have suffered injury and personal damage as a result of that, under current law you are entitled to seek up to $50,000 for compensation. However, that law operates a formula. So, if you are assessed at say $40,000, a formula then operates for you to receive a portion of that—and, of course, that is only for the ones who might have been victims of abuse in recent years.

This legislation and the opportunity to even seek compensation only dates back to the 1970s, and I am sure it would not have escaped the attention and understanding of most of the members here in this house that many of the people who lined up before the Mullighan inquiry were victims of abuse predating the Victims of Crime Act, or what was the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act. So, they do not have a hope in hell of receiving anything under the current scheme, and it is a cruel blow to them that each time this issue is raised the Attorney-General simply spouts off and says, 'Well, they can go off to the Victims of Crime Fund. I am not going to be considering any redress fund,' as he clearly is not prepared to do.

I think that, after a multimillion dollar inquiry, after the extraordinary work undertaken by Commissioner Mullighan and after the goodwill, I think, and intent of a number of initiatives of the government in at least initiating the beginning of a response to sensible recommendations, it does two things. It refuses to give the victims that we know of any real access to any redress and, secondly, the future victims, the ones who are out there at the moment for which we have no facility, are effectively still going to be sentenced to spending time in our criminal children's prisons even though they have not committed an offence because there is nowhere else for the Minister for Families and Communities to put them.

There is nowhere else available that is safe enough for them, and I just think that that is a shame. It is a shame on us as a parliament, and I believe that the government should again think very carefully about what it is sentencing future children to and recognise that it is failing to respect the extraordinary courage that it has taken for past victims to come forward, who it is going to leave out in the cold.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (17:02): Years ago I raised concerns about the need for better protection of children who are in the care of the minister, and it is very pleasing to see the government moving forward with recommendations from the Mullighan inquiry. I believe that inquiry would not have taken place had there not been a hung parliament in the previous parliament. Nonetheless, I commend Commissioner Mullighan for doing his work. We have a series of recommendations that will be of benefit to those who are in the care of the minister.

There is a range of beneficial measures, including a strengthening of the role and powers of the guardian and the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner. There is the promotion of the participation of children in government decision-making through the Youth Advisory Committee, and the Guardian for Children and Young People must develop a charter of rights for children and young people in care. These are all good things.

There is just one issue that I want to raise in the parliament, and this was raised with me by a constituent. It came to me through a short email, which I will read out to the parliament so that the minister understands the issue. This constituent writes:

I was very concerned to hear about legislation in train re children sporting clubs and activities. I don't have a problem with making those responsible for children more accountable. But at a time when we are trying to get our kids more active we should be thinking of ways to make it easier for parents not harder. The reality is that if a parent drops off a child it is not for baby sitting purposes. We have 2 children and on soccer practice nights for my son, my daughter also has dance classes. Drop off one, take the other to the class pick up the other and then pick up the other. While all this is going on the other parent works until 6 and then has to try and get home and get a meal on. The only way to arrange it so that a parent is always with each child is to deny one of them an activity, or cut our working hours and income.

In my 12 years of following kids around, I am yet to meet a parent that just drops a kid off without at least the coach or another parent being informed and contact numbers available. Some of my sons friends just wouldn't be able to play sport at all with parents increasingly having work commitments on weekends, and single parent families with no transport relying on other parents for help. I hope that these elements can be accounted for in this legislation or we will be making club sports and other children's activities increasingly the realm of those families who are already privileged.

The question that I would really like the minister to address is in relation to the requirement for criminal checks on volunteers who are running sports activities. Are the activities of this bill going to make it more difficult for those sporting activities to proceed?

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (17:07): I rise to speak to this bill. I want to make a contribution particularly about the input that Commissioner Ted Mullighan has had in the role of child protection not only in the broader community but particularly in the Aboriginal community in South Australia. Having met Ted Mullighan on a number of occasions now and talked to him about some of the issues, I know that he has done a very good job. I hope this government does implement the report recommendations and not just talk about it, and I will say more about that when referring to the history of this government and this Premier in a few moments.

The bill aims to create child safe environments. It aims to improve the notification of abuse and neglect, and to strengthen the role of the Guardian for Children and Young People. The ability for young people to seek the assistance of the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner is to be commended and the measure to promote the participation of young children in government decision making is one which I will watch with great interest. A sad fact of life, though, is that some very serious issues need addressing to protect young people and children not only in remote Aboriginal communities but also in communities within the metropolitan area.

