HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2021-03-30 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

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

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 12 November 2020.)

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:05): I rise today to speak on the Children and Young People (Safety) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. This bill ensures that the legislative framework for children in care in South Australia is efficient, responsive and inclusive. It prioritises amendments that seek to strengthen the effective and efficient operation of the Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017, the principal act.

The background of this is that in October 2019 the Minister for Child Protection sought feedback from key government and non-government stakeholders on the efficiency and effectiveness of the act following its first year of operation. Following this feedback, late last year, in 2020, a draft bill was prepared. This bill incorporates minor technical changes and corrections, as well as reflecting stakeholder comments on particular aspects of the current act. The bill is based on, and generally reflects, stakeholder feedback and is limited to changes that strengthen the current act, noting that there is a requirement under the act for a full review in 2022.

The first key amendment involves the insertion of a new section 8(4) to incorporate a best interests principle. The previous reference to 'best interests' was removed from the previous child protection legislation as part of system reform intended to support an unequivocal focus on safety as the paramount consideration for the department and courts in child protection decision-making. Including best interests as a consideration in decision-making, while fully maintaining safety as the paramount or equal consideration, was supported in the most recent consultation on the bill.

The Minister for Child Protection has been a strong advocate of including best interests as a consideration in decision-making, while maintaining safety as the paramount concern. Best interests is now being reinstated as a consideration, whilst ensuring the safety of the child remains paramount.

The second amendment relates to the reintroduction of short-term investigation and assessment orders. Following further consultation and feedback with the Attorney-General, this bill will reintroduce the role requiring hearings for court orders to be commenced within 10 weeks of the application. This will provide the court with the ability to make short-term custody orders of up to eight weeks to allow an investigation of the circumstances of the child or young person to be carried out, with the ability to seek a further four-week extension.

The third amendment includes articulation of the Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander (ATSI) Child Placement Principle. Without displacing safety, the bill allows the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle to be the paramount consideration in the administration, operation and enforcement of the act as it relates to Aboriginal children.

The objects of this part include maintaining the connection of Aboriginal children and young people with their family and culture, enabling Aboriginal people to participate in the care and protection of their children and young people, and to act in partnership with state authorities when making decisions about the placement of Aboriginal children and young people under the act.

The bill also more fully articulates each of the principles of the five elements of prevention, partnership, placement, participation and connection. These changes were strongly supported by both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal respondents to the consultation.

Amendment 4, insertion of new chapter 7A, includes provision for the adoption of children and young people from care. This seeks to embed into legislation the policy to provide a streamlined pathway for the adoption of children and young people from care. The policy has been the subject of consultation with key stakeholders, and the proposed provisions are included in this bill to enable the timely implementation of the policy and to distinguish the unique position of children in care. The provisions in new chapter 7A do not apply to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.

In relation to this amendment, I have seen the frustrations of many people over time who have not been able to seek adoption or take up adoption of a child. I really hope that this part of the bill (when it becomes an act) will provide a timely process so that we can get far better outcomes for families. From my experience as a local member, there are many people who would like to see a more streamlined pathway to adoption. It is not a simple path, nor should it be taken lightly, but there will be far better outcomes in the future when this part of the bill comes into play.

Minor amendments in the bill provide greater clarity in the administration of the act and remedy minor technical errors. One important example is the reverse onus found in section 59 of the principal act. Amendments to this provision will limit the orders under which the onus of proof is reversed. Currently, where the court has placed a child or young person in the custody or guardianship of the chief executive or another person for any period of time and a subsequent application is made, the onus is on the person objecting (usually the parent) to prove that the order should not be made—so, in that regard, reverse onus.

I would like to say I think the minister has done excellent work in consultation in regard to the Children and Young People (Safety) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. The children and young people of this state certainly deserve our priority. As time goes on, life becomes more complex for everyone and the things that we can put in place—the legislation we can put in place—and the guiding principles around that to get the right outcomes are what we all seek to do in this place, no matter where we sit.

As I said, there are many complex things that happen in families. I am sure everyone sees them in their electorate offices, in submissions to electorate offices and in meeting with people, and it is the right thing to do to try and get the best outcome for everyone who presents.

