HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-09-08 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 22 July 2020.)

Mr ODENWALDER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (19:53): I rise to speak in relation to the Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) Bill 2020. I indicate that I will be the lead speaker for the opposition. It is of course a regular occurrence in the parliament to have attorney-general's portfolio bills. Something I learnt as a government backbencher is that you have to pay close attention to what the attorney-general is trying to put into these attorney-general's portfolio bills, never more so than when the member for Bragg is the Attorney-General. You have to be particularly careful as to what is going in there.

The aim of this bill, according to the government, is to propose amendments to increase efficiency and productivity across the justice system, with various minor measures under both criminal and civil law via amendments. These include amending the Bail Act 1985 to ensure that the Youth Court is a recognised bail authority. Apparently, this was an omission from earlier government legislation. It also amends the Criminal Law Consolidation Act to define 'recklessness' with regard to causing harm to emergency workers and updating references to outdated terminology.

The bill also adds a definition of 'harm' with the same meaning as within division 7A to assaults involving biological material under section 20AB. This increases consistency in the act between assault offences. The bill amends the Oaths Act to allow the Attorney-General to appoint commissioners for authorising sworn affidavits via notice in the Gazette instead of appointment by the Governor. Additionally, it amends the Professional Standards Act 2004 to create consistency with other jurisdictions by expanding the scope of occupational liability to include equitable liability.

The bill also seeks to amend the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act to allow the president of SACAT to be a judge of the District Court or the Supreme Court. Currently, only Supreme Court judges can be the SACAT president. It also amends the Young Offenders Act so that the offence of escaping from custody does not apply to young people subject to youth treatment orders under the Controlled Substances Act. I would probably regard this as moot because it is going to be so many years before the Attorney-General actually implements the youth treatment orders legislation. It was promised at the election but is seemingly many years away from actually happening.

This bill also includes more substantive proposals. These include a requirement to establish harm in the offence of causing harm to emergency workers when a human biological material is thrown or spat intentionally under section 20AA(7) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. Specifically, the bill maintains the wording in the act that causing biological material to come into contact with the victim can cause harm, but adds the qualification 'but will not be taken to' cause harm.

By adding this clause, it assists in differentiating the offences of causing harm from the offence of assaulting prescribed emergency workers. However, it is critical for the government to reassure parliament that this will not diminish the protections that we have provided to critical frontline workers. The Advertiser in fact reported today that people have been arrested for spitting at police, so this is no theoretical issue.

The bill also amends section 269X of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act regarding the detention of defendants before court proceedings are completed. When a defendant's mental competence or fitness to stand trial is being investigated, the bill allows courts to order detention in custody until the investigation ends.

The bill proposes that the minister can determine an appropriate form of custody where a court places a defendant under supervision orders. It also proposes that defendants who are involuntary inpatients at a treatment centre but who are released before their mental competence investigation ends should be detained in custody as if awaiting trial or sentencing.

The bill proposes that if a designated officer deems a defendant's existing custody circumstances as inappropriate they may determine an appropriate form of custody. The bill also amends the Summary Offences Act 1953 regarding the supply, transport or possession of alcohol in prescribed areas. These include dry zones in Aboriginal Lands Trust areas. The bill provides for exemptions to offences that were legislated two years ago but which for some reason have not yet been commenced by the government.

The opposition was provided a briefing on the bill last week, upon which additional information was sought about the application of exemptions to offences on Aboriginal statutory land. Whilst a response was provided on Monday of this week (i.e., yesterday) the opposition wishes to undertake further discussions on this matter.

The Attorney-General's office was advised in writing last week that the opposition did not wish to progress this bill until these discussions had occurred, but the Attorney-General has insisted on pushing ahead with this bill. In fact, it is further up the order than what was originally intended on the distribution from the new—the third—Leader of Government Business last week.

It is disappointing that the Attorney-General has not allowed more time for consultation in this regard since the briefing last week. We have offences that were legislated by this government two years ago, and were first introduced by Labor around three years ago, that have not been commenced. Yet, when this government was asked to slightly delay a related bill that introduces exemptions to offences that do not even exist yet, they refused.