The implementation of the report's recommendations takes us back to 1991 when the then minister for Aboriginal affairs (now Premier Mike Rann) addressed the house through a ministerial statement concerning the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. He said what a wonderful thing the government was doing in responding to the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. He said: 'No state is equal to South Australia in its commitment to implementing the recommendations of the interim report.' That was the Muirhead report.

The then minister for Aboriginal affairs (now Premier Rann) also went on to say that Aboriginal justice advisory committees had been established for some time to monitor preventative programs and to ensure that opinions and views of Aboriginal people were taken into account in our justice system. That all sounded very good. The bottom line is that there are still serious issues out there. Admittedly, there have been Liberal governments in the meantime, but this government has been here nearly eight years. It has had a lot of money and opportunities, and the Premier cannot say he has not been aware of these issues, because, as the minister in 1991, he was making statements about the need to go forward.

The need to go forward was recognised by the Premier as recently as July this year on his Twitter site, when he said:

Progress so slow, too slow. First Australians are still the last Australians on virtually every social and economic indicator.

The Premier is well aware of the lack of progress both from his 1991 pontifications and in the last eight years. We do need to ensure that we fund the various bodies which are being set up and the various organisations which are already there and which are being given extra responsibilities. One of those organisations, which, in the past, has tried to do its very best is the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement. In 1991, the Premier said:

I have also signalled to the Commonwealth Government that the South Australian Government would seek matching funds from the Commonwealth for crime prevention initiatives and would support additional funding to the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement to ensure adequate legal representation for Aboriginal people.

It is not just about the protection of Aboriginal people now: it is about the protection of Aboriginal children and our youth.

A sad fact of life with this Labor government in South Australia is that it introduces bills like this to implement reports but it fails to act. For further evidence of this, in March 1992, the then Labor federal minister for Aboriginal affairs, Robert Tickner, described South Australia's response to the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody as a sick joke. In The Advertiser of 28 March 1992, the then Labor federal minister for Aboriginal Affairs said:

The South Australian government has claimed that $76 million spent recently on upgrading gaols and police systems was sufficient. If that's the South Australian government's response to the royal commission, it's a pretty sick joke.

Lock them up then: lock them up now! It really is not the answer. Mr Tickner went on to say:

The South Australian government outlined its funding in a letter to the federal government claiming it spent $36.5 million on major police and court complexes, $30 million on corrective services institutions and $10 million on prison redevelopment.

It was all about locking them up then and it is all about locking them up now. This is not good enough from this Premier and former minister for Aboriginal affairs. I just hope that the Children's Protection (Implementation of Report Recommendations) Amendment Bill today will not be one of the pieces of legislation that is all talk and no action.

The other person who has been in the news just lately and who is of the same mind as me—that is, we hope that it is not just talk: we want to see the action—is Professor Lowitja O'Donoghue. Professor O'Donoghue is a very well respected member of the Aboriginal community and, in fact, was appointed as an adviser by this Premier when the initial activities on the APY lands were being undertaken. She speaks her mind. In 2005, Lowitja O'Donoghue said—and this is why she is being vilified by this government now because she is unrepresentative:

The Government's responses are driven by the desire to neutralise potential criticism. So they put in 'quick fixes' rather than going to the heart of the problems.

Lowitja O'Donoghue actually swore and Lowitja never swears, but she said, 'I was so angry.' She went on to say:

The things that they are saying about Aboriginal leaders are equally appalling. They say we're negative, unco-operative, too emotional and have a chip on our shoulders...I have never, ever, in my whole experience in Aboriginal affairs, been treated in the way I have been treated by the Rann Government. But I'm not going to walk the line.

That is why this government needs to not just talk the talk with implementing reports: it needs to walk the walk. It needs to put its money where its mouth is and ensure that things are not allowed to continue.

The government has done something positive by appointing Klynton Wanganeen as the new Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement and forming the advisory body. I hope they listen to Klynton and the Aboriginal Advisory Council.

Back in 2007 I contacted Father Chris Riley who is a well-known Catholic priest in Sydney. Father Riley conducts some wonderful programs in Sydney for troubled youth and people who need serious guidance. They need protection from themselves, as well as from those who would take advantage of them. I worked very hard to try to get Father Riley to come here as a speaker for Aboriginal groups. It became quite complicated.

I sent an email which I will not read into the Hansard but which indicated that there was some negative talk around the place about Father Riley coming here. It indicated that, while he was not being warned off about coming here, he was not going to be welcomed by the government. That is what I have been told, but at the same time I was also told he was trying to organise a visit to Magill Training Centre—which would have been a real eye-opener for him had that occurred in 2007. I would have been interested to hear what Father Chris Riley would have said at that time.