Several years ago, and in light of the tragic death of a foster child, I introduced the Statutes Amendment (Rights of Foster Parents and Guardians) Bill from opposition and was proud, after much negotiation with the government of the day, that we finally got that bill up as an act. I commend the former member for Enfield and the support I got from his office in negotiating my way through to get an outcome that was happy for everyone. We went through about nine drafts changes, but sometimes that is the way you have to go to get outcomes in this place. We got there in the end.

It was a sad story about a kinship child who died whilst in the care of kinship parents. When it came to working through the details of the child's burial arrangements and funeral service, and also the opportunity to get listed on the death certificate of young Finn, there was no legal allowance for that to happen. It caused a lot of distress to the Perrett family, Nathan and Monica Perrett at Murray Bridge. As I said, it took a long time—far longer than I thought it would—to get a negotiated outcome.

I appreciate the work I did in opposition with ministers and staff of the government of the day to get the outcomes so that now—and let's hope it never happens, and let's hope it never has to be used—if there is the unfortunate occurrence of a foster child passing away whilst in the care of foster parents, there is the opportunity to get the foster parents' name as an addition to the birth parents' on the death certificate of that child, and there is also the opportunity to negotiate the funeral arrangements of that child. As I said, I hope it never has to be enacted, but it certainly caused a lot of frustration to the Perrett family and a lot of distress at the untimely death of young Finn. I was very proud to get that outcome.

Certainly, there was a staffer in the former Attorney-General's office and the member for Enfield who worked with me very collaboratively on that to get the right outcome. Sometimes people think you cannot get outcomes; it took a lot of time, but we got there in the end. As I said, I hope it never has to be enacted because it is only if a tragedy happens that that act would come into play.

The principal thing here obviously with this legislation is looking at making it better for the children in care in the state. If we can do whatever we can, if the opportunity is right and the situation is right to get the right streamlined practices in regard to adoption in the state, I think we will have a far better outcome for everyone involved, whether it is for the children or for the people who are more than willing to put their hand up to adopt children as it happens sometimes with the necessity of children in care.

With those few words, I commend the bill and I hope it has a speedy passage through the house. I hope it goes through the process in both houses of parliament and gets assented to very quickly.

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (12:19): In rising to speak on this bill, I indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition. One of the greatest and most important responsibilities of government, and indeed of every person in our community, is to ensure that every child, no matter their background or circumstance, is safe and supported to physically, mentally and emotionally thrive. Within that responsibility it is absolutely crucial that government protects vulnerable children within our community, particularly those who for one reason or another are unable to live with their families and who rely on the state for their care.

This means that, in addition to having the best possible resources in place to strengthen families and to prevent abuse, in addition to relentlessly focusing on fixing the systemic issues in the child protection system, we must have a strong and robust legislative framework to support these children and to guide the many hardworking staff who care for them. I am sure that everyone in this place would echo my statements when I say that we must strive to have the very best policy settings when it comes to child protection and wellbeing.

Though we may differ on the ways that we achieve this, I am sure that everyone in this place, as should of course be the case, has the wellbeing of vulnerable children foremost in their hearts and minds. It is that focus on the wellbeing of the most vulnerable young South Australians that has led me, with the excellent assistance of parliamentary counsel, to propose a number of amendments to the Children and Young People (Safety) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2020. They are amendments that I believe will strengthen this act and lead to better outcomes for those young people, those young South Australians who most need our support and our attention.

These amendments are rightly focused on several areas: strengthening and better bringing to life provisions that focus on the best interests of children; dealing with the mess that government has made through its proposed changes to adoption laws; strengthening and furthering the role Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, families and communities play in determining what is best for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people; reviewing the act to ensure that the act works in the best possible way to respond to the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people and children and young people from diverse cultural backgrounds; ensuring that carers are heard, with their peak bodies connecting kinship and foster carers; and ensuring that there is an appropriate process in place in the Care Concern Investigation Unit, amongst a number of other matters.

In recent months, I have met with a number of community groups, organisations and individuals who have raised significant concerns about the government's proposed changes to the act as well as having concerns about the proposed changes themselves. Many who I have spoken with have felt deeply disappointed by the fact that they were not properly consulted on the changes and raised concerns about the application of the changes.

In some cases, alarmingly, individuals and organisations felt that they had not been consulted or spoken with at all. These are individuals and organisations that work deeply and effectively to ensure that children and young people facing difficult circumstances can live their best possible life, safe, well and thriving. I take this opportunity to thank all of them for their extraordinary work and for taking the time to share their views in relation to this bill.

Among their concerns are those that relate to the proposed changes to adoption laws specific to children in state care. These changes seem to remove key protections for children and adults subject to adoption in South Australia and seem to alter the role courts play in the adoption process and the crucial ability for children to be heard. Unlike similar New South Wales legislation, this bill seems to establish a two-tiered adoption system that has the potential to erode the rights of children in state care when it comes to adoption.

Stakeholders have raised concerns that this could create a parallel adoption regime that undermines the provisions of the Adoption Act. The South Australian Adoption Act is designed to ensure that a child's voice is heard and listened to in every stage of the adoption process. Under the proposed changes a child's right to agree to or to have a say about their adoption seems to be eroded, and ultimate decision-making powers seem to be conferred elsewhere. I look forward to exploring that particular issue in the committee stage of the bill.

Many people have expressed to me that, in relation to adoption, this bill could have a range of consequences, including preventing and/or limiting the court's capacity to make an alternative order to adoption even when other orders could be in the best interests of the child. Opponents argue that this prevents a child, their parents and the siblings' views from possibly being considered. As I said, I do look forward to more deeply exploring that issue in the committee stage.

In the past 18 months, around 500 additional children have, heartbreakingly, gone into state care. Many of these children—far too many, in fact—are from Aboriginal families. I have met with Aboriginal groups and individuals and other interested parties, who have raised concerns about the number of Aboriginal children being removed from parents, including newborn babies.

There seems to be a widespread belief that not enough is being done to consult Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families about their children and that legislative reform is required to ensure that these families can lead discussions about what is best for their children in relation to all the issues and circumstances they confront. This is a sensitive issue, and there are legitimate questions that must be answered about the current and proposed legislation in terms of how and when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families and communities are consulted and engaged in decision-making processes.

I have proposed a number of amendments to the Children and Young People (Safety) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2020 that seek to put Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families at the centre of decision-making processes. These amendments include making sure that there is a focus on ensuring that the best interest principles are better applied throughout the act and also that both the best interests of children and young people and the protection of children and young people from harm are of the highest importance in the administration, operation and enforcement of the act.

Another proposed amendment seeks to strengthen the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle. Whilst the inclusion of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle is welcomed, an articulation of the principle on its own is insufficient to ensure that children and young people are both physically safe and culturally safe and cared for through being placed where they are connected to their culture and to their kin.

As mentioned, I firmly believe that the principle can be better brought to life through the increased participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families in all aspects of child protection decision-making. The proposed amendments, which I look forward to exploring in the committee stage, are about moving away from simply enabling Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to participate in decisions about the care and protection of their young people to enabling Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, their families and communities to lead decision-making.

They are also about enabling Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people, their families and communities to take the lead in partnership decision-making with state authorities about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people, rather than simply encouraging Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, their children and young people and state authorities to act in partnership when making decisions about the placement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people.

They focus on making sure that there is involvement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities in all decisions relating to children, not just those decisions relating to placement. This includes expanding the definition of who is involved in decision-making about a child or young person, strengthening rights around participation in that decision-making and ensuring that there is an independent process led and facilitated by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community.

They include strengthening the requirement for facilitating contact between an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child or young person and their family, community, language group, culture and sense of identity when they are not placed with family or community or a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background.

They include requiring the chief executive to ensure that an Aboriginal Cultural Identity Support Tool and Aboriginal life story work is prepared and maintained in accordance with the regulations in respect of each Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child or young person placed under the chief executive's guardianship for six or more months.

I have also had representations made to me by members of various multicultural communities who have also raised concerns about the lack of consultation with families and communities around the removal of children from diverse multicultural backgrounds. I have therefore proposed an amendment that requires the minister and department to consult with communities prior to the next review of the act with a view to inserting agreed principles around these issues at that time.

In order to deal with issues often raised with me about the process around the Care Concern Investigation Unit and how foster carers are communicated with in relation to it, I have also proposed an amendment requiring the minister and department to develop, in consultation with carers and their representative body, a procedure for department staff to follow in relation to the care concerns process.

As I stated in my introduction, I know that all members in this place come to this debate with the best intentions for vulnerable South Australian children in state care. I believe the amendments that I have proposed and outlined will serve to strengthen protections for children in care, including those who may be adopted, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and children and young people from diverse multicultural communities. I look forward to exploring these amendments in the committee stage of this debate. I urge the government and all parliamentarians to carefully consider and support the proposed amendments.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Ms HILDYARD: Can the minister please explain exactly who was consulted in relation to this bill and the process and time frames that were undertaken in relation to that consultation?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: In my second reading speech, I outlined extensively what had occurred. That was in November last year, but I can reread it if required. This bill honours the commitment of this government made upon forming government to consult on amendments to the act and to remedy the challenges inherent in the legislation that was originally assented to on 18 July 2017.

This targeted consultation process commenced on the 12-month anniversary of the act, at which time I invited stakeholders to consider whether the act's guiding principles were being met and whether the legislation was ensuring efficacy in outcomes that improved the lives of children and young people in care. This process provided an opportunity to progress amendments considered critical to the effective operation of the act in advance of a full review as prescribed in 2022.

Consultation concluded in October 2020. Respondents included a number of government agencies, peak bodies, Aboriginal organisations and representative groups, as well as the relevant advocacy and oversight bodies. The bill was also informed by the experience and expertise of my department, which coordinated this process and which stands in a unique position to offer insight into the operations of the legislation and how it might be improved.

Rather than continuing to read a speech I already read into Hansard last November, the stakeholders who provided written feedback included the Attorney-General, the Department for Human Services, the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, Anglicare, Baptist Care, CaFHS SA, Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People, Connecting Foster and Kinship Carers, CREATE Foundation, and the Guardian for Children and Young People.

It also included the Law Society of South Australia, Legal Services Commission of South Australia, Lutheran Community Care, SACOSS, Women's Legal Service of South Australia, the Youth Affairs Council of South Australia, and the Youth Court of South Australia. Stakeholders with an external process were EACPAC, which includes SNAICC and Natalie Lewis, and the AMA. That is our expert Aboriginal Advisory Committee. It is a national group of experts who were also consulted.

Ms HILDYARD: Could the minister advise whether she consulted Adoptee Rights Australia and, if not, why not?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I believe the member for Reynell is talking about Sharyn White. I have spoken to Sharyn White several times. In fact, when I was in opposition I spent a lot of time, because Sharyn White was very unhappy with the changes the former Labor government made in regard to the removal of different rights regarding the Adoption Act, so I am very well aware of Sharyn White. She has had experience as an adoptee that was not a good one, and she is in general, to my knowledge, against the whole concept and idea of adoption. She was against the former Labor government's amendments and she is also against ours, and I am very well aware of that.

Ms HILDYARD: To clarify, I was not asking about an individual; I was asking about a national organisation, Adoptee Rights Australia. I am wondering whether the minister consulted the organisation about the content of the bill.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): If the minister provides an answer, I am happy to take that as a third question from the member for Reynell.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: We consulted with people with lived experience and we consulted with CREATE, who are the peak body for children in care once they have left care.

Ms HILDYARD: Sorry, can you just repeat that?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: We consulted with CREATE, who are the representative body representing children who have been in care or are in care. They are the representative relevant in this case.

Mr BOYER: On the same clause, clause 1, I may have missed this in the minister's answer to the member for Reynell's first question. Minister, which of the briefings that occurred that you outlined in your answer before were you personally a part of?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Several different methods of consultation were used. One was written consultation, as I have read out. We also had a forum, so to speak, or a workshop, where we had a facilitator. That was pre COVID. It would have been September 2019, when we were able to meet as a group. We had people with lived experience, we had the NGO sector and we had a wide range of stakeholder groups that were included.

We workshopped that for several hours. I was present, participated and heard the outcomes. The outcomes were summarised and delivered to me, which I also read and am familiar with. Most recently, I held a round table only several weeks ago with some of the major stakeholder groups to get their final opinions. We have done extensive consultation. Adoption being included in our act was actually signalled and announced in September 2019, so there has been plenty of time, extensive consultation and a lot of opportunity.

I have met with Adopt Change, I have met with people who have been adopted and I have met with people who would have loved to be adopted. I have met with foster carers who started crying when they thought that this might be an opportunity for them. So I have done extensive consultation, and I am very confident that we have amendments to this act, particularly regarding adoption, that are accepted and supported in the majority of cases.

Mr BOYER: Thank you for your answer, minister. On the same clause, how many times did you personally speak with Sharyn White of Adoptee Rights Australia in relation to this bill?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I do not recall exactly how many times, but I definitely have spoken with Sharyn White, particularly in opposition. I have spoken to her because she was particularly unhappy. As we know, she has also been in contact with my office, and I believe my advisers have spoken to her several times. Unfortunately, you can never get 100 per cent unanimous agreement on anything in life.

What we know is that there might be amendments coming, but we have drafted what we believed represented the best outcome for young people in care, their carers and the foster carers who have committed to them for many years, caring for and loving them and considering them as part of their family. Remember that this is only to be one of a suite of options of permanency because we know that permanency is incredibly important. In fact, it is so important that the Nyland royal commission recommended in recommendation 157, which the former Labor government actually accepted, that adoption should be considered. Recommendation 157 stated:

Consider the question of adoption where that is in the best interests of the child and an Other Person Guardianship order would not be appropriate.

That is exactly what we are doing.

Ms COOK: Are you able to describe to the committee the diversity of opinion that you may have received back from a cultural point of view regarding the bill?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: As the member may be aware, on advice the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children were excluded from this adoption due to the past history. That is not included in here so, yes, we did take advice.

Ms COOK: In terms of that occurring, why has that been the case and what particular consultation has led you to make that decision?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: There was a national SNAICC conference held here in South Australia and it was a recommendation of the national Aboriginal peak body.

Ms COOK: Were any other cultural groups particularly able to provide you feedback regarding this bill and is there any information you can give us regarding that?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: All the stakeholders I have already listed look after people of all different cultural backgrounds in South Australia, so they were consulted equally.

Ms MICHAELS: Can the minister inform the house how many children she expects will be impacted annually by the changes in this bill?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: As you can imagine, it is very hard to say because it just depends. I anticipate it would be a small number of children. What this is about is giving people the option. It is saying to staff in the Department for Child Protection that when they are looking at a child's future and their permanency this should be one of the options they consider.

As you know, there was Other Person Guardianship (OPG), which now has the more confusing name of Long Term Guardianship (Specified Person), and that is being used and being taken up considerably. However, this is just another option because, as we know, Long Term Guardianship (formerly OPG) ends at 18. There are a lot of families and a lot of children who want to be part of a family forever, not ending at 18.

There are advantages to this. It is not for everyone. I am not trying to have 4½ thousand children adopted from care. This might suit five or 10 children in a year, I do not know. It is one option I would like to be available to foster carers in particular who have had a commitment to these children. We have set the limit of at least a minimum of two years so we know that the child has an established relationship.

We want the child to be part of that decision-making and that they will have a say. It is certainly not my intention to have children adopted who do not want to be adopted. Why would I do that? This is about a permanency option for good outcomes that are in the best interests of our children and young people.

Ms MICHAELS: Can I ask the minister if she can guarantee there has not been any advice from her department or her ministerial office to Adoptee Rights Australia that they will not be consulted?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Not that I am aware of.

Mr BOYER: Why did the review not happen in the time frame that was originally set out?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Well, we had something called a pandemic and because of COVID we were not able to meet and we were not able to form as a group. There was other legislation that had far higher priority, such as the emergency declarations, so this was delayed as a result of the pandemic.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, can you please set out your intentions and the intentions of your department in terms of how you will promote the outcomes of this debate and particularly the adoption option to families?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I am advised that of course we would be then updating our policy. We would update the manual of practice. This would also be acknowledged through the weekly newsletter and put on the carer portal, and we would advise the non-government organisations of the change of policy.

Ms COOK: You mentioned CREATE in response to questions on the previous clause. Will you be discussing and promoting the outcomes of this debate to young people in care via that portal or that form?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Yes, we will, as well as our youth engagement advisory committee that we have—so CREATE and our youth advisers.

Ms COOK: In regard to the act, how many young people now receive information via CREATE?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: There are many different ways that information is given to young people. There are different youth advisory groups in different DCP offices. There is also CREATE and our workers who work with young people, so there would be an information distribution.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): I have just been reminded by the Clerk to ask if all members could stand—the minister when she provides answers and the members when they ask questions—given the number of members in the chamber. If that could continue, that would be much appreciated. Member for Hurtle Vale, your final question.

Ms COOK: I think I have stuck to the rules.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): You have.

Ms COOK: This is my last question on this particular area. I am just interested in this information dissemination to young people who are vulnerable. I am aware of young people who have been in care who do not see themselves as needing information from a source like CREATE, and so they actually do not access it because they do not self-identify in terms of being a vulnerable young person in care or in out-of-home care. You say you have groups, etc. What strategy do you have to get to those young people who do not self-identify to access that type of communication?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Whilst you are correct that it is important to get this right and that not all young people would be with CREATE or in our youth advisory groups, what we are doing with the youth advisory groups is we are talking to them about what is the best way to let other young people know, because it is not for everybody. This is a sensitive issue, and we do need to definitely pay attention to how this is disseminated.

That is why we are involving the youth advisory groups to tell us how they think the information should be given to all young people. Of course, we do have social workers and lots of people who would know the best way in terms of the wording, for it to be very sensitive, because you are right: this is a very sensitive issue.

Mr BOYER: Minister, just referring back to your earlier answer about why the review did not happen in the time frame which was originally set out, could you explain maybe why this bill was not introduced at the end of 2019, before the pandemic started?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: That is a very good question that you raise. One thing about this adoption policy was that we had the opportunity to create an adoption policy that is amazing. We are starting it from scratch, because it is going into a new act, so I did a lot of consultation with people who have adopted children. I have said to them, 'What is it that you would like? How do we support you as an adoptive parent to make this a successful adoption? What is it that you need?' That is where I found out that they wanted the health services, that they wanted access to therapies and the educational supports that exist for a child under guardianship. So we covered those off.

Others were concerned—I was concerned, in fact, when I met foster carers—knowing that in South Australia a large number of our carers are on benefits. I did not want adoption to be available only to people who were wealthy enough to adopt the children. So what we did is work with the federal government to ask for a ruling. We ended up with a letter of agreement, and that did take a while because, as you know, during COVID the federal government had a lot on their plate. They were doing a lot of changes with JobKeeper, JobSeeker; there was a lot going on.

So whilst we had applied post (in 2019) for a tax ruling, what we are wanting is that the foster care payments not be considered income, as is the case currently. It is considered a reimbursement because they are doing an amazing job. It is a community service, helping us to raise a child under the guardianship of the CE.

We recently—only in the last month or two—received a letter of agreement from the federal government, from the ATO, that if it is a reimbursement payment for the cost of caring for the child, for people who are eligible for family tax benefit A, that would not be considered income. That was also one of the hold-ups for us. We wanted to get it right. I did not want adoption to be only for wealthy people. I wanted this to be available to the foster carers who have done an amazing job in difficult circumstances, some of them for years and years and some of them for many children.

Ms MICHAELS: Can the minister inform us why the government left it so long to brief the opposition, given they were consulting stakeholders in November last year?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I need to report progress, do I?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): We have a little bit of time, if you wanted to answer that question.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I think it is important to brief the opposition when you have the finalised bill. We were waiting on the ATO information, waiting on consultation. Yes, there have been further amendments made, but as many of you who have been here for a long time would know—for example, the euthanasia bill and the number of times I have consulted on that or done briefings on that and it gets changed—you are better off doing your briefings when you have what you believe to be the most likely bill that you will present so that you are not confusing people with 15 different briefings every time you change something in the bill.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00.

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