We are seeking to make sure that this legislation is right. In recent months, we have seen the government introduce bills to rectify errors in laws that were only passed weeks or months before. It is the key job of this place to debate and interrogate legislation, but the government appears keen to ram this legislation through without the proper scrutiny. The government wishes to use its numbers, and it is obviously welcome to do so. However, we have signalled to the Attorney-General that those discussions, particularly in relation to some of those questions around Aboriginal lands, do require some further examination, and we will be undertaking that examination, therefore, between the houses.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (20:00): I appreciate the member for Kaurna's contribution on behalf of the opposition. I have assumed from his contribution that there will not be any amendment from them. Whilst he is aggrieved at the listing of this matter, I remind members that this was a 'mop-up bill', as they often call them, for the rats and mice of things to be done, from a bill that was introduced on 22 July.

I am not sure why a couple of months is not long enough to find out more about this bill than was detailed in the second reading speech, but in any event we are pleased to have provided advice to the opposition on these matters, and of course we are happy to explore anything further in the committee stage if there are any concerns raised. I am not aware of any that were raised from the briefings that were provided a week ago, but obviously I am happy to answer any questions in committee if there is any further information sought, and otherwise I seek the bill be progressed.

We have a busy agenda this week. There are a number of bills scheduled, and obviously there is an obligation, except in exceptional circumstances, to ensure that there is at least a full week of sitting between the time of introduction and the time of progressing. I think eight weeks is long enough.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The CHAIR: There are 16 clauses. I invite questions on clause 1.

Mr PICTON: Who exactly was consulted, in particular on section 21O(c) of the Summary Offences Act amendments? In particular, were discussions undertaken with the owners and managers of statutory Aboriginal land?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We consulted the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, the APY lands, the NPY Women's Council Aboriginal Corporation, the Aboriginal Lands Trust, the Yalata Anangu Aboriginal Corporation, the Umoona Community Council Inc., the Far West Coast Aboriginal Corporation, the Ceduna Aboriginal Corporation, the Aboriginal Drug and Alcohol Council (SA) Inc., and the Office of the Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement—which would have been Mr Thomas.

We further consulted the South Australian Aboriginal Advisory Council, the Maralinga Tjarutja and the Davenport community, the Gerard Aboriginal community, the Koonibba community, the Nepabunna Community Council, Point Pearce Aboriginal Community Council, Raukkan Community Council, the District Council of Ceduna, and the District Council of Coober Pedy.

Also consulted were the Australian Hotels Association, the Legal Services Commission of South Australia, the Law Society of South Australia, Port Augusta City Council, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet—Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Drug and Alcohol Services SA (that is the Minister for Health and Wellbeing's portfolio), the liquor and gambling commissioner (that is Consumer and Business Services), the Premier specifically—which went to his office—and the Commissioner of Police. What was your second question?

Mr PICTON: In particular, what discussions were undertaken with the owners and managers of statutory Aboriginal land?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have just listed a whole lot of them. A number of them did not respond at all. This was a group that had also been consulted during the course of the original bill. We did not have a full response to either of them at that stage. We just felt it was important to at least let them know exactly what we were proposing and how it was going to work. Probably the most detailed conversations we had were with ALRM and the police commissioner.

Mr PICTON: When were the various changes requested and why has the government not moved earlier to address some of these concerns, which appear to have been issues for some time?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Are these all the amendments?

Mr PICTON: Yes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will just go back to them. Are we on clause 1 still?

Mr PICTON: Yes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will go through these as best we can. I will ascertain when the Bail Act amendments, which were the first described in the substance of the bill, were first raised with us. As you might appreciate, a number of these sort of accumulate over a period of time and frequently we are advised the next time we are doing a bill that we bring them together to be considered. That was June 2020.

The amendments to the Criminal Law Consolidation Act in relation to causing harm to or assaulting certain emergency workers matters came from the DPP's office, from memory, and that would have been when we had an acting DPP in November last year. The further offence involving use of human biological material was from the DPP's office. Clauses 5 and 6 were from the DPP. We will have to check when the use of a motor vehicle without consent, which relates to the young offenders matters, was first raised and get back to you.

In relation to the power of the court to deal with a defendant before proceedings are completed—that is the 269X reforms, which are quite substantial—I know these were raised by the magistrates actually: 15 August 2018. We began to discuss that right from the beginning because this is a really complex area. Nobody had been prepared to challenge it.

Mr PICTON: Two years.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am just saying that is when we started. We had meetings with the then sentencing council, chaired by John Sulan QC, a former justice of the Supreme Court. I know that there were quite extensive submissions by one of the magistrates, I think it was Mr Dixon, and by others on the committee and the Parole Board chair. Over a period of time we consulted with a number of people about this. There were different views about how this should be dealt with. It was pretty clear that nobody wanted to touch it and had not for years. We set about doing the work that had to be done to make sure it could happen and this is the result. It has taken a while, but we have been up to it and we are fixing it.

Mr PICTON: It is very interesting that some of these have been two years, particularly given the Attorney had a little swipe earlier at the opposition for suggesting a couple more weeks of being able to look at this, whereas some of these concerns were raised with the government for two years. There is no question there, but I will leave that as a comment.

The CHAIR: I will take that as a comment.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The Oaths Act, that came in—we will check that one for you. There is the Professional Standards Act 2004, which is to deal with the change of definition, I think, was it not, on occupational liability? We will check that as well. Then we have got the SACAT amendments. I know I spoke to Judge Hughes about this matter; that is for the reasons as set out in the application, but it was probably in the last year or so. I know I have spoken to her about it. It was late 2019, I am advised.

The Summary Offences Act, which is the supply of liquor in certain areas, was 2010. I think I have identified that. We have had comprehensive discussions on that as to how that is going to work. The amendment for young offenders on escape from custody—this is young offenders serving in home detention and the definitions relating to that—and the amendment to the Youth Court, I am not quite sure when they were. I am advised—I believe the part 8 proposal is 2020, and the Youth Court Act relates to the first Bail Act matter, which must have only been in the last few months—June, yes.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Members interjecting:

Mr PICTON: Everyone is swapping sides today; it is hard to know where people stand. In relation to commencement, when can we expect clauses 8 and 9 and part 6 of this bill to actually come into effect? I am told offences regarding grog running were legislated two years ago but still have not commenced.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In relation to the comment at the end, the grog running legislation certainly was as a result of considerable discussions with SAPOL, who wanted this legislation. Consultation with the communities actually was quite without comment in the sense that there were some in the communities who desperately wanted this. We felt it was important to consult with everybody so they could all have a say, and there really were no problems with that. The problems came when trying to implement some of the distances that were imposed in the original legislation. SAPOL wanted to change some of those, and ultimately we worked on a compromise as to how that should best be able to work. So that is why.

In answer to the first part of the question: as soon as the police ask for it, I expect. They are the ones preparing for the regulations. Amendments to section 269 are in clauses 8 and 9, and we will need regulations to complete for those. With part 6, I understand we are just waiting on the courts. If the bill passes, we will consult back with the courts as to what time suits those.

Clause passed.

Clause 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Mr PICTON: This is in relation to the Youth Court as a bail authority. I wonder if the Attorney can answer: why was the Youth Court not included in the government's earlier legislation on bail? Where they consulted on that legislation, or was it the Youth Court who raised concerns that they were not included in the government's legislation?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: When the original bill was canvassed amongst the judiciary—different courts, obviously—we were trying to remedy a situation which we saw as a significant deficiency in that it would be a lot more expedient to be able to have other courts as bail courts, rather than having to go back to the Magistrates Court. The legislation was centred around the nature of the offence as distinct from which court it applied to. The Youth Court was consulted on the original bill. They had not raised any concerns at that stage. After the bill was passed, they then thought that there might be a possibility that they had not been caught—that is, to be able to be applied. Therefore, they sought this amendment and here we are.

Mr PICTON: What sorts of rules regarding bail can be made by the Youth Court?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Just to be clear, are you asking about what rules of court apply to the Bail Act applications?

Mr PICTON: What decisions will the Youth Court make about bail?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The Bail Act is able to be applied in the court within their own jurisdiction. Obviously, they have to deal with children; that is a limitation in relation to the matters that they can hear. So they become a bail court so that an application can be made in the Youth Court for the alleged offender to be granted bail by a judge or magistrate of the Youth Court. The Bail Act applies in the Youth Court. The Youth Court is restricted by the nature of the defendants who can come before it.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

Mr PICTON: In relation to this section, who initiated, recommended or suggested the amendment? Has the government consulted with emergency workers or their representatives? Can the government ensure this is not going to water down protections for emergency workers?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It was first raised by the DPP. It does not water down the applicability for the protection of prescribed emergency workers; in fact it clarifies it, which can only assist in being able to prosecute for the protection of emergency workers those who put them at risk in the manner prescribed. The elements included the requirement to identify that there had been a causing of harm as a result of the conduct, so it is this clarity that is sought to ensure that there are successful prosecutions of these cases.

Mr PICTON: Would this make it more difficult for health workers to prove harm as either physical or mental/psychological?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I have this right. The inclusion of what is harm apparently is quite broad, so that can include physical or psychological. We will find the list of things it can include to identity them. What is important here is that we have to be able to have the element of the offence in relation to harm. The cause, which is being added in there, helps to clarify the definition of what is required. The law requires this anyway. The advantage for the victim is that they can get a successful prosecution because it is clear as to what is required to be proven, and the definition of 'harm' means physical or mental harm, whether temporary or permanent. In short, this is a benefit to the alleged victim in those circumstances.

Mr PICTON: If a person intentionally spits on relevant workers but they cannot prove immediate harm, what would the charge be instead?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Assuming there is not any psychological harm—remember that 'harm' has a definition there that can include they do not have to physically show that they have contracted HIV or some contagious disease; it is the fear of that. Part of the reason we have this offence is to ensure that people are covered by that.

If there was no established harm whatsoever—I suppose there was no infection, there was no injury, perhaps the victim did not even know that they had been spat on at the time—then there can still be a charge under section 20AB, which is that a person who commits a prohibited act involving human biological material against another person is guilty of an offence. If harm, then it is imprisonment for three years. In any other case, it is imprisonment for two years, so there is another offence to cover that situation. You can get up to two years' imprisonment.

Clause passed.

Clauses 6 and 7 passed.

Clause 8.

Mr PICTON: I am wondering if there has been consultation in relation to mental health groups, Mental Health Commissioners, about this section. What have been the responses from those groups on this proposal?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will just try to find the consultant list. Dr John Brayley, the Chief Psychiatrist, was definitely consulted. Dr Brayley is obviously very important in this area. I do not recall, for example, the Mental Health Coalition, which is an advocacy group generally, being consulted. However, the Chief Justice, Chief Judge, Chief Magistrate, State Courts Administrator, Department for Correctional Services, Chief Psychiatrist (Dr John Brayley) I have mentioned, Director of Public Prosecutions, Crown Solicitor, Law Society of South Australia, Legal Services Commission, SA Bar Association, Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement and the Commissioner for Victims' Rights were consulted, the latter of which, of course, is very pertinent to the victims.

Mr PICTON: What provisions and protections will be in place for vulnerable people going into prison? Why has the government decided not to continue to hold those relevant people in mental health detention?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: This is the most complicated area. In any event, at the moment we have a situation where there is no capacity. It is really only a default provision. There is no facility available. They have to go to prison. This amendment allows the court to make a determination in the first instance that a prison is most suitable. That may be for the protection of the person in question, or of others, but in any event it gives an option for the court to do that directly.

As the member would know, having been in government, there are people in prisons at any one time who really are not convicted or have not been determined whether they are fit to plead, even, who are sitting in custody. Clearly, that is not desirable, but there are some circumstances where that is appropriate and it allows the courts to do that.

There are obviously a number of categories here, but we are talking about the ones who are pre-plea and conviction and/or guilty plea and those who are post. There are many people who are arrested, for example, where there might be some reasonable suspicion that the person is suffering some incapacity but the arresting officer or other persons in custody supervision roles may not be professionally competent to assess somebody. These matters can be taken before the court.

I think what is important here is that, in consultation with all those people I mentioned before who are really concerned about this area, the opportunity to have that direct attention by court order—that is the gatekeeper here—was the desired outcome, and that has come from people such as Dr John Brayley and others who are clearly there to, where possible, protect someone who may be acting under some mental incapacity or cognitive impairment.

Mr PICTON: Is there a cost impact of this amendment, and are there any financial reasons why the government has proposed this amendment?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No.

Clause passed.

Clause 9 passed.

Clause 10.

Mr PICTON: I understand that the shadow attorney-general, the Hon. Kyam Maher, was told in the meeting that a key driver of this provision was the volume of affidavits required from Forensic Science SA. Are any other agencies significantly impacted by this issue?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not that we are aware of. It was Forensic Science SA that raised this, obviously because of the volume that they have to deal with in the applications they are dealing with.

Mr PICTON: How will the government ensure correct checks and balances on the new power?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that Forensic Science SA personnel undertake training for this role and although we are moving from a Governor—that is, a sort of cabinet submission—to an Attorney-General's approval on this there is no less obligation in relation to the person who is going to be conducting the service. That is, to provide the service they still have to be of sufficient training to be able to do that, whether they are going through a Governor's approval process or through the Attorney-General's. It is just the sheer volume of work to be done that has generated this.

Clause passed.

Clause 11.

Mr PICTON: Can the Attorney outline for the house how she envisages this section will operate?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The concern raised here was that there was a restriction in relation to the civil liability to tort contract cases and not equity, so the word 'otherwise' was proposed to be added in—sorry, it was tort contract or under statute. It was proposed to take out 'under statute' and add in 'otherwise' so that equitable claims could also be considered, so it broadens the capacity to recover.

Mr PICTON: How do professionals get cover for equitable liability at the moment? Is there any potential that what the Attorney is proposing would increase premiums?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have not had any indication that there would be any increase in premium, but largely these are through insurance.

Mr PICTON: Has the lack of equitable liability in the act caused any issues to date?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: They are dealt with privately, so I am not advised of them specifically, but presumably if they are not in there at the moment they cannot form whole or part of a claim on behalf of one of the parties. Here we are talking about professional standards of people who provide services and their being liable civilly for their failings one way or the other.

Obviously, this is an important consumer aspect. As the member would be aware, there are a lot of professionals—lawyers, accountants and the like—who have mandatory continuing education, mandatory insurance, mandatory standards in that way, and then there are other professional liabilities that also outline the significance of providing access to damages if they fail, usually a client of some kind, but a consumer in any event.

This is an important implementation to ensure that they are not deprived of something because it may not have its origin in a statute or a contract or a tort, which is usually negligence of some kind, but there may be some equitable claim, and it really just covers off in that regard.

Clause passed.

Clause 12 passed.

Clause 13.

Mr PICTON: Will there be any material differences to the operation of SACAT due to this clause?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No.

Mr PICTON: Does this amendment show that the government did not fully consider the impacts, particularly the financial impacts, when establishing the Court of Appeal?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No. The member might recall the history in relation to SACAT. It was established with a half judge and a quarter District Court judge—a half-time Supreme Court judge and a quarter District Court. The District Court person left, resigned or retired or something, and was not replaced, and the Supreme Court judge, who was otherwise the president, became full time or near enough to full time. Although the president, Judge Hughes, does spend some time back in the Supreme Court doing other duties in consultation with the Chief Justice, clearly she has quite a significant role as President of SACAT.

The purpose of this amendment simply arises as a consequence of the new Court of Appeal and, as the member would be aware, we are now to have a court of appeal. The concern was that having divided the work of the Supreme Court into the appeal court and the general division, there will be increased cost impact should an additional Supreme Court judge be needed to absorb into either of these divisions in the event of a SACAT president who holds that dual commission as a Supreme Court judge under the SACAT Act resigning their position as SACAT president or not seeking reappointment to that position at the end of the statutory five-year term.

As now SACAT has taken almost all of the jurisdictions from the Supreme Court, apart from the valuation appeals and other minor former Supreme Court jurisdictions, the majority of the more senior jurisdictions conferred on SACAT are jurisdictions that are transferred from the District Court—that is, their Administrative and Disciplinary Division—and also the president of SAET is a District Court judge.

Consistent with the SAET president, the amendments ensure that the District Court judge appointed as President of SACAT will have the same rank, title and status and precedence as a judge of the Supreme Court. I am further advised, for the avoidance of any doubt, these changes will only apply after the existing SACAT president, the Hon. Justice Judy Hughes, has left office as the SACAT president and a new SACAT president is to be appointed. So that is its background, and to ensure that there is no affect on the current regime, it will not affect Justice Hughes.

Clause passed.

Clause 14.

Mr PICTON: In relation to this, the shadow attorney-general has been advised that there was a recognised need for exemptions when the offences were first drafted. Why were these exemptions not included at the time?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member is not actually right. Can I be clear: at the time of the previous bill, it was proposed that there would be an inclusion of these matters in regulation. On further consultation, and I indicated before the extensiveness of that, it was agreed that it would be better in the act and hence we are here.

Mr PICTON: Why?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Largely because it was an issue that was raised. I heard there were a number of meetings with the representatives from SAPOL as to how that could best be affected, so we had advice that that was the case. The initial indication was that it would be dealt with by regulation. The consultation took place. Ultimately we agreed that if that was the best way to do it, then that is what we would propose to introduce.

Mr PICTON: Does this clause not make it easier for a person to bring alcohol into dry communities?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No.

Mr PICTON: Who might be persons who are within a prescribed area but are exempt from liquor consumption or possession?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I cannot recall exactly, but we will check on it and take that on notice.

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, last question. I am happy for you to ask one more.

Mr PICTON: Wow, a bonus!

The CHAIR: A bonus question, yes.

Mr PICTON: It is because I said something nice about you earlier, Chair.

The CHAIR: We are all in a convivial mood.

Mr PICTON: How good it would be if you had thrown your hat in the ring earlier today. Was there any consideration of expiations in addition to the significant fines of $20,000 and $40,000?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Expiations, I am advised, were already in the act. In relation to the previous question regarding the class of persons referred to in (1a)(c), I am told that is if liquor is going to be used for sacramental purposes or something of that nature, that may be an exempt class, so I assume that means that someone taking communion or something of that nature is the purpose of that.

The CHAIR: Fortunately with that bonus question, member for Kaurna, you got an answer to the previous question as well, so there you go. It is nice how things work out.

Clause passed.

Clause 15.

Mr PICTON: Are there any potential consequences in terms of community safety being compromised by this clause? Is this something that has been discussed fully with the Youth Court and healthcare providers, and what comments have they provided on this?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The purpose of this amendment is to amend section 48 to provide that the offence of escape from custody does not apply to a youth who is detained subject to a youth treatment order. As the member rather unkindly described this as being a long time before it is implemented, he would be well aware that we have passed the legislation. It allows the Judge of the Youth Court to make an order in circumstances where she is satisfied that there is addiction.

Obviously, in certain circumstances, if she makes that order and the person who is in there to complete their treatment escapes while having the treatment, they are not to be treated as a prisoner. In other words, it is not an escape from custody. This person would ordinarily be out in the street and living somewhere else, so we are allowing for that to occur. If they escape, it would be like leaving a hospital. They should not be treated as a prisoner in that sense if they have completed their sentence.

I can tell you there are a whole lot of people we consulted: the President of SACAT; the Judge of the Youth Court, Judge Penny Eldridge; the Training Centre Visitor; the Commissioner for Children and Young People; and the Commissioner for Victims' Rights. The Judge of the Youth Court, Judge Eldridge, is also the Chair of the Training Centre Review Board, which is the equivalent of the Parole Board for children.

Other than that, there are then what I would call the usual suspects: the Department of Human Services; the Department for Health and Wellbeing, because they obviously had to discuss the whole question of the medical treatment of these people; the Commissioner for Police; the Law Society of South Australia; the Crown Solicitor; the Director of Public Prosecutions; the Legal Services Commission; the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement; and the Department for Correctional Services.

Mr PICTON: The Attorney mentions that the youth treatment order legislation has been passed but, as I understand it, it is not enacted. As I understand it, there is not any model of care in place. As I understand it, there is not any provider in place to provide care for people subject to an order if this legislation was going to be enacted. What is the latest time frame on when those orders will start, and does the Attorney believe that there will actually be anybody subject to one of these orders before the next election?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I could not make that assessment because it requires an application to be made. What I do know is that a health model is still under consideration. Judge Eldridge, who is the head of the Youth Court, is a strong proponent of this. She considers that for whatever numbers may or may not be in the category of being aided by having a child in this category who might need treatment.

What we are talking about here is someone who is in the juvenile justice system and who is essentially able to have treatment on a mandatory basis while they are serving their sentence, just like we have under the Mental Health Act, where someone could be detained for that purpose, and/or under a community treatment order.

If there were one or two a year, that would be too many, but the reality is that we have a serious drug addiction problem in our community and the public expect us to have done something about it. This parliament has done something about it and passed the legislation. Models have been presented. We have not finalised them yet. As you know, it applies only to children and essentially only to those who are going to be in custody. How many? I have no idea.

Whether there is one before the next election, I do not know. It may be that applications are made and they are unsuccessful, but that will be a matter for the judge to determine. I have every confidence in her court and her to understand the significance of what is involved here, both in keeping a child in custody and also introducing a mandatory treatment order, just as if they had a mental health condition and they needed our help. They will be getting it under this government.

Mr PICTON: I am shocked to hear that because nothing is actually happening. I am interested to hear that some models are being produced. I would be interested to know where they have gone, who is considering them and what the status of those models is. Are they going to be released for public consultation, why have they not been released for public consultation and what additional work is happening on those models?

The Attorney also mentions that, on the government's own initiative, they have now limited this legislation only to cover people in youth detention as a first step obviously because of the significant concerns that have been raised about this and the difficulty in implementing it. Broadening it out as per the election commitment is going to be sometime after that. It does not seem like anything is happening very fast. It does not seem like this legislation is going to be enacted before the election.

We know this very clearly because, when the minister introduced it, they sought to exempt it from the statutory interpretations act for a two-year immediate introduction after the passage of the bill through parliament, I think knowing full well that this was going to be very difficult for them to actually implement. I am very interested to know where this model of care is, what the steps that have been taken on it are and when the public is going to be able to see what it says.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will largely take that as a comment. I know that the opposition are unhappy about having mandatory treatment of children, but—

Mr PICTON: Point of order: we supported the legislation.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —unquestionably this is an important initiative. We are proud to have done it. Some of the health professionals are not happy with mandatory anything. We know that, but we think the lives of our children are important enough to have this, and we are advancing. I am glad the member for Kaurna is interested in this area. Not everyone on his side has been interested in this area. We are, and I am pleased he is, and we will advance it as quickly as we can.

We also understand the significance of working with the health professionals who need to be consulted—I have given you a list of different people we are seeing in relation to the health side of this—and the judge. Obviously, we need to be able to make sure we have it right as to how that treatment is going to occur. I suppose it also depends a bit on what kind of treatment is given depending on what the addiction is. I do not know.

I am not the expert on drug rehabilitation, but I imagine, for example, methadone treatment is for some addictions and not others. What is the current model of care, for example, for methamphetamine problems? Who knows? I do not know. We are relying on the health professionals in that regard, and we are continuing to discuss that with them.

Clause passed.

Remaining clause (16) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (20:49): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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