Mr Hanna: He would be a good thinker in residence.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Father Chris Riley would be a very good thinker in residence, as the member for Mitchell says. The principal of the youth education centre at Magill Training Centre, through the Department of Education and Children's Services, was trying to get Father Chris Riley over here. I do not know what happened, but we should invite him here. This fellow has the runs on the board with child protection. He is a member of the Catholic Church so he should fit in with Commissioner Cappo. We should be listening to people like him. We should not just be talking the talk but, rather, walking the walk and getting good ideas. We should not just lock them up and vilify them and treat them as media events.

I sincerely hope that this bill does exactly what the legislation says and that it does offer increased protection for children in this state because there are many issues that affect both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities. I plead with the government do something. It has been in office for nearly eight years and there are 10 sitting days after today in which to make sure they can come in here, hold their head high and say, 'We will do this,' and there is no more talk, it is not just about politics or short-term fixes (as Lowitja O'Donoghue said). It is about the real deal and that is what we want from this Premier. He was there in 1991 as the minister for aboriginal affairs. He was criticised then and he is being criticised now. Now is the time for him to be a real leader and step up and do what is required for the people, particularly the children, of South Australia.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for Families and Communities, Minister for Northern Suburbs, Minister for Housing, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability) (17:17): I thank members for their contributions. I will try to respond briefly to some of the issues that they have raised along the way—and forgive me if I forget some of them. The shadow minister initially raised concerns about the progress of recommendations from the Mullighan inquiry and indicated that prior to the briefing she not aware of how things were going. From memory, two reports have been lodged with the parliament and another one is due on the 12 months' anniversary. We committed to annually reporting against those recommendations—and we will continue to do so.

The honourable member referred to recommendation 43 where Commissioner Mullighan recommended a secure therapeutic facility for children and said that the government had dismissed that out of hand. That is not correct. In fact, we received some submissions in relation to that particular recommendation. The Guardian for Children and Young People was very strong in her opposition to a secure facility. I was quite open minded about it and looked at facilities myself in relation to that. As best my memory serves me, we have not yet reported on a clear decision in relation to that.

I appreciate the honourable member's support for the bill and recognition that an enormous amount work has been done to ensure that the legislation is workable in the community. We have done our best to make the processes as simple and streamlined as possible for organisations in our community to which this legislation refers. Certainly, the Children's Protection Act in any case has a number of requirements for many of the organisations to which the amendments refer.

These amendments do go a step further. In many instances, for example, medical and dental practices and sporting clubs are required to have child safe policies. This goes a step further where organisations are now required to lodge those policies. As the member for Bragg recognised, this is about the department being able to keep some oversight on what is happening in our community to ensure that people do comply. I know some organisations with which we consulted were quite surprised that they were required to do this. They had not thought in terms of child protection before, although they deal with children on a daily basis. Already the legislation is having a positive impact.

Some concern has been expressed about the costs, but we have a very good system in South Australia where volunteers who work with vulnerable children get free criminal history checks in any case. We are doing our best to support community organisations in relation to those costs. It will be a cost to those people who are in employment, but it is about $50 for a check that spans three years. It is a minimal cost, indeed. I am hoping that this legislation alerts people to practices that they should have had in place in any case.

The legislation will help to provide an environment for our children that the community expects in any case. The member for Mitchell raised the issue of sporting clubs. Parents who take their child to a sporting club have an expectation they are leaving the child in a safe environment with responsible people. This legislation is about helping those organisations understand their responsibility and ensuring that those community expectations are met. I understand that many parents are not involved in their children's sporting activities, for example; many are. We want to encourage volunteering and involvement in children's activities, but what we want to do also is deter those who would harm children.

The member for Morphett's comments are incredibly disappointing, I have to say. Since this government came to office, it has done more to improve the safety of children in South Australia and recognise inappropriate past practices than any other government in our history. To say that we need to put our money where our mouth is just indicates how little he understands and knows about what this government has been doing.

Just a budget ago there was a $190 million injection into child protection in South Australia; so I think we have well and truly put our money where our mouth is. We have put our money where our mouth is in relation to young offenders and Monsignor Capo's report, in excess of $10 million for Breaking the Cycle initiatives. It is disappointing that the member for Morphett has chosen not to take notice of what has occurred, but I do appreciate the support of the opposition in the passage of this bill.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for Families and Communities, Minister for Northern Suburbs, Minister for Housing, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability) (17:25): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I very much thank the officers of the Department for Families and Communities for the enormous amount of work that they have put into progressing this legislation and consulting with our community. It has been quite a mindset change for a number of organisations, and they have done an outstanding job in consulting with people and preparing this legislation for the house, so my deepest appreciation to them.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT